For those who have not yet figured it out, there is an enormous difference between the original Reformation and our Modern Reformation. The original Reformation was largely about re-aligning the church with the Bible. Hence, the expression, “reformed according to the word.”
Many people assume that our Modern Reformation has the same goal, as in continuing to re-align the church with the Bible. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Our Modern Reformation is all about reforming the church, but not according to the word. Our goal is to re-align the church to Meredith Kline’s quirky version of Reformed theology.
Rather than attempting to use Biblical words in their Biblical sense, we have dedicated ourselves to using Biblical words in a strictly Klinian sense. We have also managed to add most of Kline’s extra-Biblical concepts to our Modern Reformed vocabulary.
Thus, the difference between the original Reformation and our Modern Reformation is one of textual orientation. The original Reformation was oriented to the Bible. Our Modern Reformation is oriented to Meredith Kline. This change is known as the textual revolution.
Thus, to be Reformed used to mean “Reformed According to the Word.” Not anymore. Reformed now means Reformed According to Kline (RAK). Thus, unless you have been RAK-ed, you are not “Reformed.”
In just a few years, our textual revolution has swept through the Reformed world. This was no accident of history. Kline’s followers have worked tirelessly at establishing a Holy Sextuplet of organizations dedicated to replacing the Bible with Kline.
1) The magazine, Modern Reformation, has been one of our most effective means of disguising Kline as the historic Reformed faith. Readers assume that because we pair the words “Modern” and “Reformation,” that we are attempting to continue the original Reformation. Amazingly, few realize that we are doing nothing of the sort.
2) Our radio program, The White Horse Inn, has also been a terrific vehicle for recasting the Reformation to march to the tune of Kline. By including a Lutheran and a “Reformed” Baptist, listeners are led to believe that we are broadly Reformed, in the historic sense. Not so! It’s all Kline, all the time.
3) The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) has been a remarkable productive in taking over Calvindom. Many think that “Confessing” simply refers to being bound by the historic Reformed confessions. However, to join ACE, you must confess to a Klinian reading of these confessions. This is why we privately refer to ACE as the Alliance of Constipated Evangelicals.
4) Our flagship school, Westminster Seminary California (WSC), has been instrumental in our hostile takeover of the Reformed world. Obviously, this is a huge advantage because we have the opportunity to brainwash future pastors in the Truly Reformed faith. Our graduates may not be able to navigate the Scriptures, but at least they know how to discern Law and Gospel.
5) The internet has also been a major tool in the Klinsing of Reformed theology. The number of Truly Reformed blogs is Legion. This has allowed first-year seminary students, disgruntled church members, and self-appointed scholars to play a pivotal role in reshaping Reformed thinking.
6) The sixth pearl in our promotion of the Gospel according to Escondido is the attack on the Federal Vision. Although this originated from an unlikely source, we quickly realized the import of jumping on this bandwagon.
We freely admit that the goals of the Federal Vision are more in line with the original Reformation. This is why it is so important that we utterly destroy the Federal Vision. They are the biggest threat to our Modern Deformation of the historic Reformed faith. The AFVSB has been pleased to play a small part in this mutiny.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Luke 2:52
“And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus increased in favor with God. They point out that favor is actually the Greek word charis, which is usually translated as “grace.” Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace. They assert that this is consistent with standard lexical definitions of charis.
Strange as it may sound, the gospel is at stake! The Modern Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that only refers to favor shown to sinners. Grace can never be used in a general sense to mean "favor." If we ever allow this, then we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
One of the glorious implications of our innovative position is that God was not gracious from all eternity. Where there is no sin, there can be no grace. God could not be gracious until Adam sinned. Thus, according to Modern Reformed thinking, God wanted to be gracious but had to wait until man sinned. Thus, God was on the edge of his seat, hoping that Adam would sin, so that God could finally be gracious. Soli Deo Gloria!
For those who are not clear on our rational for this, it is very simple. We must insist that grace can only mean “favor in the presence of sin” because we have a whole host of abstract theological formulations that depend upon this flimsy lexical leap. Remember, the gospel is at stake.
Nevertheless, in order to keep our phoney-baloney commitment to sola scriptura we must tacitly acknowledge Luke’s alleged statement. He does seem to say that Jesus grew in charis with God. This presents a problem for those who believe that Jesus never sinned. How could Jesus grow in the charis of God?
In order to preserve the purity of the gospel of our Modern Reformation, we cannot abandon our ridiculous commitment to narrowly defining charis as “favor in the presence of sin.” Our only choice is to conclude that Jesus must have been a sinner.
Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace because Jesus was a sinner.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus increased in favor with God. They point out that favor is actually the Greek word charis, which is usually translated as “grace.” Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace. They assert that this is consistent with standard lexical definitions of charis.
