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.)

1 Timothy 2:5-6

“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:5-6).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Christ gave himself as a ransom for all. Conversely, such a sentiment denies Limited Atonement, the doctrine that is one of the fundamentals of our modern Reformed cul-de-sac.

The Reformed faith has unanimously insisted that Christ died for the elect only. His death was sufficient, efficient, and beneficent for the elect only. In no way did Christ “give himself” for “all.” In no way was Christ “a ransom” for “all.”

This is known as Limited Atonement, which was first articulated in the Canons of Dordt as one of the Five Points of Calvinism (it is the “L” in TULIP). The Magisterial Reformers, including Boettner, Steele, and Thomas, all held to Limited Atonement.

Federal Visionists are attempting to resurrect the abominable heresy of Amyraldianism, which has been rejected as heterodox and universally condemned by every Reformed creed and blog.

In this passage, the word “all” is a masculine-plural adjective sans antecedent. The lack of a noun means that Paul is using the Genitive of Limitation. Thus, by “all,” Paul does not mean every person, but every kind of person.

Christ gave himself as a ransom for all kinds of people – Dutch Reformed, Swiss Reformed, German Reformed, French Reformed, Scottish Reformed, etc.

1 Samuel 24:3

“He came to the sheepfolds on the way, where there was a cave; and Saul went in to relieve himself” (1 Samuel 24:3).

Federal Visionists and other budding theologians routinely miss the import of passages such as this because they have rejected Reformed hermeneutics.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the most basic hermeneutical principle is distinguishing between law and gospel. Some have difficulty understanding this, but it is as simple as recognizing the differences between indicatives and imperatives.

The law comes to us in imperatives, such as “abide in me,” “deny yourself” or “repent and believe.” These are commands, which are designed to bring terror.

The gospel comes to us in indicatives, such as “there is none who does good,” “there is none righteous,” or “all our righteousness is as filthy rags.” These are indicatives, which are designed to bring comfort.

Every verse in the Bible is either law or gospel, either terror or comfort. Being Reformed means having the skill to distinguish the law from the gospel. On the other hand, confusing law and gospel is the quickest ticket to Rome and her suburbs (e.g., CREC, CoE, EO, etc.).

So, what is 1 Samuel 24:3? Is this law or gospel? Clearly, this is an indicative statement, which means that this is gospel. Thus, Saul’s bowel movement is designed to bring you comfort, not terror.

Mark 8:34

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Mark 8:34).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that salvation hinges on whether you deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus. However, this completely confuses the gospel with discipleship.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. That is, in justification, God only takes into account the presence of faith. Those who attempt to add conditions to promote a certain “quality” of faith are smuggling works into the gospel.

Unfortunately, Federal Visionists are among those who claim that “saving” faith must be a “self-denying faith,” a “taking-up-your-cross faith,” and a “following-Jesus faith.” Obviously, they missed the memo by the Reformers that salvation is by faith alone. If you add any conditions, then you are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

This passage is easily understood when we realize that Jesus is speaking to Christians, not unbelievers. Notice that he says, “If anyone wishes to come after Me.” This is not the gospel or the call to salvation. This is the call to discipleship. As a prominent Reformed journal persuasively argues here, discipleship is a fuller experience of life in Jesus.

Once you are saved by faith alone, you are free to deny yourself, take up your cross, follow Jesus, and thus, become a disciple. Or, not. It’s your choice. Protecting sola fide means maintaining a strict distinction between salvation and discipleship.

Romans 13:10

“Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that if they love their neighbor, then they will fulfill the law. This is a blatant denial of the most sacred of all doctrines, the IAOCNHWI (imputation of the active obedience of Christ – no hope without it).

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we cannot fulfill the law in any way, shape, or form. All we can do is rest in finished work of Christ and receive the blessed IAOCNHWI. There is none righteous (Romans 3:10); that is why we need the IAOCNHWI. All our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), and so, we are dependent upon the IAOCNHWI.

If you try to love your neighbor, you are putting yourself back under the law. You are better off not even trying to love your neighbor, but rather resting in the IAOCNHWI. Thank God for IAOCNHWI! No hope without it!

Exodus 20:11

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God created the world in six days. This naïveté betrays the anti-intellectualism of the Federal Vision.

