John 15:2, 6

“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away … If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned” (John 15:2, 6).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus is speaking about “taking away branches” and “burning branches” that were previously “in Me [Christ].” This would support their claim that someone could be “in Christ” covenantally and yet not attain final salvation (whatever that is). However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Some find this passage troublesome to the truly Reformed faith, but a little knowledge of horticulture is helpful in order to avoid the obvious implications of the text. In fact, there are a variety of eisegetical solutions that we, the elect, have resorted to in order to keep our system in tact.

1) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is simply speaking hypothetically. These are hypothetical warnings. Jesus is just trying to scare the disciples, kind of like parents who never carry out their threats.

2) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is speaking of branches that are legally but not organically connected to Christ. Creating these extra-biblical labels helps confusticate the plain meaning of the text.

3) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is not speaking of branches, but Frisbees that were accidentally thrown into the tree. They were never really branches. They simply looked like branches. Except that they were Frisbees.

4) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is simply speaking about believers losing theirs rewards in the bema seat judgment (1 Corinthians 3:15). The only down-side to this argument is that it puts us in bed with Zane Hodges and other no-lordship salvationists. Truthfully, there is very little difference between us and them.

It's a Conspiracy, Man! (Part Two)

The historic Reformation was an attempt to return the church to the Scriptures. Even as the Reformation first spread through Europe, Reformed practice and theology diverged widely from region to region. As the Reformation has now spread across the globe, these divergences have only increased. Even as we are approaching the five hundredth anniversary of Luther’s ninety-five theses, the variety of expressions found in Reformed churches continues to increase.

At the same time, not every segment of the Reformation remained true to what the Reformation was originally about. At some point, such infidelity causes a church to be Reformed in name-only.

Because of this infidelity, various Reformed sects have tried to claim that they alone are the true heirs of the Reformation. We at the AFVSB are proud to carry on this sectarian battle.

Although we represent a microscopic trickle from the ocean of Reformed traditions, nevertheless, we are currently engaged in a hostile takeover of the historic Reformation. This is a political attempt to kidnap the historic Reformation and destroy those who disagree. Some might call this a reign of terror. We like to call it “Modern Reformation.”

We make every effort to present the Reformation as a monolithic movement of which we Klinians are alone the heirs. This has been done through a very selective reading of church history by people who know better. Historical revisionism is our middle name.

The chief error of the Federal Visionists is not theological, but political. The Federal Visionists want a piece of the pie; they want a place at the table called “Reformed.” This is a tactical mistake.

We do not want merely a piece of the pie or a place at the table. We want to be the pie. We want to be the table. That is why there is no room for charitable discussion or peacable disagreement. Those who disagree with us are out. It has to be this way. Our gospel is at stake!

It's a Conspiracy, Man! (Part One)

For those who have not yet figured it out, there is an enormous difference between the original Reformation and our Modern Reformation. The original Reformation was largely about re-aligning the church with the Bible. Hence, the expression, “reformed according to the word.”

Many people assume that our Modern Reformation has the same goal, as in continuing to re-align the church with the Bible. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Our Modern Reformation is all about reforming the church, but not according to the word. Our goal is to re-align the church to Meredith Kline’s quirky version of Reformed theology.

Rather than attempting to use Biblical words in their Biblical sense, we have dedicated ourselves to using Biblical words in a strictly Klinian sense. We have also managed to add most of Kline’s extra-Biblical concepts to our Modern Reformed vocabulary.

Thus, the difference between the original Reformation and our Modern Reformation is one of textual orientation. The original Reformation was oriented to the Bible. Our Modern Reformation is oriented to Meredith Kline. This change is known as the textual revolution.

Thus, to be Reformed used to mean “Reformed According to the Word.” Not anymore. Reformed now means Reformed According to Kline (RAK). Thus, unless you have been RAK-ed, you are not “Reformed.”

In just a few years, our textual revolution has swept through the Reformed world. This was no accident of history. Kline’s followers have worked tirelessly at establishing a Holy Sextuplet of organizations dedicated to replacing the Bible with Kline.

1) The magazine, Modern Reformation, has been one of our most effective means of disguising Kline as the historic Reformed faith. Readers assume that because we pair the words “Modern” and “Reformation,” that we are attempting to continue the original Reformation. Amazingly, few realize that we are doing nothing of the sort.

2) Our radio program, The White Horse Inn, has also been a terrific vehicle for recasting the Reformation to march to the tune of Kline. By including a Lutheran and a “Reformed” Baptist, listeners are led to believe that we are broadly Reformed, in the historic sense. Not so! It’s all Kline, all the time.

3) The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) has been a remarkable productive in taking over Calvindom. Many think that “Confessing” simply refers to being bound by the historic Reformed confessions. However, to join ACE, you must confess to a Klinian reading of these confessions. This is why we privately refer to ACE as the Alliance of Constipated Evangelicals.

4) Our flagship school, Westminster Seminary California (WSC), has been instrumental in our hostile takeover of the Reformed world. Obviously, this is a huge advantage because we have the opportunity to brainwash future pastors in the Truly Reformed faith. Our graduates may not be able to navigate the Scriptures, but at least they know how to discern Law and Gospel.

5) The internet has also been a major tool in the Klinsing of Reformed theology. The number of Truly Reformed blogs is Legion. This has allowed first-year seminary students, disgruntled church members, and self-appointed scholars to play a pivotal role in reshaping Reformed thinking.

6) The sixth pearl in our promotion of the Gospel according to Escondido is the attack on the Federal Vision. Although this originated from an unlikely source, we quickly realized the import of jumping on this bandwagon.

We freely admit that the goals of the Federal Vision are more in line with the original Reformation. This is why it is so important that we utterly destroy the Federal Vision. They are the biggest threat to our Modern Deformation of the historic Reformed faith. The AFVSB has been pleased to play a small part in this mutiny.

Luke 2:52

“And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus increased in favor with God. They point out that favor is actually the Greek word charis, which is usually translated as “grace.” Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace. They assert that this is consistent with standard lexical definitions of charis.

Strange as it may sound, the gospel is at stake! The Modern Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that only refers to favor shown to sinners. Grace can never be used in a general sense to mean "favor." If we ever allow this, then we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

One of the glorious implications of our innovative position is that God was not gracious from all eternity. Where there is no sin, there can be no grace. God could not be gracious until Adam sinned. Thus, according to Modern Reformed thinking, God wanted to be gracious but had to wait until man sinned. Thus, God was on the edge of his seat, hoping that Adam would sin, so that God could finally be gracious. Soli Deo Gloria!

For those who are not clear on our rational for this, it is very simple. We must insist that grace can only mean “favor in the presence of sin” because we have a whole host of abstract theological formulations that depend upon this flimsy lexical leap. Remember, the gospel is at stake.

Nevertheless, in order to keep our phoney-baloney commitment to sola scriptura we must tacitly acknowledge Luke’s alleged statement. He does seem to say that Jesus grew in charis with God. This presents a problem for those who believe that Jesus never sinned. How could Jesus grow in the charis of God?

In order to preserve the purity of the gospel of our Modern Reformation, we cannot abandon our ridiculous commitment to narrowly defining charis as “favor in the presence of sin.” Our only choice is to conclude that Jesus must have been a sinner.

Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace because Jesus was a sinner.

Luke 2:40

“The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the grace of God was upon Jesus. They are quick to point out that our English word “grace,” as well as the Greek charis, can simply mean “favor.” Thus, Jesus was under the favor, or grace, of God.

Believe it or not, this is an attack on the gospel. The Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that can only refer to favor shown to sinners. Thus, in no sense could Jesus be under the grace of God because Jesus was not a sinner.

This also has profound implications for understanding the time before the fall. Adam was not yet a sinner, and so, in no sense was Adam under the grace of God. Being created and given the privilege of living in the garden may seem grace-like, grace-tastic, and generally, grace-y. However, we must never say this was gracious because Adam was not yet a sinner. God was being nice, but not gracious.

Furthermore, this means that the pre-fall covenant could not have been a covenant of grace. There can be no grace unless sin is present. Since sin did not exist until after the fall, this means that grace could not have existed until after the fall.