Strange as it may sound, the gospel is at stake! The Modern Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that only refers to favor shown to sinners. Grace can never be used in a general sense to mean "favor." If we ever allow this, then we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
One of the glorious implications of our innovative position is that God was not gracious from all eternity. Where there is no sin, there can be no grace. God could not be gracious until Adam sinned. Thus, according to Modern Reformed thinking, God wanted to be gracious but had to wait until man sinned. Thus, God was on the edge of his seat, hoping that Adam would sin, so that God could finally be gracious. Soli Deo Gloria!
For those who are not clear on our rational for this, it is very simple. We must insist that grace can only mean “favor in the presence of sin” because we have a whole host of abstract theological formulations that depend upon this flimsy lexical leap. Remember, the gospel is at stake.
Nevertheless, in order to keep our phoney-baloney commitment to sola scriptura we must tacitly acknowledge Luke’s alleged statement. He does seem to say that Jesus grew in charis with God. This presents a problem for those who believe that Jesus never sinned. How could Jesus grow in the charis of God?
In order to preserve the purity of the gospel of our Modern Reformation, we cannot abandon our ridiculous commitment to narrowly defining charis as “favor in the presence of sin.” Our only choice is to conclude that Jesus must have been a sinner.
Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace because Jesus was a sinner.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Luke 2:40
“The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the grace of God was upon Jesus. They are quick to point out that our English word “grace,” as well as the Greek charis, can simply mean “favor.” Thus, Jesus was under the favor, or grace, of God.
Believe it or not, this is an attack on the gospel. The Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that can only refer to favor shown to sinners. Thus, in no sense could Jesus be under the grace of God because Jesus was not a sinner.
This also has profound implications for understanding the time before the fall. Adam was not yet a sinner, and so, in no sense was Adam under the grace of God. Being created and given the privilege of living in the garden may seem grace-like, grace-tastic, and generally, grace-y. However, we must never say this was gracious because Adam was not yet a sinner. God was being nice, but not gracious.
Furthermore, this means that the pre-fall covenant could not have been a covenant of grace. There can be no grace unless sin is present. Since sin did not exist until after the fall, this means that grace could not have existed until after the fall.
Of course, all of this depends upon defining grace as “favor shown to sinners.” Should someone prove that grace does not always carry this precise definition, then our whole system would come crashing down like a house of cards.
This is why we must insist that grace always means “favor shown to sinners,” regardless of any Biblical evidence to the contrary. Being Reformed means stubbornly insisting upon using Biblical words in a far narrower sense than God actually used them in the Bible. Otherwise, you are attacking the gospel.
While Luke allegedly might have said that the grace of God was upon Jesus, no one who is truly Reformed would make such a gaffe. Thus, as a child, Jesus continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was not upon him.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the grace of God was upon Jesus. They are quick to point out that our English word “grace,” as well as the Greek charis, can simply mean “favor.” Thus, Jesus was under the favor, or grace, of God.
Believe it or not, this is an attack on the gospel. The Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that can only refer to favor shown to sinners. Thus, in no sense could Jesus be under the grace of God because Jesus was not a sinner.
This also has profound implications for understanding the time before the fall. Adam was not yet a sinner, and so, in no sense was Adam under the grace of God. Being created and given the privilege of living in the garden may seem grace-like, grace-tastic, and generally, grace-y. However, we must never say this was gracious because Adam was not yet a sinner. God was being nice, but not gracious.
Furthermore, this means that the pre-fall covenant could not have been a covenant of grace. There can be no grace unless sin is present. Since sin did not exist until after the fall, this means that grace could not have existed until after the fall.
Of course, all of this depends upon defining grace as “favor shown to sinners.” Should someone prove that grace does not always carry this precise definition, then our whole system would come crashing down like a house of cards.
This is why we must insist that grace always means “favor shown to sinners,” regardless of any Biblical evidence to the contrary. Being Reformed means stubbornly insisting upon using Biblical words in a far narrower sense than God actually used them in the Bible. Otherwise, you are attacking the gospel.
While Luke allegedly might have said that the grace of God was upon Jesus, no one who is truly Reformed would make such a gaffe. Thus, as a child, Jesus continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was not upon him.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Psalm 7:12
“If a man does not repent, He will sharpen His sword; He has bent His bow and made it ready” (Psalm 7:12).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that David is talking about unbelievers. God will sharpen his sword for unbelievers. God has bent his bow and made it ready for unbelievers. However, this is the classic Roman mistake of blurring the distinction between justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All subsequent works are part of sanctification. This means that repentance is not part of justification, but of sanctification.
Therefore, when David wrote, “If a man does not repent,” he was not speaking about justification, but sanctification. David was writing to believers.
Thus, God will sharpen his sword for those who are not sanctified. God has bent his bow and made it ready for those who are not sanctified.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that David is talking about unbelievers. God will sharpen his sword for unbelievers. God has bent his bow and made it ready for unbelievers. However, this is the classic Roman mistake of blurring the distinction between justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All subsequent works are part of sanctification. This means that repentance is not part of justification, but of sanctification.
Therefore, when David wrote, “If a man does not repent,” he was not speaking about justification, but sanctification. David was writing to believers.
