"Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (Romans 4:23-25).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that the resurrection has something to do with justification. However, this is utterly Tridentine.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification only involves the life and death of Jesus. Jesus’ life (law-keeping) is given to us in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Jesus’ death (payment for sin) is given to us in the imputation of passive obedience of Christ.
The resurrection has nothing to do with justification. The resurrection is probably important for other reasons, but it has no place in the Reformed doctrine of justification.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Distinguishing Words and Terms
Federal Visionists love to portray themselves as “Biblicists” who take the Bible at face value as argued here. However, such posturing is simply rebellion against the Reformation.
The Reformed faith has always insisted upon distinguishing between words and terms. The Bible uses words. Reformed theology uses terms. The difference is enormous. When a word is given a technical definition, it ceases to be merely a word and becomes a term. Once a word attains the status of a “term,” it can never be used as simply a “word.” This is how God works in history.
Thus, certain parts of the Bible should not be read without heavy qualifications. Otherwise, people will be confused and think that the Bible contradicts the Reformed faith.
The Reformed faith has always insisted upon distinguishing between words and terms. The Bible uses words. Reformed theology uses terms. The difference is enormous. When a word is given a technical definition, it ceases to be merely a word and becomes a term. Once a word attains the status of a “term,” it can never be used as simply a “word.” This is how God works in history.
Thus, certain parts of the Bible should not be read without heavy qualifications. Otherwise, people will be confused and think that the Bible contradicts the Reformed faith.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Is Biblical Usage Primary?
Federal Visionists love to boast about being "Biblicists," claiming that we should to use Bible words in the way the Bible uses them. Not only are claims like this hopelessly naive, they are downright dangerous.
Once a technical definition has been established by the Reformed faith, we must insist that such a definition be the only way that a particular word is ever used, regardless of what the Bible or anyone else says. If we insist that the Biblical usage of words is primary, then we run the risk of contradicting the Reformed faith. This is the road to Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, and Moscow (not the one in Russia).
Once a technical definition has been established by the Reformed faith, we must insist that such a definition be the only way that a particular word is ever used, regardless of what the Bible or anyone else says. If we insist that the Biblical usage of words is primary, then we run the risk of contradicting the Reformed faith. This is the road to Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, and Moscow (not the one in Russia).
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
1 Corinthians 13:2
"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:2).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds as if Paul is saying that faith alone is not enough. However, this kind of exegesis is historically naïve.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone (sola fide). Love is not part of faith, and thus, love is not a requirement for salvation. Love is a work and cannot be included in salvation in any way without compromising the gospel of sola fide. So, Paul does not really mean that faith without love is “nothing.” He is just exaggerating to make a point about how we should obey from gratitude.
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds as if Paul is saying that faith alone is not enough. However, this kind of exegesis is historically naïve.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone (sola fide). Love is not part of faith, and thus, love is not a requirement for salvation. Love is a work and cannot be included in salvation in any way without compromising the gospel of sola fide. So, Paul does not really mean that faith without love is “nothing.” He is just exaggerating to make a point about how we should obey from gratitude.
Monday, January 21, 2008
James 4:6
"God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds as if God gives grace to the humble. However, this interpretation reverses the classic ordo salutis.
When a Federal Visionist says that God gives grace to the humble, he is making humility a condition of grace. Yet, the Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is unconditional. If a condition is added to grace, then grace ceases to be grace and becomes merit.
Besides, no one can humble themselves before they receive the grace of God. This is impossible. And, really, no one can humble themselves even after they receive the grace of God. “There is none who does good” (Romans 3:12).
If we bring the light of the Reformation to James, then we see that he is simply employing one of our favorite paradigms. James is giving the law (you must be humble), so that the readers will feel guilty for failing to keep the law, which will drive them to reflect upon the grace of God, which will then move them to gratitude. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
You may have notice how much Federal Visionists rely on the book of James. Beware of those who quote James. This is dangerous. James is rather loose with his terms. He fails to use “justification” in the Reformed sense, contradicting sola fide.