Of course, all of this depends upon defining grace as “favor shown to sinners.” Should someone prove that grace does not always carry this precise definition, then our whole system would come crashing down like a house of cards.

This is why we must insist that grace always means “favor shown to sinners,” regardless of any Biblical evidence to the contrary. Being Reformed means stubbornly insisting upon using Biblical words in a far narrower sense than God actually used them in the Bible. Otherwise, you are attacking the gospel.

While Luke allegedly might have said that the grace of God was upon Jesus, no one who is truly Reformed would make such a gaffe. Thus, as a child, Jesus continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was not upon him.

Psalm 7:12

“If a man does not repent, He will sharpen His sword; He has bent His bow and made it ready” (Psalm 7:12).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that David is talking about unbelievers. God will sharpen his sword for unbelievers. God has bent his bow and made it ready for unbelievers. However, this is the classic Roman mistake of blurring the distinction between justification and sanctification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All subsequent works are part of sanctification. This means that repentance is not part of justification, but of sanctification.

Therefore, when David wrote, “If a man does not repent,” he was not speaking about justification, but sanctification. David was writing to believers.

Thus, God will sharpen his sword for those who are not sanctified. God has bent his bow and made it ready for those who are not sanctified.

Matthew 4:17

“From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus was preaching the gospel. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is part of sanctification, not justification. Thus, Jesus was not preaching the gospel. He was preaching for sanctification. Read the rest of this entry.

Hebrews 13:17

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we ought to obey our leaders and submit to them. While we applaud this advice in theory, it would be dangerous to practice this on a regular basis. This is particularly true with regard to corporate worship.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.

If you are at a church where worship is not rigidly controlled by the RPW, then it is your solemn duty to open up a can of Regulative Principle Whoopass™. Forget the peace of the church. This is too important.

If your church sings hymns or other uninspired songs, you must refuse to sing with everyone else. The same goes for reciting uninspired creeds. Just say no. In no way should you submit to your leaders in this.

If your pastor prays a prayer that is not found in the Bible, try not to listen to what he says. Uninspired prayers of such modern-day Jeroboams bring cursing, not blessing.

If your church sings uninspired doxologies, plug your ears! At all costs, do not let such abominations contaminate you. God hates these ditties, and so should you.

If your church insists on using a piano, organ, or other musical instruments, you must show your disgust publicly. Every time one of these tools of idolatry starts up, make a face like you just got a whiff of something rancid and look around. Be sure to make eye contact and let others know of your displeasure.

If your church dares to observe the Lord’s Supper more than once a quarter, then you must refuse to participate. Adopt your best postal-scowl and stare at the officiants. It is also important that you huff in disgust whenever the plates pass you.

There is no virtue in submitting to your leaders for the peace and unity of the church. Remember, the truly Reformed are only concerned about the purity of the church. The peace and unity of the church mean nothing. The invisible church is unified. That’s all that matters. God doesn’t care about the unity of the visible church, and neither should you.

In summary, don’t worry about obeying your leaders or submitting to them. It’s not like they are keeping watch over your souls. Make sure you cause them endless sorrow and grief until they submit to the RPW. This will bring you the most profit.

Leviticus 10:1-3

“Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘It is what the Lord spoke, saying, “By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.”’” (Leviticus 10:1-3).

Although Federal Visionists claim to be “Biblicists,” they show their true colors in how they blatantly disregard this passage. God hates worship that departs from his specific instructions. Of course, in the NT era, we do not have detailed instructions for worship, but this does not stop us from splitting hairs.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.

For example, the Bible does not mention the installation of restrooms in churches. Therefore, according to the RPW, our churches should not have restrooms. You just have to hold it. That is why the truly Reformed suffer from constipation, both physically and theologically.

If you install restrooms in your church, then you are not worshiping the RPW. You are worshiping another god, which is no god at all. You might as well be erecting Asherahs or sacrificing to Molech.

Another area in which we need to more aggressively apply the RPW is music. Some Reformed churches do not yet practice exclusive psalmody. If you are unfortunate enough to attend one of these pseudo-churches that are offering such strange fire, it is your duty to bring Reformation. The best way to do this is to refuse to participate in such Baal-worship. Instead, pick a Psalm of the same tune and sing the inspired text, so that God is pleased with at least one person in the congregation. Perhaps your actions alone will prompt God to spare your church from annihilation.

Of course, this is a bit more complicated that it seems. First of all, you better not be singing the Psalm in English because only the original autographs were inspired. According to the RPW, we have no warrant for singing in English. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew text.

Second, under no circumstances are you to sing uninspired tunes. No matter how glorious some of our hymn tunes are, none of them are inspired, and therefore, according to the RPW, they do not belong in our worship services. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew lyrics to the original Hebrew tune.

Unfortunately, we have no idea what the original Hebrew melodies were. Until God releases these on itunes, we’re screwed. You are better off not singing at all. Thus, when properly followed, the RPW paralyzes worship. Soli Deo Gloria!

Acts 5:31

“He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance leads to the forgiveness of sins. Peter allegedly mentions repentance first because it precedes the forgiveness of sins. Thus, forgiveness is dependent upon repentance. However, these kind of geriatric objections are tiresome.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we receive the forgiveness of sins via justification, which is by faith alone. Faith alone means that repentance is not included. Thus, repentance cannot precede forgiveness, nor can there be a link between repentance and forgiveness of sins. This is elementary logic.

We’re not really sure why Peter mentions repentance before forgiveness. Perhaps he didn’t know better, being a blue collar worker and all. Or, perhaps he intentionally confused the ordu salutis, testing the Jewish Council, to see if they really understood sola fide. Whatever, as long as we don’t let the text affect our theology.

Song of Songs 4:5

“Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle which feed among the lilies” (Song of Songs 4:5).

Federal Visionists are all over this verse because they think that Solomon is admiring his wife’s physical beauty, comparing her breasts to the twins of a gazelle. However, such crass interpretation flatly contradicts Reformed hermeneutics.

The ability to divide Law from Gospel has long been cherished in the bosom of Reformed hermeneuticians. Federal Visionists accuse us of interpretive augmentation, but the errors of “Biblicism” are as obvious as a pair of cheap implants.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that hermeneutics begins and ends with distinguishing Law from Gospel. Only this principle can keep things in their proper place. Thus, Law/Gospel is the brassiere of our Modern Reformation, offering support and preventing unnecessary bouncing and jostling.

On the surface, Solomon does seem to be extolling the physical beauty of his wife. However, peeping through Law/Gospel glasses enables him to see past physical endowment and appreciate the heaving suppleness of Law and Gospel. The cleavage they produce is unbelievable!

Clearly, Solomon is ravished by the Law and the Gospel. Everywhere he looks, he cannot help but see these twins. We should do the same, praying that we would experience the rapturous joy of discerning Law and Gospel. To be truly Reformed, we must fall in love with this mistress of our Modern Reformation.

As Solomon elsewhere says, be exhilarated with her love. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let Law/Gospel satisfy us at all times!

Ephesians 1:7

“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Ephesians 1:7).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that in Christ we have the forgiveness of our trespasses. Obviously, Federal Visionists do not understand the first thing about the gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. Justification itself includes the two biggies: the forgiveness of trespasses and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Yet, justification is also the key that unlocks all the other graces of the gospel. Once we have been justified, we are redeemed, reconciled, adopted, united to Christ, et al.

Federal Visionists assert that union with Christ is the priority. After we are united to Christ, then we receive the other graces of the gospel. They would even go so far as to say that union with Christ precedes justification. Obviously, this is a utter heresy.

We cannot be united with Christ until our sins are forgiven in justification. This is impossible. We must be justified before we can ever be united with Christ. Thus, technically speaking, we are justified apart from Christ.

Therefore, we would never say that we have forgiveness of our trespasses “in him.” Rather, apart from him we have the forgiveness of our trespasses.

Ephesians 5:25

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is giving instructions on how to be a better husband. They assert that a husband, by imitating Christ’s example, can love his wife better by giving himself up for her. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only way that we can become better husbands is by looking to Christ. To the extent that we try to be better husbands, we are only cementing our failure. The law was given to drive us to Christ. If we try to “do” the law, then we are failing to rest in Christ.

