“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!
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 24, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, March 21, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 17, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
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!
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!
Friday, March 14, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
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!
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!
Friday, March 7, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
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!
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!
Monday, March 3, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)