James was one of the last books to be approved as canonical. James was barely an apostle, and some dispute this. He lacked the formal education of Paul. Luther rightly referred to James as a “strawy” epistle. While we respect some of the practical things that James says, we cannot allow his writings to influence our theology. Paul is much safer ground if you want to stay Reformed.
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds as if God gives grace to the humble. However, this interpretation reverses the classic ordo salutis.
When a Federal Visionist says that God gives grace to the humble, he is making humility a condition of grace. Yet, the Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is unconditional. If a condition is added to grace, then grace ceases to be grace and becomes merit.
Besides, no one can humble themselves before they receive the grace of God. This is impossible. And, really, no one can humble themselves even after they receive the grace of God. “There is none who does good” (Romans 3:12).
If we bring the light of the Reformation to James, then we see that he is simply employing one of our favorite paradigms. James is giving the law (you must be humble), so that the readers will feel guilty for failing to keep the law, which will drive them to reflect upon the grace of God, which will then move them to gratitude. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
You may have notice how much Federal Visionists rely on the book of James. Beware of those who quote James. This is dangerous. James is rather loose with his terms. He fails to use “justification” in the Reformed sense, contradicting sola fide.
James was one of the last books to be approved as canonical. James was barely an apostle, and some dispute this. He lacked the formal education of Paul. Luther rightly referred to James as a “strawy” epistle. While we respect some of the practical things that James says, we cannot allow his writings to influence our theology. Paul is much safer ground if you want to stay Reformed.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
John 15:6
"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 15:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this refers to “covenant breakers.” However, this is thinly-disguised Arminianism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Covenant of Grace is unbreakable because “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16).
Some have argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to hell. Those who do not abide in Christ are those who never were “in Christ.” They never did abide in Christ. They might have looked like it, but they were never united to Christ, and thus could never abide in him.
While this interpretation has some support in Reformed churches, we prefer the view put forth by the renowned scholar Charles Ryrie. Ryrie has cogently argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to the judgment of those who built their lives on wood, hay, and straw. Yet, notice that “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Ryrie deftly defends the gospel from conditions such as “abiding in Christ.” This is simply works-righteousness packaged as the gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. Praise God for men like Charles Ryrie, who help protect the solas.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this refers to “covenant breakers.” However, this is thinly-disguised Arminianism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Covenant of Grace is unbreakable because “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16).
Some have argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to hell. Those who do not abide in Christ are those who never were “in Christ.” They never did abide in Christ. They might have looked like it, but they were never united to Christ, and thus could never abide in him.
While this interpretation has some support in Reformed churches, we prefer the view put forth by the renowned scholar Charles Ryrie. Ryrie has cogently argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to the judgment of those who built their lives on wood, hay, and straw. Yet, notice that “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Ryrie deftly defends the gospel from conditions such as “abiding in Christ.” This is simply works-righteousness packaged as the gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. Praise God for men like Charles Ryrie, who help protect the solas.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Matthew 24:13
"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds like Jesus is making endurance a condition of salvation. However, this is blatantly Roman Catholic, Arminian, and Pelagian.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia). Salvation is unconditional. When Federal Visionists attempt to add conditions, such as endurance, to the gospel, then they are offering a works gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
Federal Visionists try to squeeze too much out of this passage. There is no cause and effect here. Jesus is simply remarking that some who endure are saved. Jesus says nothing about those who do not endure; some are saved and some are not. It depends upon whether they are elect or not.
The elect who endure will be saved, and the elect who do not endure will be saved. The non-elect are not saved, whether they endure or not. Remember, election is unconditional, which means that endurance is optional. In no way does salvation depend upon endurance.