Many read the commands of the Bible and think that we are supposed to try to obey them. They read Paul’s commands about marriage and think that he is actually writing about how we can improve our marriages. These same people go to marriage seminars and hear about how to be better husbands. They read books on marriage and think that these are helping their marriages.

However, this is fruitless. We do not need marriage seminars. We do not need to read another book on improving our marriage. This misses Paul’s entire point.

Rather, we need to love Christ and rest in his works. We need to stop working and simply look to Christ. Husbands need to stop being Marthas and be Marys.

Thus, Paul’s real message is revealed: husbands, do not love your wives, nor give yourselves up for her.

2 Peter 3:9

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God is wishing for all to come to salvation. Besides sounding universalist and a-reformed, this fails to maintain the elementary distinction between justification and sanctification.

The Reformed fatwa has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All that happens afterwards is sanctification, which would include repentance.

Thus, the Lord is patient, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to sanctification.

Luke 5:32

“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is calling sinners to salvation. However, this is confusing justification and sanctification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. Repentance is not faith alone; therefore, repentance has no role in justification. Repentance is part of sanctification.

Thus, Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to sanctification.

Colossians 1:21-23

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach – if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:21-23).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that glorification is conditional. They assert that Paul states two conditions: 1) “continuing in the faith” and 2) “not moving away from the hope of the gospel.” According to FVers, only if you keep these two conditions will God “present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.” They make glorification dependent upon our fulfilling conditions. Obviously, this threatens the GCS (Golden Chain of Salvation).

The Reformed faith has always insisted that glorification is a technical term that is only used to refer to the final stage of salvation. So, in the GCS passage (Romans 8:29-30), when Paul promises that all who are justified are also glorified, he teaching that our final salvation is only dependent upon justification. This is the glorious simplicity of the GCS.

Thus, once you have received justification, there are no conditions to fulfill. Eternal life is guaranteed. Nothing can threaten your status. According to the GCS, eternal life is conditioned only upon being justified.

If FVers would read Colossians more carefully, they would see that Paul is addressing people whom Christ “has now reconciled.” They have been justified, and thus, according to the GCS, they will be glorified. There are no conditions that they must fulfill. Whether they “continue in the faith” or not is irrelevant. Whether they “move away from the hope of the gospel” or not has no bearing on their glorification.

Now, Paul does state two conditions, but the question is: to what do these conditions apply? Obviously, they cannot be conditions of glorification because that breaks the GCS. Paul must be speaking of sanctification. Sanctification is not part of the GCS, and thus, it is not guaranteed.

Being “presented before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” might sound like glorification, but clearly, Paul must be talking about sanctification. The GCS demands this.

Thus, being Reformed depends on our ability to use the GCS to flatten out any conditions that appear to threaten glorification.

1 John 3:23

“This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us” (1 John 3:23).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we are “commanded” to “believe.” However, this turns faith into a work, which is a standard Pelagian mistake.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that faith is a resting, relaxing, and reposing in the finished work of Christ. In no way is faith a work. In no way is faith obeying a commandment.

If we ever view belief or faith as a commandment, then we are going to turn faith into obedience, which is a work. Faith is in no sense a work. Faith occasionally performs works, but faith is not a work itself.

Those who claim that faith is a commandment to be obeyed are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

2 Corinthians 7:10

For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance without regret leads to salvation. However, this reverses the ordo salutis.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, apart from works such as repentance. Repentance is part of sanctification. In no way does sanctification lead to justification. Thus, repentance can never “lead” to salvation. This is backwards. Rather, salvation leads to repentance.

Luke 16:30

“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!” (Luke 16:30).

This is a well-known parable in which a rich man is suffering torment in Hades. He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers, stating “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!”

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the rich man is concerned about the salvation of his five brothers. Notice how they make repentance a metonym or even synonym for conversion. However, this does violence to the gospel of our modern Reformation.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. This justification is received by faith alone, which means that works such as repentance have no part in justification. Rather, repentance is part of sanctification.

Obviously, the rich man is not concerned about the salvation of his five brothers because he does not mention justification or faith alone. Thus, they must already be believers; otherwise, the rich man would have said, “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will have faith alone.”

Instead, the rich man says, “They will repent.” Thus, he is concerned about their sanctification, but not their justification. The rich man wants Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers so that they will be sanctified.

Exodus 12:3

“Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household’” (Exodus 12:3).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that all children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration. They point out that the Lord told Moses to address “all the congregation of Israel,” and they assert that children were considered part of the congregation of Israel.

Furthermore, Federal Visionists point out that Israel was to take “a lamb for each household,” and they assert that children are part of these so-called “households.”

Federal Visionists then state that because all the children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration, so we should also include all of our children in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, Federal Visionists advocate Paedocommunion. However, this position is fraught with problems – historical, theological, and exegetical.

The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected Paedocommunion as beyond the pale of reformodoxy. All the Reformers and Puritans vehemently denounced it. Even Roman Catholics forbid it. When ecumenical blogs like the PuritanBoard do not allow members who are Paedocommunists, then one ought to think twice about adopting such a bizarre position. Yet, Federal Visionists are undeterred.

Frankly, the historical evidence carries all the weight for us. There is really no need to re-examine the exegetical or theological arguments for Paedocommunion. If Calvin rejected it, that’s good enough for us. Nevertheless, it could be helpful to have a few responses prepared.

Theologically, Paedocommunion arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Federal Visionists get a big kick out of linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper, but this is mixing Law and Gospel. Passover was part of the Old Covenant, which is the Covenant of Works. Communion is part of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Thus, under the Covenant of Works, God may have included children, but under the Covenant of Grace, God excludes our children.

Exegetically, Paedocommunion has no Scriptural support. First, the word “Paedocommunion” does not appear in the Bible. Second, no verse in the Bible ever shows the practice of Paedocommunion (admittedly, this is the same argument that Baptists use against us regarding Paedobaptism, but still). Third, Jesus instituted Communion with adults. He did not invite their children. Thus, we bar them from the table.

Furthermore, God did not intend children participate in the Passover. Although God specifies that the Passover was for “all the congregation of Israel” and for each “household,” children are not specifically mentioned. Thus, according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, children would have been excluded from Passover.

Therefore, on all fronts, Paedocommunion is an absolute train wreck. The whole point of Communion is to give the church a visible sign of the grace of God. Thus, Communion is the infrequent reminder that our children are outside of the grace of God, being only legally and not organically connected to Christ and his covenant.

Mark 8:35

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that salvation hinges upon whether one is willing to “lose his life.” However, this is the classic Pelagian mistake of confusing Law and Gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Gospel is an unconditional gift appropriated by faith alone. Conditions such as being willing to “lose your life” are not part of the Gospel. This is the Law.

If you try to “lose your life” for Jesus’ sake, then you are trying to save yourself. You are putting yourself back under the Law. Far better to simply rest in Jesus and forget about “losing your life.”

Discerning Law and Gospel is the key to being Reformed. Until you’ve read the Bible through Law-Gospel glasses, you are missing everything.

Along these lines, we have good news: Law-Gospel glasses will soon become obsolete! Ophthalmologists have been working closely with The White Horse Inn to develop a Lasik procedure that will produce perfect Law-Gospel vision.

Theologians who were previously unable to discern an indicative from an imperative can now have 20/20 Law-Gospel vision just one week after the surgery. WSC has already made Law-Gospel Lasik surgery a prerequisite for enrollment, and NAPARC is considering making it mandatory for those seeking ordination in Reformed churches.

There are risks with Law-Gospel Lasik surgery. Side effects include increased pompousness, a propensity towards sectarian hyper-abstract theological issues, an inability to take the Bible at face value, and a man-crush on Caspar Olevianus.

It is unknown whether Law-Gospel Lasik surgery is reversible, but you can overcome the side effects of this procedure through a cranial-rectal extraction.

Matthew 6:3-4

“But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:3-4).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that the Father will reward us when our giving is done in secret. Furthermore, they say that we should think about this reward and use this reward as a motive for giving. However, this contradicts the modern Reformed approach to sanctification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that our only motivation for obedience is gratitude. Once we are justified by faith alone, then our eternal destinies are secure. Thus, our only possible motive for obedience is gratitude.