The Modern Reformed faith has always held that the first chapter of Genesis is poetic, and as everyone knows, poetry cannot be used to convey history. Poetry always compromises accuracy.

This becomes even more clear when we notice that the sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there were mornings and evenings for the first three days, not to mention the creation of light on the first day.

The only explanation for this chronological gaffe is that God is communicating poetically rather than historically. This violation of the law of non-contradiction leads us to the obvious conclusion that we cannot not take this account literally. Thus, the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created.

Federal Visionists wrongly accuse us of being dishonest with the text. On the contrary, our position is not only honest, but heroic. When the doctrine of the Creation ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given us, we openly rejected it. We preached against it. We took every risk.

Luke 24:46-47

“Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus wants the church to proclaim repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as if there is some link between repentance and forgiveness. Of course, this is nothing but works righteousness, attempting to out-pelagian Pelagius.

The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is obtained by justification, which is received by faith alone. Obviously, this excludes works such as repentance.

Notwithstanding, some still insist on taking Jesus’ words literally. So, what did Jesus mean by “repentance for forgiveness of sins?”

Here’s where knowing Greek helps us stay Reformed. “Repentance” comes from two Greek words: meta (change) and noiea (mind). So, repentance is simply changing your mind. Repentance has nothing to do with the so-called “turning from sin.” This kind of repentance is entirely optional. You can find more Reformed thoughts on repentance here.

Matthew 6:6

“But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:6).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that Jesus is offering a reward for those who pray in secret. They argue that this promise of the reward should help motivate us to pray in secret. Obviously, this is anti-Reformed.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that our only motive for obedience is gratitude. We hear God’s law, then we feel guilty for not being perfect, then we remember the grace of God, then we obey out of gratitude. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else, and you are not Reformed.

God may reward us, but we are not supposed to think about this. We are never to be motivated by the promise of rewards. Certainly, God would never base rewards on such works as “praying in secret” or “fasting in secret.” Rewards imply Pelagianism. It is best to ignore those who speak of rewards.

James 2:21

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” (James 2:21).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Abraham was justified by works. They argue that there are different types/aspects/perspectives of justification. They speak of initial justification, ongoing justification, and final justification. Obviously, such sentiments are not even remotely Reformed.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. There is no further justification or final justification. Period. No further discussion is necessary.

So, what are we to do when someone brings up James 2? We have found a catch phrase that effectively dismisses any Federal Visionists who dares to bring up James 2 or any other Biblical argument. We simply say, “Every heretic quotes the Bible.”

The power of this phrase is stunning. There is no possible rebuttal. This is the ultimate smokescreen. It is like a magic bullet or a get-out-of-jail-free card. It completely disarms your opponent because the more he quotes the Bible, the more he looks like a heretic. It works every time!

This is the Catch-22 that Federal Visionists find themselves in. If they quote the Bible, they’re heretics. If they don’t quote the Bible, they’re heretics. They're damned if they do and damned if they don’t. And, in their case, literally!

Isaiah 45:4

“For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me” (Isaiah 45:4).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God is referring to all of Israel as “My chosen one,” including both the saved and unsaved under the one title of “elect.” Thus, Federal Visionists argue that one can be “elect” corporately, but “non-elect” soteriologically. However, this so-called corporate election is a myth designed to overthrow the Reformed tradition.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that election can only mean election unto to eternal life. You will not find corporate election or ecclesial election in any of the Reformed Confessions. On the contrary, in Reformed theology, election is always identical to salvation.

We freely recognize that the Bible speaks of election in differing ways, but Reformed theology has never made an allowance for these different kinds of election. Remember, we dare not add or subtract from the Modern Reformed magisterium. Semper Reformanda is a slogan, not a policy.

Romans 3:20

“Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Romans 3:20).

Federal Visionists frequently misunderstand this verse to mean that no one can be justified by works of the Law. However, this is a rejection of Covenant Theology.

The Reformed faith has always held that the Covenant of Works offers life to those who keep the law perfectly. Of course, none of us could do this, but Jesus did keep the law for us. His works of the law are credited to us. Thus, we are justified by works, that is, by the works of Christ.