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds like Jesus is making endurance a condition of salvation. However, this is blatantly Roman Catholic, Arminian, and Pelagian.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia). Salvation is unconditional. When Federal Visionists attempt to add conditions, such as endurance, to the gospel, then they are offering a works gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
Federal Visionists try to squeeze too much out of this passage. There is no cause and effect here. Jesus is simply remarking that some who endure are saved. Jesus says nothing about those who do not endure; some are saved and some are not. It depends upon whether they are elect or not.
The elect who endure will be saved, and the elect who do not endure will be saved. The non-elect are not saved, whether they endure or not. Remember, election is unconditional, which means that endurance is optional. In no way does salvation depend upon endurance.
Friday, January 18, 2008
James 2:14
"What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14).
Federal Visionists love this passage because when James asks whether faith without works can save, he anticipates a negative answer (due to the presence of the Greek particle me at the beginning of the sentence). Thus, James is boldly declaring that faith alone cannot save, which seems like a blatant contradiction of sola fide.
However, there is no reason to ditch the historic Reformed faith. As the esteemed commentator Zane Hodges has pointed out, the word “save” probably refers to being “rescued” from trials. James is not speaking about eternal salvation but earthly deliverance, namely that faith without works cannot deliver us from earthly trials. Thank God for men like Zane Hodges who are committed to protecting sola fide!
Federal Visionists love this passage because when James asks whether faith without works can save, he anticipates a negative answer (due to the presence of the Greek particle me at the beginning of the sentence). Thus, James is boldly declaring that faith alone cannot save, which seems like a blatant contradiction of sola fide.
However, there is no reason to ditch the historic Reformed faith. As the esteemed commentator Zane Hodges has pointed out, the word “save” probably refers to being “rescued” from trials. James is not speaking about eternal salvation but earthly deliverance, namely that faith without works cannot deliver us from earthly trials. Thank God for men like Zane Hodges who are committed to protecting sola fide!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
John 15:2
"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away” (John 15:2).
Federal Visionists love passages like this because Jesus says that someone can be in Christ, but if he does not bear fruit, he will be taken away. Federal Visionists argue that this is referring to non-elect covenant members (NECMs) who are “in Me” yet “taken away.” Obviously, this violates nearly every sola.
First, there is no such thing as an NECM. Neither the Westminster Standards nor the Three Forms of Unity allow for this. The Reformed faith has unequivocally taught that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect and is, therefore, unbreakable: “They will all know me” (Jeremiah 31:34). Election goes hand-in-hand with covenant membership.
Second, we are saved by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide). Election is unconditional, and so our salvation cannot depend upon whether we bear fruit or not. Obedience is optional.
So, what does Jesus mean by “he takes away.” Since the elect cannot lose their salvation, this must be a hypothetical warning. Jesus is just trying to scare the disciples, kind of like parents who never carry out their threats.
Federal Visionists love passages like this because Jesus says that someone can be in Christ, but if he does not bear fruit, he will be taken away. Federal Visionists argue that this is referring to non-elect covenant members (NECMs) who are “in Me” yet “taken away.” Obviously, this violates nearly every sola.
First, there is no such thing as an NECM. Neither the Westminster Standards nor the Three Forms of Unity allow for this. The Reformed faith has unequivocally taught that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect and is, therefore, unbreakable: “They will all know me” (Jeremiah 31:34). Election goes hand-in-hand with covenant membership.
Second, we are saved by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide). Election is unconditional, and so our salvation cannot depend upon whether we bear fruit or not. Obedience is optional.
So, what does Jesus mean by “he takes away.” Since the elect cannot lose their salvation, this must be a hypothetical warning. Jesus is just trying to scare the disciples, kind of like parents who never carry out their threats.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Romans 6:17
"But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed" (Romans 6:17).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds like Paul is saying that obedience can come from our hearts. This is sheer Arminianism.
Our hearts are “more deceitful than all else and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9). This is total depravity. To suggest that our hearts can be obedient is to contradict historic Calvinism.