If you are obeying with the expectation of some kind of a reward, then you are failing to rest in the finished work of Christ. Rewards are simply Pelagian. Thus, unless you are overflowing with gratitude, you should not obey.

It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else, and you are not Reformed™.

Titus 3:10

“Reject a factious man after a first and second warning” (Titus 3:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that factious men ought to be rejected on the principle that they are factious. In other words, if someone is proved to be factious, we should reject them and pay no attention to what they say.

However, this is the fallacy of the poisoned well, that something is bad because of where it came from. Rather, we ought to listen carefully to factious men and treat them as reputable witnesses, giving them every opportunity to malign the brethren.

Those who reject factious men ought to be rejected after a first and second warning.

Mark 6:12

“So they went out and preached that people should repent” (Mark 6:12).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus sent his twelve disciples out to preach the gospel. While a common misconception, this is an utter departure from the Reformers.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the heart of the gospel is justification, which is received by faith alone. Repentance is a post-justification work of sanctification. It has nothing to do with justification, and therefore, nothing to do with the gospel.

Thus, when Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach that people should repent, he was sending them out to preach the message of sanctification, not the gospel.

Hebrews 10:29

“How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this is a warning to covenant breakers. They note that the author of Hebrews threatens that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” Thus, it is argued that the New Covenant is conditional.

You see, Federal Visionists believe that the New Covenant is not unconditional. That is, the New Covenant can be either kept of broken. Thus, FVers do not believe that membership in the New Covenant is necessarily permanent. Some are temporary members. Such temporary members are those who break the covenant. They will not be eternally saved.

Federal Visionists point out that this verse speaks of those who were in the covenant. They were “sanctified” “by the blood of the covenant.” Thus, they were members of the New Covenant. They were given all the privileges of the covenant.

However, their covenant status is now in doubt due to their unfaithfulness. Three proofs are offered: 1) they have “trampled under foot the Son of God;” 2) they have “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant;” 3) they have “insulted the Spirit of grace.” These are certainly three damnable actions.

Admittedly, at face value, it does seem as if the author of Hebrews is saying that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” However, there is no reason to fall for such bumbling exegesis.

The Reformed Answer
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the New Covenant is unconditional. Once you are justified by faith alone, then you are eternally secure. No amount of “trampling,” “disregarding,” or “insulting” can ever threaten your covenant status. Heck, you could even deny Christ, and he will not deny you. Remember, no branches are ever removed from the vine. Once you exercise faith alone, then you are eternally secure.

This verse has long been a favorite of Arminians, and now, their bastard children, the Federal Visionists, have latched on to this verse with a vengeance. However, there is a cornucopia of ways to escape the plain language of the text and remain Reformed.

Some in Calvindom argue that this verse is speaking of those who were never in the covenant to begin with. They looked like they were in the covenant, but they were not. These are like the Frisbee that gets stuck in the tree and mistaken for a branch but is eventually removed. In order to circumvent the text, they do not take “sanctified” to refer to Sanctification, but to sanctification, which in this case means something like benefiting from the general holiness of the church.

Others prefer to speak of those who were “sanctified” as those who were in the outer sphere of the covenant, but were never in the inner core of the covenant, whatever that means.

While these are all legitimate Reformed ways of dispensing with the text, we think a better answer lies in the text itself. “Sanctified” is an aorist verb, meaning that it is referring to a one-time action. Everyone knows that Sanctification is an ongoing action, not a one-time action. Thus, while the author of Hebrews used the word “sanctified,” he was really referring to Justification.

Now, this does not get us off the hook just yet. If anything, this tightens the noose a bit because we take the author to be saying that those who have been Justified are deserving of a severer punishment. We’re not quite safe in Calvin yet.

If you look more closely at the text, you will notice that there is a question mark at the end of the sentence, indicating that this is a question. Thus, this is not an indicative statement, but a question.

The question is essentially, “How much severer punishment will those deserve who have been sanctified (Justified)?” Obviously trampling, disregarding, and insulting do deserve a much severer punishment.

However, remember that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Justified man. He has already been forgiven of all of his sins, including trampling, disregarding, and insulting God. He cannot sin his way out of Justification. That’s impossible!

Thus, the author of Hebrews is in no way saying that such a person will receive any actual punishment. He is more deserving of punishment, but he will never receive it because this was all transferred to Christ on the cross.

Thus, only a purely-Reformed understanding of sola fide can ensure that we handle such texts with integrity. Otherwise, this passage does sound FVish.

As this letter was read to the Hebrews, some newbies may have been confused by the hypothetical question, but undoubtedly, they were quickly straightened out by ANEPARC (Ancient Near Eastern Presbyterian and Reformed Council).

Matthew 6:9

“Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name'” (Matthew 6:9).

Federal Visionists love the Lord’s Prayer and think that we ought to teach it to our children. They assert that children of believers have some sort of a relationship with God. Therefore, they argue, we should teach our children to pray. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that our children are unregenerate, and therefore, they are dead in their trespasses and sins. They have no relationship with God whatsoever. In no way are they connected to Christ. They are vipers in diapers.

Nonetheless, for some reason, modern Reformed folk still baptize their children. Yet, we insist that in no way does this baptism “save” them or “unite” them to Christ. They are just as damned and separate from Christ as are the children of the non-elect.

Until our children are regenerated, they should be treated as the unbelievers that they are. Most importantly, this means that they should be banned from the Lord’s Supper lest they be judged for failing to discern the Lord’s body, namely, that they are not part of it.

Additionally, children should not be taught to sing to the Lord, as this would be hypocritical, professing with their mouths something that is not true in their hearts.

Also, children should be prevented from tithing, as this would teach them legalism, that they could earn God’s favor through their gifts.

Finally, children should definitely not be taught to pray, as God does not hear the prayers of unbelievers. Until they have a crisis-conversion experience, our children should not be taught the Lord’s Prayer, lest they pray it in private.

It might even be preferable to keep children out of worship services altogether, since worship is for believers.

Mark 1:15

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that preaching the gospel includes both a call to repent and a call to believe. They even claim that the call to repentance can precede the call to faith. Obviously, this denies sola fide.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is not part of justification. Thus, the call to repentance is not part of the gospel. The call to repentance is the call to sanctification.

For this reason, the call to faith must always precede the call to repentance. If you switch these, then you have fallen from Modernist Reformation. Thus, only a Pelagian would say, “repent and believe in the gospel.”

Romans 5:18

“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Romans 5:18).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that it is appropriate to say that we are justified by the death of Christ. They argue that “one act of righteousness” must be referring to the cross, not the law-keeping of Christ. Therefore, we are justified by the death of Christ. Obviously, this is a denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification consists of two parts. First, we receive the forgiveness through the death of Christ. Second, we receive life through the transfer of the righteousness of Christ to us.

For justification to be Justification, you need both parts of Christ: his life and death. Forgiveness of sins is no good unless we also receive his righteousness. Thus, to say that we are justified by one act of righteousness is incomplete, at best. Rather, we are justified by many acts of righteousness.

Mark 1:6

“John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey” (Mark 1:6).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that John’s diet bears some symbolic significance. They assert that locusts and wild honey should call to mind some of the Old Testament types and inform us of a “deeper” meaning.

For example, in the prophets, locusts were used to symbolically portray the enemies of Israel. Thus, John eating locusts teaches us that Israel’s enemies were going to be defeated.

Also, the Promised Land was flowing with milk and honey. However, John is eating wild honey in the desert. Supposedly, this absence of honey in Israel symbolizes how the land of Israel is under the curse of God.

Obviously, such fanciful typology strains the limits of rationality. The Reformed faith has always emphasized sound exegesis over whimsical allegory.

Clearly, locusts represent the Law, and honey represents the Gospel. This is incontrovertible. John would eat locusts first (the Law), and then wash these down with honey (the Gospel).

As we never tire of reiterating, the key to maintaining a modern Reformed understanding of the Scriptures is the Law/Gospel hermeneutic. Don't leave home without it!