Admittedly, this sounds bizarre, but it is simply the ancient sprouline gospel that the Reformed faith has always proclaimed.

Matthew 6:14-15

“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” (Matthew 6:14-15).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that Jesus is making the forgiveness of our sins contingent upon whether we forgive the sins of others. Obviously, this is as Pelagian as the day is long.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we receive the forgiveness of sins in justification by faith alone. Whether we forgive the sins of others has nothing to do with the forgiveness of our sins.

In this passage, Jesus was simply restating the demands of the law to show us the futility of trying to obey. If you forgive others, then you are putting yourself back under the law. Faith means that we rest in Christ by refusing to forgive others.

Frankly, we are a little puzzled at this statement by Jesus. Unfortunately, we cannot just call him up on the telephone to find out what he meant. However, if we could, we are sure that Jesus would re-align himself with Reformed tradition. He was such a fan of traditionalism, in general.

Romans 9:31-32

“But, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone” (Romans 9:31-32).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think Paul is saying that Israel should have pursued the Mosaic Covenant by faith rather than by works. Paul allegedly argues that Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, but they did not “arrive” at the law because they pursued the law by works. If Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, then this would mean that the Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant of Grace rather than a Covenant of Works. Obviously, this is neo-Shepherdian-legalism.

The Reformed faith has unanimously insisted that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works. The Mosaic Covenant did not require faith; it required absolute perfection. Thus, Israel was correct to pursue it by works rather than by faith. Israel failed because they were not perfect, not because they did or did not have faith. Faith has nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.

Ephesians 1:3

“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” (Ephesians 1:3).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God gives every spiritual blessing to those who are in Christ. They argue that when we are united with Christ, it is through this union that we receive justification, adoption, redemption, etc. Besides disturbing the sacred ordo salutis, this reveals the corrupt hearts of Federal Visionists.

First, the Reformed faith has always held that justification is the heart of the gospel; it is the foundation of our salvation. Everything starts with justification. Without justification, there is no union with Christ. We cannot be united to Christ without first receiving his righteousness in justification (which we receive by divine fiat). Once we are justified, we receive all the other unimportant parts of salvation (union with Christ, adoption, redemption, etc.).

Second, we need to remember that in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul is not dealing with the gospel. As you may have noticed, Paul does not mention justification at all in Ephesians. There is a simple explanation for this: Ephesians is about ecclesiology, not soteriology. If you want to understand Reformed soteriology, study Romans and Galatians, not Ephesians.

Romans 13:8

“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that it is possible for sinners to fulfill the law. However, this is thinly-disguised Pelagianism.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the law requires absolute perfection. Since we have all sinned, it is impossible for any mere man to fulfill the law.

Furthermore, no one loves his neighbor perfectly, and so, no one “fulfills” the law. Only Jesus loves perfectly, and thus, only Jesus can fulfill the law. Paul must be referring to the fact that we receive Jesus’ law keeping in the imputation the active obedience of Christ. Thus, we should be moved to love out of gratitude, knowing that love does not fulfill the law.

Psalm 119:165

“Those who love Your law have great peace, And nothing causes them to stumble” (Psalm 119:165).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that it is possible for sinners to love the law. However, this is a blatant denial of Total Depravity.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the law only brings a knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). Thus, no Christian could ever say that they love the law. That is impossible.

If we look more closely at David’s statement, we notice that he is simply making the comment that those who love the law will have great peace. Well, who has great peace? This can only describe Jesus. Only Jesus loves the law, and only Jesus can have great peace.

Jesus loves the law. We don’t. What’s so hard to understand about this?

A Brave New World

Federal Visionists love to paint themselves as “Biblicists” who take the Bible at face value. They accuse us of placing tradition above God’s word.

Admittedly, we are more familiar with the Reformed confessions, but as we have unmistakably proven over the past month, we are quite capable of handling God’s earlier revelation when necessary.

As much as the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible has ministered to the elect, we would have an even greater advantage over our foes if we had our own version of the Bible. Perhaps NAPARC could be persuaded to publish a new translation to bring the light of the Reformation to God’s word.

This would make our job of rebutting Federal Visionists even easier. We could clarify some of Jesus’ careless statements, insert “alone” where Paul mistakenly left it out, and edit those pesky passages in James where he confusedly speaks of "justification" by works and not by faith alone.