Notice that Paul does not say, “you became obedient from your heart.” He says, “you became obedient from the heart.” Obviously, this is referring to the heart of Christ because only Jesus’ heart can be obedient.
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds like Paul is saying that obedience can come from our hearts. This is sheer Arminianism.
Our hearts are “more deceitful than all else and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9). This is total depravity. To suggest that our hearts can be obedient is to contradict historic Calvinism.
Notice that Paul does not say, “you became obedient from your heart.” He says, “you became obedient from the heart.” Obviously, this is referring to the heart of Christ because only Jesus’ heart can be obedient.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
James 2:12
"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty" (James 2:12).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think it shows a positive use of the law, as if “the law of liberty” refers to the law setting us free. However, there is no reason to take James to mean this.
The Reformed faith has always taught that the law only brings us a knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19-20). In no way does the law set us free. This is the path to legalism!
Notice, too, that this comes just before James 2:14-26, where James makes some rather unguarded statements about justification. Remember that James is not a systematic theologian. He writes on a practical level. Thus, the Reformed faith has rightly disregarded James when it comes to systematic theology.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think it shows a positive use of the law, as if “the law of liberty” refers to the law setting us free. However, there is no reason to take James to mean this.
The Reformed faith has always taught that the law only brings us a knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19-20). In no way does the law set us free. This is the path to legalism!
Notice, too, that this comes just before James 2:14-26, where James makes some rather unguarded statements about justification. Remember that James is not a systematic theologian. He writes on a practical level. Thus, the Reformed faith has rightly disregarded James when it comes to systematic theology.
Monday, January 14, 2008
1 Corinthians 15:58
"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58).
Federal Visionists love verses like this because it sounds as if Paul wants us to do something so that our “toil” in the Lord is not in vain. However, such an interpretation betrays the anti-Calvinist flavor of the Federal Vision.
God is sovereign, and we are not. God does not depend upon us in any way. In fact, it is impossible for our toil to be in vain. God has foreordained it, and so it cannot be in vain. Beware of anyone who wants to say that God depends upon us in any way. This is Arminian!
Federal Visionists love verses like this because it sounds as if Paul wants us to do something so that our “toil” in the Lord is not in vain. However, such an interpretation betrays the anti-Calvinist flavor of the Federal Vision.
God is sovereign, and we are not. God does not depend upon us in any way. In fact, it is impossible for our toil to be in vain. God has foreordained it, and so it cannot be in vain. Beware of anyone who wants to say that God depends upon us in any way. This is Arminian!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Genesis 7:1
"Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time" (Genesis 7:1).
Federal Visionists love to argue that verses like this prove that man can be righteous apart from God. Pelagian alert! This is simply twisting the Scriptures for their own benefit.
We know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, this verse must be speaking of positional righteousness, not experiential righteousness.
So, when the Lord says that he “sees” that Noah is righteous, the Lord sees Noah wrapped in the robes of righteousness that only come through the righteousness of Christ (Zechariah 3:1-5).
Federal Visionists love to argue that verses like this prove that man can be righteous apart from God. Pelagian alert! This is simply twisting the Scriptures for their own benefit.
We know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, this verse must be speaking of positional righteousness, not experiential righteousness.
So, when the Lord says that he “sees” that Noah is righteous, the Lord sees Noah wrapped in the robes of righteousness that only come through the righteousness of Christ (Zechariah 3:1-5).
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Romans 1:5
"Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake" (Romans 1:5).
Federal Visionists verses like this because they think that Paul is saying that faith can obey. This is sheer Romanism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that faith is not a work. Faith does nothing but rest in the active obedience of Christ. If you try to get your faith to obey, then you are failing to rest in Christ. Christ has done it all so that you can do nothing!