Genesis 3:22-24

“Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’ – therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:22-24).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that this is the first time that God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the ToL (Tree of Life). They assert that God gave Adam and Eve access to the ToL from the beginning. Rather than requiring them to merit covenant blessings, God gave the blessings of the covenant upfront, apart from their merit. Thus, the pre-fall covenant was supposedly based upon “grace.”

Dude.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a COW (Covenant of Works). Adam was sinless, but not righteous. He could have merited covenant blessings through his works of perfect obedience. Thus, if Adam had obeyed perfectly, he would have earned access to the ToL, but not before.

Now, the Bible never indicates that God had previously barred Adam from the ToL. In fact, the text explicitly states the opposite, as the TKGE (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was the only tree that was forbidden (Genesis 2:16-17). However, we have never let the word of God stand in the way of our modern Reformed imagination.

Notwithstanding the Scriptures, the Reformed faith has always insisted that both trees were out of bounds. This is precisely where the theological train track splits, and unfortunately, Federal Visionists take a right (heading home to Rome), when they should take a left (easing towards Escondido).

The two trees of the garden represent the Law and the Gospel. The TKGE represents the Law, and the ToL represents the Gospel. If Adam had kept the Law (TKGE), then he would have earned access to the Gospel (ToL). Those who deny this are SoL.

Federal Visionists claim that this is speculative eisegesis, but isn’t this just the kettle calling the pot black? Federal Visionists are the ones who employ a typological hermeneutic that would make Origen squirm.

Typology is absolutely necessary, but only when proper hermeneutics are employed. The Reformed hermeneutic is Law/Gospel. Until you read the Bible through Law/Gospel glasses, then you are misreading the Scriptures. Once you understand the Law/Gospel grid, then you will have the inklination to see every pair in the Bible as symbolic of the Law and the Gospel. For instance, consider these obvious examples:

The sun and the moon = the Law and the Gospel
The two wives of Lamech = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels that rescued Lot = the Law and the Gospel
The two tablets of stone = the Law and the Gospel
The two cherubim on the ark = the Law and the Gospel
Nadab and Abihu = the Law and the Gospel
The twin gazelles in Song of Songs = the Law and the Gospel
The two female bears that devoured the youths who insulted Elisha = the Law and the Gospel
The two fish in the feeding of the 5,000 = the Law and the Gospel
The sons of Zebedee = the Law and the Gospel
The two greatest commandments = the Law and the Gospel
The two denarii in the Good Samaritan = the Law and the Gospel
The two mites of the widow = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels in Jesus’ tomb = the Law and the Gospel
The two soldiers who guarded Peter = the Law and the Gospel
The two years Paul spent in Rome = the Law and the Gospel
The two-edged sword of the word of God = the Law and the Gospel
The two witnesses in Revelation = the Law and the Gospel

This is just a sample of how understanding Law and Gospel opens up the Scriptures in breathtaking ways. For all their self-vaunted “Biblicism,” you won’t see Federal Visionists engage in this quality of interpretation. So much for exegesis. So much for the Bible.

Dude.

Romans 2:4

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the kindness of God leads us to repentance, which they take to mean conversion. Obviously, Federal Visionists are leaning more towards Trent than Geneva.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification does not include repentance. Justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is part of sanctification, not justification.

Thus, when Paul wrote, “the kindness of God leads you to repentance,” he was not writing about justification or even conversion. He was writing about sanctification. The kindness of God leads you to sanctification.

Matthew 11:19

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her works” (Matthew 11:19).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that wisdom is justified by her works. The verb dikaiow should be understood as “proved to be righteous,” it is argued. This corresponds with the so-called “final justification,” of which Federal Visionists are so fond. However, this contradicts the modern Reformed definition of justification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification always and only refers to the transfer of the righteousness of Christ. Justification never means “vindication” or “proved to be righteous.” There is no such thing as “final justification.” Also, justification is always and only by faith alone. “Justification” and “works” do not go together in any sense.

We are sure that Jesus took great pains to explain JBFA to his disciples. After all, this is the heart of the gospel. When Jesus said, “wisdom is justified by her works,” he was obviously testing his disciples. Peter probably rebuked him, “Far be it for wisdom to be justified by her works, Lord! This shall not happen. This is Pelagian.”

1 Peter 4:17

“For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the household of God obeys the gospel. However, this is the toxic cocktail formed by mixing law and gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that law and gospel are mutually exclusive categories. They are as different as night and day. They are certainly not to be mixed.

Law is God’s demand for perfect obedience. Hence, obedience is only associated with the law.

Gospel is God’s free gift. It cannot be earned or merited through obedience. Obedience has nothing to do with gospel.

Thus, “obedience” and “gospel” are incongruous. Those who attempt to “obey the gospel” find themselves plunging towards Pelagius.

Rather, we appropriate the gospel by faith alone. This faith alone rests upon the gospel. In no way should we ever attempt to obey the gospel. This is turns gospel into law, which is not good news.

Luke 15:7

“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is talking about the joy in heaven over each conversion. Notice how Federal Visionists equate repentance with conversion. They even argue that repentance can be a synonym for conversion. However, this is inconsistent with Reformed categories of Systematic Theology.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is not part of justification. Repentance is a work, and thus, repentance is part of sanctification.

While heaven might rejoice over conversions, we cannot say this with confidence because Jesus is not speaking about conversions. He is speaking about repentance, or sanctification. Thus, heaven rejoices over sanctification.

Mark 1:4

“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that forgiveness of sins is contingent upon repentance and/or baptism. Obviously, this is Pelagian and/or Catholic.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that forgiveness of sins is granted in justification, which is received by faith alone. Thus, forgiveness comes through faith alone. Neither baptism nor repentance has anything to do with forgiveness. In no way are they connected to forgiveness.

Repentance is highly recommended but also highly optional. Remember that repentance is a work. Hence, those who say that repentance is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that you must do a work in order to merit forgiveness. Obviously, this is the essence of Pelagianism.

Baptism is a beautiful picture of the forgiveness of sins and a wonderful experience. However, in order for salvation to be absolutely free, baptism must be absolutely optional. In no way is forgiveness of sins dependent on baptism. Those who say that baptism is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that baptism triggers forgiveness. This inevitably leads to the old heresy of baptismal regeneration, which is the calling card of Roman Catholicism.

Federal Visionists make the elementary mistake of forgetting that John the Baptist was an Old Covenant prophet. As the Old Covenant was simply a re-publication of the Covenant of Works, the Baptist’s message was blatantly Pelagian and proto-Tridentine. That’s what the Covenant of Works was!

Thus, John could make outlandish Pelagian statements because he was in a different dispensation. Thankfully, Jesus ushered in an entirely different dispensation, with an entirely different covenant (NC/CoG), and an entirely different message (JBFA). Praise God for discontinuity!

1 Corinthians 1:12

“Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’” (1 Corinthians 1:12).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that sectarianism is bad. They urge that we should not divide up into factions. They claim to eschew contentiousness and push for “catholicity.” Obviously, Federal Visionists are suffering from ED (Ecumenical Dysfunction).

The Reformed faith has always been characterized by personality cults and polarizing influences. Indeed, if you want to be Reformed, you must be a schismatic, hero-worshiper.

However, you better choose your heroes wisely! Calvin help the blogger who fails to use a Puritan as the picture on his profile.

To help our readers out, we have assembled a list of those who have most influenced Anti-Federal Visionism. These are the top four saints to venerate, the Anti-Federal Vision Mount Rushmore. Here is our Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln:

Meredith Kline – This was an easy choice; he is our Washington. Far and away, Kline is the Godfather of Anti-Federal Visionism. Without his theological innovations, where would the Reformed world be today? Not only did he contribute his unique amalgamation of Luthero-gnosticism, but his ability to package this as the historic Reformed theology was nothing short of a miracle. The recent actions of the SJC-Gestapo are proof positive that the Kline's Modern Revolution within Calvinism is complete.

A.W. Pink – This was a tough choice because many (Boettner, Steele, Palmer, et al) have contributed to the spread of Tulipianism. However, we chose Pink because his works have been more influential in the rise of the hyper-calvinism/fatalism that dominates our modern Reformation. Without Pink, there would be neither Robbins nor Flanders.