In general, we could bring the Bible into line with the magisterium of twenty-first century reformed thought. We could call it the “Modern Reformation Bible.”

Matthew 18:23-35

“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart” (Matthew 18:23-35).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus is teaching that the forgiveness of our sins is conditioned upon how we forgive others. They even go so far as to say that it is possible to lose the forgiveness of sins. Clearly, this heinous doctrine is outright Pelagian, Arminian, and Romaninian.

The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is received by faith alone in justification. Justification and forgiveness of sins are permanent realities that can never be lost. Once someone has made a profession of faith, he should never doubt whether his sins have been forgiven. He should simply rest in the finished work of Christ.

Jesus is not seriously teaching that someone can lose their forgiveness. Even in this parable, the wicked slave is not “unforgiven.” He simply has to re-pay the debt that his master had forgiven. So, the wicked slave does not ever lose forgiveness; he merely forfeits fellowship with his master.

Also, Jesus is obviously using the Covenant of Works to show his disciples that they cannot accomplish the righteousness of God on their own. The standard is perfection. Unless we forgive perfectly, we have failed. Thus, we would be better off not even trying to forgive others, but rather to rest in the perfect righteousness of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Jesus says, “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you,” this is a hypothetical warning. Jesus is trying to put the fear of God into the disciples (not that fear should be a motive. Gratitude is our only motive for obedience).

Besides, this is just a parable. Everyone knows that parables were given to simplify Jesus’ message for the masses, so that they would not miss the main point. The details are arbitrary and cannot be taken literally.

Notice also how Federal Visionists rely heavily on Jesus. It is important to remember that Jesus did not leave any of his writings behind. He never saw the gospels and did not have the chance to edit, polish, or correct any misquotations. Jesus certainly would have submitted his writings to critical peer review so that he could have clarified his message before it went to print.

Alas, Matthew and the other gospel writers are simply paparazzi who gave us a lot of off-the-cuff remarks and off-the-record statements that Jesus may not have wanted published. For precise theology, it is better to stick with trained theologians like Paul and graduates of NAPARC seminaries.

Psalm 18:20-24

“The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, And have not wickedly departed from my God. For all His ordinances were before me, And I did not put away His statutes from me. I was also blameless with Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity. Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes” (Psalm 18:20-24).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that David is speaking of himself, and therefore, it is proper for all Christians to speak this way. This is pure folly.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that man is totally depraved. This means that we can never say anything good about ourselves. Yet, look at what David attributes to “himself”:

· Righteousness
· Cleanness of his hands
· Keeping the ways of the Lord
· Not departing from the Lord’s statutes
· Blameless with the Lord
· Keeping himself from his iniquity
· His righteousness (again)
· Cleanness of his hands in the Lord’s eyes (again)

We know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10) and that “all our righteousness is as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). Thus, it is quite impossible that David is saying all of this about himself.

This passage is probably a prophecy about Jesus, because only Jesus kept the Covenant of Works perfectly. Another possibility is the David is speaking about his position in Christ. We have pointed out that other passages (like this and this and this) where someone claims to be “righteous,” they are obviously speaking of positional righteousness, not intrinsic righteousness.

This brings up an important point. When someone asks us how we are doing, we often respond, “good.” Is this an accurate response? No! As Jesus said, “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18), so none of us should ever hint that we are “good.” It would be better to reply, “I’m not perfect, just forgiven.”

Acts 2:38

“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance and/or baptism is somehow linked with the forgiveness of sins. However, there is no reason to take this verse with such wooden literalism.

As we have described earlier, the Reformed faith has always insisted that, in justification, we receive the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s passive obedience, and we receive the righteousness of Christ through Christ’s active obedience. This justification is received by faith alone.

Thus, neither repentance nor baptism have anything to do with justification or the forgiveness of sins. In no way is Peter establishing a cause and effect between repentance and forgiveness of sins (which is legalism) or between baptism and forgiveness of sins (which is baptismal regeneration).