Federal Visionists verses like this because they think that Paul is saying that faith can obey. This is sheer Romanism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that faith is not a work. Faith does nothing but rest in the active obedience of Christ. If you try to get your faith to obey, then you are failing to rest in Christ. Christ has done it all so that you can do nothing!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Ephesians 1:3-4
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:3-4).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is speaking of ecclesial election rather than soteriological election. Do not be deceived. There is no such animal as ecclesial election. This is an invention of Federal heretics like Steve Wilkins.
For those who are non-scholars, you may have noticed that our English translations do not mention “election.” However, the Greek does. When Paul writes, “He chose us,” the word “chose” could also be translated as “elected.” Paul is saying that God “elected” us. This is simply the classic Reformed doctrine of election.
Federal Visionists have muddied the waters by trying to insert two kinds of election into the Scriptures: ecclesial and soteriological. That is, some are “elected” to be members in the visible church, while others are “elected” to eternal salvation. Conversely, the Reformed faith has always insisted that election always refers to eternal salvation.
Federal Visionists point out that Paul seems to use the word “elect” without qualification, meaning that all members of the Ephesian church would be elect. Some Anti-Federal Visionists argue that because Paul was intimately familiar with the church at Ephesus, he knew indisputably that everyone in the church at Ephesus was elect.
While we respect all who battle against Federal Visionists, this interpretation seems doubtful. Most scholars believe that the letter that we call “Ephesians” was actually a circular letter, intended for distribution in multiple churches. It is unlikely that Paul could have insured that only the elect would have read his letter.
We would like to propose the following alternative explanation. When Paul writes, “He chose us,” Paul is obviously using what Greek grammarians call the subjunctive accusative. The word “us” is in the subjunctive mood, which would change the translation slightly: “He chose some of us.” Thus, any church could read this letter with integrity, knowing that only the elect would be assured of their election.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is speaking of ecclesial election rather than soteriological election. Do not be deceived. There is no such animal as ecclesial election. This is an invention of Federal heretics like Steve Wilkins.
For those who are non-scholars, you may have noticed that our English translations do not mention “election.” However, the Greek does. When Paul writes, “He chose us,” the word “chose” could also be translated as “elected.” Paul is saying that God “elected” us. This is simply the classic Reformed doctrine of election.
Federal Visionists have muddied the waters by trying to insert two kinds of election into the Scriptures: ecclesial and soteriological. That is, some are “elected” to be members in the visible church, while others are “elected” to eternal salvation. Conversely, the Reformed faith has always insisted that election always refers to eternal salvation.
Federal Visionists point out that Paul seems to use the word “elect” without qualification, meaning that all members of the Ephesian church would be elect. Some Anti-Federal Visionists argue that because Paul was intimately familiar with the church at Ephesus, he knew indisputably that everyone in the church at Ephesus was elect.
While we respect all who battle against Federal Visionists, this interpretation seems doubtful. Most scholars believe that the letter that we call “Ephesians” was actually a circular letter, intended for distribution in multiple churches. It is unlikely that Paul could have insured that only the elect would have read his letter.
We would like to propose the following alternative explanation. When Paul writes, “He chose us,” Paul is obviously using what Greek grammarians call the subjunctive accusative. The word “us” is in the subjunctive mood, which would change the translation slightly: “He chose some of us.” Thus, any church could read this letter with integrity, knowing that only the elect would be assured of their election.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Acts 20:35
"In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (Acts 20:35).
Federal Visionists and even semi-heretics like John Piper love this passage because Paul says that we should “remember” that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” Federal Visionists argue that by “remember,” Paul means that we should be motivated by the promise of blessing. Unfortunately, such Scripture-twisting demonstrates how far the Federal Visionists are from the historic Reformed faith.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that gratitude is our only motivation for obedience. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
Thus, while Jesus may have said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (actually, this statement is not in the gospels and may be the insertion of a proto-FV redactor), the promise of blessing is not to motivate us.