Zane Hodges – This is our Roosevelt; everyone forgets him, but he is important, nonetheless. We could have easily chosen Charles Ryrie, but Hodges gets the nod because no one has worked harder to keep faith alone than Hodges. Where would sola fide be today without him? While many Anti-Federal Visionists publicly denounce Hodges’s Dispensationalism, all the truly Reformed are closet-Dispies at heart. Plus, there is a growing respect for Hodge's ability to divide the word of God. Don’t be surprised to see him in Table Talk soon!

Rene Descartes – We were torn on this one; obviously, we are dependent on Aristotelian logic, and we also love Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, and all the other saints of old. However, Descartes is our choice because his cogito paved the way for the Enlightenment, to which we are happily enslaved. Above all, Anti-Federal Visionists are rationalists.

Matthew 28:19-20

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus is commissioning the disciples to preach the gospel. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. A gospel presentation that neglects justification is not good news. In this passage, Jesus says nothing about justification; thus, he does not intend the disciples to preach the gospel.

Jesus was commissioning his disciples with the message of sanctification. A careful examination of the content of Jesus’ charge reveals this. Look at what Jesus instructs his disciples to do: “make disciples”, “baptizing”, and “teaching”. These are all part of sanctification.

For instance, “make disciples” is when you urge Christians who have received Jesus as Savior through faith alone to take the next step and receive him as Lord through repentance, as described in this Reformed journal. Also, baptizing and teaching are obviously part of sanctification, not justification. Thus, the Great Commission is not about the gospel.

The key to Reformed hermeneutics is the ability to rightly divide the word of God. You must divide law from gospel. You must divide the two Kingdoms. You must divide faith from repentance. Most importantly, you must divide justification and sanctification.

Those who cannot properly divide justification and sanctification should just run off to Rome or one of her johns (Moscow, Canterbury, etc).

Ezekiel 25:17

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you” (Ezekiel 25:17).

Federal Visionists consider this verse to be one of their jewels because they think that they are the righteous man and that we are the evil men who tyrannize. However, this is exactly opposite of the truth.

The Federal Visionists are the tyrannizers of the church. They are the ones who have been disrupting the peace and purity of the church. By not submitting their views to peer review, they have opened the door to the mock trials, unjustified abuse, and personal rancor that they have rightly received. Truly, we have bruised our knuckles on their jaws.

In light of this, we have sad news. One of our best contributors has succumbed to the Federal Vision. In his research for the AFVSB, he frequently came into contact with the Bible. Apparently, this prolonged exposure to the Scriptures has taken its toll.

When we started this blog, we knew the risks of handling the word of God without filtering it through our modern Reformed grid. We thought that a weekly law/gospel vaccination via the White Horse Inn would be sufficient to fight off all strains of the Federal Vision. Unfortunately, we have gravely underestimated the power of the dark side.

While we allegedly take no pleasure in this, it is our mirthless duty to announce that Mark T. has apostatized to the Federal Vision.

He displays all the classic symptoms: he was spotted reading the book of James; he was heard using tones of optimism in speaking of the future of the church; more than once, he has been guilty of disagreeing with the holy see of moderators at the PuritanBoard; he was even seen smiling at a recent observance of the Lord’s Supper. May God have mercy on his soul!

James 2:24

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that James is saying that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Obviously, this contradicts JBFATDBWTCSOF (justification by faith alone – the doctrine by which the church stands or falls).

Even more than IAOCNHWI, the Reformed faith has prized JBFATDBWTCSOF as the doctrine of doctrines. It all ends and starts with JBFATDBWTCSOF. Everything goes back to JBFATDBWTCSOF. Without JBFATDBWTCSOF, there would be no Reformed theology.

As Paul says, preach JBFATDBWTCSOF in season and out of season. Anything less is simply tickling itching ears. Soli JBFATDBWTCSOF gloria!

Acts 17:30

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is speaking of the spread of the gospel. Notice how they equate the call to repentance with the gospel. However, this is the deadly error of mixing justification and sanctification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted upon maintaining a strict distinction between justification and sanctification. Failing to keep these doctrines separate is the leading cause of apostasy from our modern Reformation.

Justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is excluded. Repentance has no part in justification, which means that repentance is not part of the gospel.

So, where does repentance belong? Repentance is part of sanctification.

In this verse, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent. That is, God is now declaring the message of sanctification. Thus, Paul was delivering the message of sanctification to the Athenians.

Malachi 2:14

“Yet you say, ‘For what reason? Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:14).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that marriage is a covenant. They point out that marriages are kept by faithfulness and broken by unfaithfulness. They further assert that the paradigm of marriage corresponds to the paradigm of the covenant between God and his people. They even attempt to draw parallels between Christ and the church and marriage via Ephesians 5. Obviously, such grasping at straws reveals the eisegetical impulse of the Federal Vision.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that there are but two paradigms for covenants: works and grace. All covenants are based upon either strict works or sheer grace. Here’s the exegetical details:

The Covenant of Works is a breakable covenant, but it can only be kept by absolute perfection (WCF, 7.2). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Works because marriages are not dissolved due to a single imperfection.

The Covenant of Grace is an unbreakable covenant because it is based solely upon grace (WCF, 7.3). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Grace because marriages can break up due to unfaithfulness.

Thus, marriage is not like either the Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. For this reason, truly Reformed theologians do not consider marriage to be a covenant, exegetically speaking.

Malachi and other Federal Visionists get into trouble because they expect the Bible to inform them about the nature of covenants. However, the Ancient Near East is actually a much better source of information about covenants.

Thus, in order to stay Reformed, we must carefully study the ANE treaties. Remember, we do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Hittite suzerains.

Deuteronomy 30:11

“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach” (Deuteronomy 30:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the covenant that God made with Israel was not too difficult for them, nor was it out of their reach. They argue that the covenant was to be kept by faith. Obviously, this is utterly Pelagian.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that covenants can only be based upon grace or works. A covenant based upon grace is entirely a gift, and thus, it is unbreakable. A covenant based upon works is kept by perfect obedience. These are the only two paradigms for covenants in the Bible.

Thus, the Reformed faith has always held that the Mosaic covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works. As such, it required strict obedience. If Israel failed to perfectly obey, then they broke the covenant.

This is precisely what happened. As soon as the covenant was made, undoubtedly one of the Israelites sinned and broke the covenant. In fact, before Moses could finish reading the requirements of the covenant, Israel had probably already broken the covenant.

Thus, God could enjoy the farcical moment of Moses writing that the covenant was “not too difficult nor out of reach,” when in fact, the covenant was already broken. In reality, the covenant that God made with Israel was far too difficult from them. It was far, far out of their reach.

Genesis 2:16-17

“The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17).

Federal Visionists love these verses because they point out that God only forbade Adam from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They allege that the tree of life was not forbidden. Therefore, in the pre-fall covenant, access to the tree of life was given as a gift from God. It did not have to be earned, but it could be lost through sin.

Thus, Federal Visionists argue for a covenantal paradigm in which the blessings of the covenant were given immediately, rather than having to be earned, yet those blessings could be lost through sin. Obviously, this covenantal paradigm is sub-Reformed because it does not correspond with any paradigm from the Ancient Near Eastern treaties.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a covenant of merit. Although unstated in the text, we assume that God forbade Adam from eating of the tree of life until he earned it by perfect obedience. Why else would all branches of the Reformation call this the Covenant of Works?

Furthermore, unless we restrict ourselves to the inspired covenantal paradigms of Hittite treaties, then we depart from the Reformed faith.

John 5:28-29

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that those who have done good will be resurrected to life, and those who have done evil will be resurrected to condemnation. However, this is does not comport with the solas.

How much good does one have to do to qualify for the resurrection to life? How much evil does one have to do to qualify for the resurrection to condemnation? Is one good deed enough to save? Is one bad deed enough to condemn? This quickly becomes a Pelagian game, in which no one is saved and no one is condemned.

Jesus was obviously having a little fun with the disciples, throwing out a blatantly Pelagian statement just to get their attention. Undoubtedly, the disciples had a good laugh when they realized that Jesus was just kidding.