Unfortunately, this verse has made its way into the Nicene Creed in the line, “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” This poses a problem because no who is truly Reformed can confess this as it stands. Several options have been suggested:

1) Some churches do not use the Nicene Creed at all. This is certainly a viable option. After all, the Nicene Creed lacks any mention of justification by faith alone, which is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Thus, the Nicene Creed is rather unimportant historically.

2) Other churches drop this line, which is another option. Certainly, no non-Reformed Confession is inerrant.

3) Many churches insert an asterisk (*) with a disclaimer saying, “we don’t really believe this.”

4) One new trend is to slightly alter the wording to make the creed orthodox. Here are some examples:

· “We don’t acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
· “We acknowledge one baptism, but for the remission of sins, faith alone is required.”
· “Heretics acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”

Matthew 19:14

“But Jesus said, ‘Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these’” (Matthew 19:14).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus wants children coming to him during the Lord’s Supper, i.e., paedocommunion. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, Federal Visionists repeatedly wrench verses out of their context to fabricate their wretched doctrines, such as paedocommunion. The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected paedocommunion as heterodox.

The first three rules of exegesis are context, context, context. A brief perusal of this passage indicates that the Lord’s Supper is nowhere in view, either in the near context or far context.

However, baptism is clearly what Jesus was referring to. We can tell this because when Jesus says, “Do not hinder them from coming to Me,” the word “coming” is an aorist infinitive, which implies a one-time action.

Thus, Jesus is saying, do not hinder them from coming to Jesus in baptism (a one-time action), but do hinder them from coming to Jesus in the Lord’s Supper (ongoing action, albeit infrequent).

Acts 11:18

“When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:18).

Federal Visionists love passages like this because it sounds as if repentance leads to eternal life. Beware! Such slippery eisegesis makes grace conditional, denying sola gratia and sola fide.

As David Gadbois has helpfully pointed out here, the Reformers universally rejected repentance as a condition of justification. Justification has nothing to do with repentance. Once you have been justified, you can repent if you want. Remember, justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is optional.

So, what about the so-called “repentance that leads to life?” Notice how the Federal Visionists eisegetically stretch “life” to mean “eternal life.” Unfortunately, this shoddy handling of the word of God is typical in FV circles.

In this passage, “eternal life” is not in view. “Life” simply refers to the quality of our fellowship with God. You can think of this as “HD” fellowship. “Repentance that leads to life” means that repentance leads to a more fulfilling relationship with God.

So, while repentance is somewhat necessary for fellowshipping with God, let us be clear that “eternal life” in no way depends upon repentance.

As you know, the Reformed faith is under constant attack by the Federal Vision and other heretics, but we can be thankful for our friends over at Greenbaggins and especially the Grace Evangelical Society (love their web address – faithalone.org!). Together, these stalwart defenders of the Reformed faith are fighting to make sure that faith is always alone.

Psalm 119:97

“O how I love Your law!” (Psalm 119:97).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that David is actually expressing love for the law. However, this is simply neo-legalism.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the law is repugnant to man, as Paul states, “For by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). Since the law only brings the knowledge of sin, it is impossible for anyone to say anything positive about the law, particularly that they “love” the law.

The one exception is, of course, Jesus, who was sinless. So, the law did not bring the knowledge of sin to him. Thus, when David says that he loves the law, he must be speaking from the perspective of Jesus. Jesus loves the law. Christians do not. Anyone who says they love the law is not Reformed.

Matthew 12:37

"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:37).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we will be justified by our words, which they use to support two of their most nefarious doctrines: 1) justification apart from faith; and 2) future justification. Obviously, these Pelagian doctrines bear little resemblance to the solas.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification can only refer to the forensic declaration of righteousness that is received by faith alone. Our words have nothing to do with justification. This is simply works-righteousness repackaged as the gospel, which is no gospel at all.

Furthermore, no Reformed theologian has ever held to a “future justification” or a so-called “future-aspect of justification.” The only kind of justification that is future is for the elect who are not yet justified.

When Jesus said, “by your words you will be justified,” there is no reason to assume that he is meant spoken words. Spoken words would be a work, and we know that “a man is justified by faith apart from works” (Romans 3:28). Jesus must be referring to words of the mind, or thoughts. As soon as you can think the thought, “I believe in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ” then you have faith and you are justified by this faith that is alone. Praise God for sola fide!