If blessing does come, we are not to link it with our works, otherwise we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. To be faithful to the Reformed faith, we would do best to concentrate on obeying out of gratitude, rather than remembering the promise, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Federal Visionists and even semi-heretics like John Piper love this passage because Paul says that we should “remember” that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” Federal Visionists argue that by “remember,” Paul means that we should be motivated by the promise of blessing. Unfortunately, such Scripture-twisting demonstrates how far the Federal Visionists are from the historic Reformed faith.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that gratitude is our only motivation for obedience. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
Thus, while Jesus may have said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (actually, this statement is not in the gospels and may be the insertion of a proto-FV redactor), the promise of blessing is not to motivate us.
If blessing does come, we are not to link it with our works, otherwise we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. To be faithful to the Reformed faith, we would do best to concentrate on obeying out of gratitude, rather than remembering the promise, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
James 2:24
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).
Federal Visionists love this entire passage in James 2 because it seems to teach justification by works. They love to point out that the only place in the Bible that says “faith alone” is here, where James says that justification is allegedly “not” by faith alone.
The Reformed faith has always taught that justification is by faith alone (sola fide). Now, the Bible never actually says this, but Paul comes close enough when he says, “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28).
Had James been aware of Paul’s writings, or even more importantly, had James known how the historic Reformed faith would have spoken of justification, James never would have written so carelessly. Then again, James has never been known as a systematic theologian. This drove Luther so nuts that he called James an epistle of “straw.”
While James is not much of a theologian, he is wonderfully practical and good to read for inspiration. However, when it comes to systematic theology, the Reformed faith has rightly looked to Paul rather than James.
Federal Visionists love this entire passage in James 2 because it seems to teach justification by works. They love to point out that the only place in the Bible that says “faith alone” is here, where James says that justification is allegedly “not” by faith alone.
The Reformed faith has always taught that justification is by faith alone (sola fide). Now, the Bible never actually says this, but Paul comes close enough when he says, “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28).
Had James been aware of Paul’s writings, or even more importantly, had James known how the historic Reformed faith would have spoken of justification, James never would have written so carelessly. Then again, James has never been known as a systematic theologian. This drove Luther so nuts that he called James an epistle of “straw.”
While James is not much of a theologian, he is wonderfully practical and good to read for inspiration. However, when it comes to systematic theology, the Reformed faith has rightly looked to Paul rather than James.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Genesis 26:4
"I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws" (Genesis 26:4).
Federal Visionists love to use this verse to show that it is possible for us to keep the law. This is modern-day Pelagianism.
The commandments, statues, and laws of God require absolute perfection. Only Jesus could keep these perfectly. Thus, this passage must be referring to the glorious truth that Christ kept the law for Abraham.
Federal Visionists love to use this verse to show that it is possible for us to keep the law. This is modern-day Pelagianism.
The commandments, statues, and laws of God require absolute perfection. Only Jesus could keep these perfectly. Thus, this passage must be referring to the glorious truth that Christ kept the law for Abraham.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Luke 1:5-6
“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:5-6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it seems to support two of their favorite false doctrines: 1) righteousness does not always mean perfection; 2) keeping the law does not always require perfection. These false doctrines betray theological immaturity and a lack of familiarity with the doctrines of the Reformation.
First, we know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, Luke must be speaking of the positional righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth. They have been righteous in Christ by possessing the alien righteousness of Christ.
Second, Luke does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth actually walked blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. Only Jesus kept the Covenant of Works and merited eternal life by his own righteousness. This must be referring to what Christ accomplished for them. Remember, “all our righteousness is like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it seems to support two of their favorite false doctrines: 1) righteousness does not always mean perfection; 2) keeping the law does not always require perfection. These false doctrines betray theological immaturity and a lack of familiarity with the doctrines of the Reformation.
First, we know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, Luke must be speaking of the positional righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth. They have been righteous in Christ by possessing the alien righteousness of Christ.