Isaiah 53:11

“As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we are justified because Christ bore our iniquities. They delight to say that we are justified by the death of Christ. However, such a statement betrays the carelessness of our opponents.

It is not that this statement is completely wrong, it is just deficient. We are justified in part by the death of Christ, but this is only half of the story. The Reformed faith has always insisted that we are justified by the death and the merit of Christ.

Federal Visionists see the insertion of merit as an unnecessary addition to the Biblical language of justification. On the contrary, the Reformation was all about recovering the Biblical usage of merit. If merit is so unnecessary, why did Paul spend so much time defending merit?

Thus, we must always take pains to speak of justification as the result of the death and merit of Jesus Christ. If we leave out merit, then we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

Exodus 12:24

“And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever” (Exodus 12:24).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that children were supposed to participate in the Passover. This ought to give credence to paedocommunion, they assert. However, both of these positions are completely heretical.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Passover was only for adults who had made a credible profession of faith, who had the requisite mental capabilities to examine themselves, and who had been rigorously interview by the elders. Only those who were approved had the privilege of eating the Passover.

Thus, children were strictly forbidden from participating. In no way were children allowed at the tables during Passover. In no way was the Passover for Israel and their children. Children were expected to starve during Passover, just like we starve them during the Lord’s Supper.

1 Peter 5:6

“Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time” (1 Peter 5:6).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we should humble ourselves with the expectation that God will exalt us. The promises of God should motivate us to obey, they claim. However, this is the yoke of moralism.

The Reformed faith has always taught that our only motive for obedience is gratitude. Because our eternal destinies are absolutely secure, there is no reason to obey God, unless you are feeling grateful.

Our modern Reformed faith has been very careful to sever any connection between our works and the promises of God. There is no link between what we do and what God promises to do for us. This is old-fashioned moralism.

Thus, we should never dwell on the promises of God because if we obey thinking that we will receive a reward, then we are legalists.

As St. Peter would say, God may exalt us or he may not. Certainly, this does not depend upon whether we humble ourselves or not. We humble ourselves strictly out of gratitude. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.

Philippians 1:1

“Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons” (Philippians 1:1).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that being in Christ Jesus makes someone a saint. They argue that we are first united with Christ, and then, we are justified with Christ because of our union with him. Union with Christ is the ticket to justification. We are in Christ and then declared holy or “saints.” Thus, we are saints in Christ, according to Federal Visionists.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. The Reformed faith has always prized justification as the first and most important part of salvation. We are justified by faith alone, receiving both the forgiveness of our sins and the transfer of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Only when we have been justified can we be united to Christ. Justification is the ticket to union with Christ. We become holy or “saints” when we are justified, not when we are united to Christ. Thus, we are saints apart from Christ.

Romans 5:9

“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (Romans 5:9).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that it is adequate to say that we have been justified by the blood of Christ. Obviously, such a statement lacks any mention of merit, which is the sine qua non of the Reformed gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is accomplished in two stages. First, we receive forgiveness of sins through the death of Christ. Second, and most crucially, we receive the merits of Christ through the life of Christ.

Forgiveness is important and all, but the main engine that drives the Reformed gospel is merit. Federal Visionists assert that merit is neither a Biblical word, nor a Biblical concept. However, this ignores the role of the Holy Spirit in shaping Reformed theology.

The reason that merit does not appear in the Bible is that the Greek language was incapable of expressing such a theologically potent word as merit. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth Latin, and later, the English language, allowing merit to finally take its rightful place as the cornerstone of all Reformed theology.

Indeed, merit is the most glorious word in our rich Reformed vocabulary. A gospel presentation without the word “merit” is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

Thus, to say that we are justified by the blood of Christ is inadequate and sloppy. No one who is truly Reformed would speak so imprecisely.

1 John 1:9

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that there is a link between confessing our sins and being forgiven for our sins. Obviously, this is a re-hashing of the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we are forgiven for our sins in justification, which is obtained by faith alone. In no way is the forgiveness of our sins dependent upon confessing our sins.

Faith in the act of justification must be alone. Once justified, we are free to “confess our sins” or “repent” or “pursue holiness” or “deny ourselves” or “love our brothers” or “love God,” but these are all post-justification works that are entirely optional. In fact, there is no way to demand post-justification works without compromising sola fide. That what makes sola fide so antinomianly wonderful!

In this verse, John is probably speaking about fellowship with God. If we confess our sins, then we will have a more fulfilling relationship with God, but that’s up to you (by the way, don’t let this be a motive, either; we obey out of gratitude, not the prospect of a so-called “more fulfilling relationship with God”).

Thus, only by protecting justification from works such as “confession” can we ensure that forgiveness is absolutely free!

John 17:22

“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one” (John 17:22).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus wants the church to be one. They argue that unity is a doctrine that ought to be pursued, which means we ought to be “catholic” and not divide up into different denominations and sects. Obviously, this is the same tactic that the liberals used in the last century.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that doctrine must come first. Precision in abstract theology is far more important than lesser qualities like charity and peace.

Besides, the unity of the church is not really a doctrine, per se. It certainly pales in comparison with the weightier topics, such as the order of the decrees.

The problem with pursuing the so-called unity of the church on earth is that we are never quite sure who the elect are, so it is impossible for us to love them on earth. Perhaps we can love our brothers in heaven, after we find out who got in and after their theology has been straightened out.

Romans 6:1

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” (Romans 6:1).

Here is one verse that Federal Visionists hate. Paul has just finished proclaiming the gospel (Romans 1-5), and now, he faces the inevitable charge of antinomianism. Indeed, all who desire to preach JBFA will be accused of being antinomian.

Federal Visionists claim that Paul is in the middle of proclaiming the gospel and that he is only responding to a hypothetic question as a means to more fully explain the gospel.

Obviously, this cannot be true because Paul does not mention JBFA after Romans 5. Thus, Romans 6-16 is not about the gospel. These chapters are probably important for other reasons, but Romans 1-5 is all we need for the gospel.

So, when a truly Reformed preacher declares the gospel, he can expect to find a throng of the elect surrounding the pulpit, breathlessly waiting to ask the all-important question, “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” This is the hallmark of modern Reformed preaching.

Therefore, the entire goal of preaching is that we may be accused of antinomianism. Truly, there is no higher compliment than to be accused of being antinomian. Only then can you know that you have been faithful to sola fide.

In fact, if are not accused of antinomianism Sunday after Sunday, then you are not preaching the gospel. You are starving the sheep from the pure antinomian milk of JBFA.

Psalm 119:113

“I hate those who are double-minded, But I love Your law” (Psalm 119:113).

We have already dealt with the concept of believers claiming to “love” the law (here and here), but apparently, this idea pops up again in this verse. Hopefully, this is the last time we have to go over this.

Federal Visionists insist that we ought to be able to echo David’s statement, “I love Your law.” However, this completely disregards the progress of revelation.

Evidently, it was tolerable for a primitive such as David to say, “I love Your law.” God overlooks such times of ignorance. However, because we have access to Paul and Luther and the White Horse Inn, we are without excuse.

Thus, believers would be wise to say, “I hate those who are double-minded, just as I hate your law.” This is how the modern Reformed speak.

Matthew 6:10

“Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we should pray for God’s name to be hallowed on earth, for his kingdom to come on earth, and for his will to be done on earth. Obviously, this is the elementary mistake of confusing the two kingdoms.

The Reformed faith has always held that there are two kingdoms, the kingdom of the sheep, which is in heaven, and the kingdom of the goats, which is on earth. These are two separate kingdoms which operate on separate principles: earth with fleshly principles and heaven with spiritual principles.

The church is part of the kingdom of heaven, which means that we must minimize the impact that the church has on this world. Indeed, the purer the church, the less impact she has on the world.

Therefore, we should pray that God’s will would not be done on earth, so that the stark contrast between the two kingdoms can be observed. Furthermore, we should pray that God’s name would be blasphemed on earth and that his kingdom would remain in heaven. We must keep the kingdoms separate at all costs.

Federal Visionists call this a “Lutheran” scheme. However, such profane language is unjustified. As far as we know, all Reformers and Puritans held to this two kingdoms view. Federal Visionists simply refuse to drink the gnostic kool-aid that drives our modern Reformation. MGHMOTS!

1 John 3:10

“By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the difference between children of God and the children of the devil is that the children of God practice righteousness and love their brother. Obviously, this is works-salvation, making assurance based upon one’s lifestyle, which is a denial of solus Christus.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that salvation is through Christ alone (solus Christus), which means that we are saved not by our works, but by the works of Christ alone.

Solus Christus also means that assurance of salvation comes from meditating on the works of Christ, not examining our own works. In no way is assurance linked to anything we do. In no way is assurance dependent upon our works, our life, our “righteousness,” or our love for the brethren.

The children of God and the children of the devil are obvious, indeed. The children of God look only to the works of Christ for assurance. The children of the devil look at their own works for assurance.

In fact, those who ask you to look at your own works for assurance prove that they, themselves, are children of the devil. Such can be assured of one thing, that they are damned.

The need of the hour is for rogue bloggers to scour the internet for Federal Visionists, pronounce the NAPARCian judgments against them, and assure them of their damnation. Additionally, we must pray that all Federal Visionists would receive a full and robust assurance of damnation. May God have mercy on their souls.

Ephesians 2:8-9

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Federal Visionists claim to love these verses, but what they take away with the left hand, they give with the right. They only quote this passage to make themselves seem orthodox, but they don’t really believe it.

Federal Visionists constantly whine about being misunderstood, but this is the plea of all heretics. No, Federal Visionists are actually easy to figure out. Here’s a simple, two-pronged approach to attacking the Federal Vision:

1) If a Federal Visionist says something that is unorthodox, then take them at their word and prosecute them as heretics.

2) If a Federal Visionist say something that seems to be orthodox, then do not take them at their word. They are lying. They really believe the opposite and need to be persecuted as heretics.

Thus, no matter what Federal Visionists say, they cannot win. They are either telling the truth about their unorthodoxy or lying about their orthodoxy. These are the only two options.

John 14:1

“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me” (John 14:1).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we are saved by believing in Jesus, emphasizing that we must believe in the person of Christ, not merely propositions about Christ. Obviously, this puts Federal Visionists in bed with the neo-orthodox and other liberals.

Since the Reformation, the elect have cherished sola fide, the doctrine that we are saved by faith alone. Now, technically, the object of our faith alone is Jesus. However, Jesus is not merely a wax nose that can be shaped by anyone. The content of our faith alone is crucial. What do we believe (alone) about Jesus and God?

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the most fundamental doctrine of theology proper is that God justifies by faith alone. Justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. This is the doctrine that saves your soul. This is the doctrine that divides the sheep from the goats.

At the judgment, many will say to Jesus, “Lord, did we not believe in you?” But he will say, “You did not believe in justification by faith alone. Depart from me. I never knew you.”

Federal Visionists accuse us of making sola fide our god, but this is a baseless charge. We can only answer that we align ourselves with the Reformed tradition, trusting wholeheartedly in sola fide. Here we stand. We can do no other. So help us, sola fide.

Romans 10:17

“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that faith comes from hearing the word of Christ. They argue that God uses means to communicate his grace. Obviously, this is refried sacerdotalism.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that God the Lord himself works by his grace immediately on the souls of men. If we add any intermediaries, channels, instruments, or means, then we are corrupting the pure supernaturalism of salvation.

Federal Visionists love to speak of the “means of grace.” This phrase is oxymoronic. If God gives grace through channels, then grace can be earned by tuning into these channels. This turns grace into merit, and pop goes the gospel!

Because Federal Visionists reject the concept of “merit” altogether, they are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. What they don’t even realize is that the Reformation was fought solely to recover the Biblical usage of the term “merit.” Have they never heard of sola scriptura?

Thus, unbelievers should not attend the preaching of the word, or attempt to secure any other so-called “means of grace.” This would be corrupting the pure supernaturalism of salvation.

Furthermore, if you preach the word of Christ to unbelievers, you are a sacerdotalist. Besides, unbelievers are dead spiritually, and they cannot understand anything about the gospel until they have been regenerated.

Therefore, Reformed evangelism means that you pray for God to strike the unsuspecting unbeliever with the pure supernaturality of regeneration. For grace to be grace, it must be alone. Praise God for sola gratia!

Ephesians 2:1

“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1).

This is one of the most important verses in all of Calvindom. The classic reading of this text has always held that unbelievers are dead in their sins. This was true of us. As unbelievers, we were dead and could not respond to the gospel. The Holy Spirit regenerated us, and then we responded in faith. This is Calvinism 101.

Federal Visionists claim to believe all of this, but do not be duped by their assertions of orthodoxy. Federal Visionists argue that Paul was speaking of death as a metaphor, not as a literal reality. Thus, unbelievers are not literally dead. Rather, Paul used death as a metaphor to describe how radically unbelievers are separated from God: it is as if they are dead. Obviously, this implies that regeneration is also not a literal reality, but only a metaphor for how radical the change is from unbeliever to believer.

Conversely, the Reformed faith has always insisted that Paul was speaking of literal death. Unbelievers are literally dead. They are corpses. They need literal regeneration. They need to be brought back to life, literally.

Of course, unbelievers are not really dead. Their bodies are alive. Their souls are alive, too. What part, then, of an unbeliever is dead?

The Reformed faith has always insisted that unbelievers are dead spiritually, that is, their spirits are dead. Man has three constituent parts: body, soul, and spirit (Hebrews 4:12). The bodies and souls of unbelievers are alive, but their spirits are dead. Regeneration is the literal resuscitation of their spirits. Thus, trichotomy becomes a key weapon in fighting the Federal Vision heresy.

Leviticus 1:3

“If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:3)

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we can do something of our own free will. Obviously, this is Arminian.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we do not have free will. Ever since the fall, our wills are tainted, and they are anything but free. In no way do we ever do something “of our own free will.” You are an Arminian if you ever utter the phrase “free will” except as a denunciation.

Ephesians 4:4-5

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4-5).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is saying that there is only one baptism, that is, that water baptism and spirit baptism are identical. Or, as one Light-hearted Federal Visionist often says, “baptism is baptism.” Obviously, this is a regurgitation of the Roman Catholic heresy of baptismal regeneration.

The Reformed faith has always held that there are two baptisms: water baptism and Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism is where the action is: regeneration, union with Christ, Covenant of Grace Membership, Invisible Church Membership, etc. Water baptism is where you get wet in front of the church.

Anyone should be able to see the clear difference between these two kinds of baptism. The failure to distinguish water baptism from spirit baptism means that you have exited the Reformed freeway and are now on the Roman road, ecclesially speaking.

One of the great things about the current Anti-Federal Visionist reign of terror is that it unites all Christians under the label “Reformed,” including Baptists (as long as you are willing to be called a “Reformed Baptist”). This is because baptism has nothing to do with being Reformed. Thus, a Reformed Baptist is just as Reformed as a Presbyterian. There’s no difference!

Sure, there are superficial differences in their practice of baptism: Reformed Baptists use a lot of water whereas Presbyterians only use a little. Presbyterians baptize babies whereas Reformed Baptists only baptize the elect.

While their practices differ, their doctrines of baptism are virtually identical, separated mostly by semantics. Presbyterians sometimes talk about baptism as a “means of grace,” but after thoroughly qualifying this, they are on the same ground as Reformed Baptists.

Thus, the key to being Reformed is whether you are a Tulipist or not. (Side note: we hesitate to say Calvinist because Calvin’s view of baptism may have been proto-FV. We’re not sure because we don’t bother reading primary sources anymore. Better to site Reformed scholars like Kuyper and Ryrie).

In summary, to be Reformed, you only have to believe in TULIP. That’s it! Everyone who is Tulipistic is Reformed. Here’s an easy tautology to remember this:

Reformed = TULIP

Getting back to the task at hand, what Paul means by “one baptism” is that there is one real baptism or one genuine baptism, which is, of course, Spirit baptism. While water baptism is probably important for some reason, Spirit baptism is the only one that really counts.

(See here for how to circumvent the obviously-Tridentine language of the Nicene Creed.)