Second, Luke does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth actually walked blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. Only Jesus kept the Covenant of Works and merited eternal life by his own righteousness. This must be referring to what Christ accomplished for them. Remember, “all our righteousness is like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
Friday, January 4, 2008
1 Peter 3:21
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21).
Federal Visionists love this verse because Peter says, “baptism now saves you.” By wrenching such statements out of context, this brings them into union with Rome regarding baptismal regeneration.
The Reformed faith has always taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). Baptism is no way saves us. Had Peter known how the Federal Visionists would pervert his statement, he surely would have phrased this differently.
If Peter really meant to say that baptism now saves us, what he meant was that Spirit baptism now saves. When an elect person is regenerated, he is also baptized in the Spirit. This kind of baptism saves us.
While this should be abundantly clear, it is best to far away from any language that sounds remotely Roman, such as "baptism now saves you." It is better to stick with the time-honored solas.
Federal Visionists love this verse because Peter says, “baptism now saves you.” By wrenching such statements out of context, this brings them into union with Rome regarding baptismal regeneration.
The Reformed faith has always taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). Baptism is no way saves us. Had Peter known how the Federal Visionists would pervert his statement, he surely would have phrased this differently.
If Peter really meant to say that baptism now saves us, what he meant was that Spirit baptism now saves. When an elect person is regenerated, he is also baptized in the Spirit. This kind of baptism saves us.
While this should be abundantly clear, it is best to far away from any language that sounds remotely Roman, such as "baptism now saves you." It is better to stick with the time-honored solas.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
2 Corinthians 5:10
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10).
This is one of the favorite passages of the Federal Visionists because at face value, this seems as if Paul is saying that we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to be recompensed for our deeds, according to what we have done, whether good or bad. However, there is no reason to fall for this kind of clumsy exegesis.
First of all, no one does good (Romans 3:12), so half of this verse cannot apply to anyone except Jesus. Only Jesus can be recompensed for the good that he has done.
Second, the word "deeds" is not in the Greek manuscripts! This would be better translated as "things." Unfortunately, this does not help us that much because it still sounds like Paul is saying that we will be judged for what we do. However, we know that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide) through grace alone (sola gratia) in Christ alone (solus christus), so Paul cannot really mean that a person will be judged by any other standard. Thus, the elect will not be judged according to what they have done.
So, to sum up, we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ where
1) Christ will be recompensed for the good things that he has done.
2) The reprobate will be recompensed for the bad things they have done.
3) The elect will have the best seat in the house.
This is one of the favorite passages of the Federal Visionists because at face value, this seems as if Paul is saying that we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to be recompensed for our deeds, according to what we have done, whether good or bad. However, there is no reason to fall for this kind of clumsy exegesis.
First of all, no one does good (Romans 3:12), so half of this verse cannot apply to anyone except Jesus. Only Jesus can be recompensed for the good that he has done.
Second, the word "deeds" is not in the Greek manuscripts! This would be better translated as "things." Unfortunately, this does not help us that much because it still sounds like Paul is saying that we will be judged for what we do. However, we know that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide) through grace alone (sola gratia) in Christ alone (solus christus), so Paul cannot really mean that a person will be judged by any other standard. Thus, the elect will not be judged according to what they have done.
So, to sum up, we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ where
1) Christ will be recompensed for the good things that he has done.
2) The reprobate will be recompensed for the bad things they have done.
3) The elect will have the best seat in the house.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Introduction
Every heretic quotes the Bible. This especially applies to Federal Visionists, as they are quite skilled at overwhelming the unsuspecting with a smokescreen of Scriptures.
We are here to help. Many of us have already thought through these issues. By carefully explaining the pet passages of the Federal Visionists, this blog hopes to be a resource to assist in refuting these slippery snakes. Soli Deo Gloria!
We are here to help. Many of us have already thought through these issues. By carefully explaining the pet passages of the Federal Visionists, this blog hopes to be a resource to assist in refuting these slippery snakes. Soli Deo Gloria!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)