Thus, God will sharpen his sword for those who are not sanctified. God has bent his bow and made it ready for those who are not sanctified.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Matthew 4:17
“From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus was preaching the gospel. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is part of sanctification, not justification. Thus, Jesus was not preaching the gospel. He was preaching for sanctification. Read the rest of this entry.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus was preaching the gospel. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is part of sanctification, not justification. Thus, Jesus was not preaching the gospel. He was preaching for sanctification. Read the rest of this entry.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Hebrews 13:17
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we ought to obey our leaders and submit to them. While we applaud this advice in theory, it would be dangerous to practice this on a regular basis. This is particularly true with regard to corporate worship.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.
If you are at a church where worship is not rigidly controlled by the RPW, then it is your solemn duty to open up a can of Regulative Principle Whoopass™. Forget the peace of the church. This is too important.
If your church sings hymns or other uninspired songs, you must refuse to sing with everyone else. The same goes for reciting uninspired creeds. Just say no. In no way should you submit to your leaders in this.
If your pastor prays a prayer that is not found in the Bible, try not to listen to what he says. Uninspired prayers of such modern-day Jeroboams bring cursing, not blessing.
If your church sings uninspired doxologies, plug your ears! At all costs, do not let such abominations contaminate you. God hates these ditties, and so should you.
If your church insists on using a piano, organ, or other musical instruments, you must show your disgust publicly. Every time one of these tools of idolatry starts up, make a face like you just got a whiff of something rancid and look around. Be sure to make eye contact and let others know of your displeasure.
If your church dares to observe the Lord’s Supper more than once a quarter, then you must refuse to participate. Adopt your best postal-scowl and stare at the officiants. It is also important that you huff in disgust whenever the plates pass you.
There is no virtue in submitting to your leaders for the peace and unity of the church. Remember, the truly Reformed are only concerned about the purity of the church. The peace and unity of the church mean nothing. The invisible church is unified. That’s all that matters. God doesn’t care about the unity of the visible church, and neither should you.
In summary, don’t worry about obeying your leaders or submitting to them. It’s not like they are keeping watch over your souls. Make sure you cause them endless sorrow and grief until they submit to the RPW. This will bring you the most profit.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we ought to obey our leaders and submit to them. While we applaud this advice in theory, it would be dangerous to practice this on a regular basis. This is particularly true with regard to corporate worship.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.
If you are at a church where worship is not rigidly controlled by the RPW, then it is your solemn duty to open up a can of Regulative Principle Whoopass™. Forget the peace of the church. This is too important.
If your church sings hymns or other uninspired songs, you must refuse to sing with everyone else. The same goes for reciting uninspired creeds. Just say no. In no way should you submit to your leaders in this.
If your pastor prays a prayer that is not found in the Bible, try not to listen to what he says. Uninspired prayers of such modern-day Jeroboams bring cursing, not blessing.
If your church sings uninspired doxologies, plug your ears! At all costs, do not let such abominations contaminate you. God hates these ditties, and so should you.
If your church insists on using a piano, organ, or other musical instruments, you must show your disgust publicly. Every time one of these tools of idolatry starts up, make a face like you just got a whiff of something rancid and look around. Be sure to make eye contact and let others know of your displeasure.
If your church dares to observe the Lord’s Supper more than once a quarter, then you must refuse to participate. Adopt your best postal-scowl and stare at the officiants. It is also important that you huff in disgust whenever the plates pass you.
There is no virtue in submitting to your leaders for the peace and unity of the church. Remember, the truly Reformed are only concerned about the purity of the church. The peace and unity of the church mean nothing. The invisible church is unified. That’s all that matters. God doesn’t care about the unity of the visible church, and neither should you.
In summary, don’t worry about obeying your leaders or submitting to them. It’s not like they are keeping watch over your souls. Make sure you cause them endless sorrow and grief until they submit to the RPW. This will bring you the most profit.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Leviticus 10:1-3
“Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘It is what the Lord spoke, saying, “By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.”’” (Leviticus 10:1-3).
Although Federal Visionists claim to be “Biblicists,” they show their true colors in how they blatantly disregard this passage. God hates worship that departs from his specific instructions. Of course, in the NT era, we do not have detailed instructions for worship, but this does not stop us from splitting hairs.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.
For example, the Bible does not mention the installation of restrooms in churches. Therefore, according to the RPW, our churches should not have restrooms. You just have to hold it. That is why the truly Reformed suffer from constipation, both physically and theologically.
If you install restrooms in your church, then you are not worshiping the RPW. You are worshiping another god, which is no god at all. You might as well be erecting Asherahs or sacrificing to Molech.
Another area in which we need to more aggressively apply the RPW is music. Some Reformed churches do not yet practice exclusive psalmody. If you are unfortunate enough to attend one of these pseudo-churches that are offering such strange fire, it is your duty to bring Reformation. The best way to do this is to refuse to participate in such Baal-worship. Instead, pick a Psalm of the same tune and sing the inspired text, so that God is pleased with at least one person in the congregation. Perhaps your actions alone will prompt God to spare your church from annihilation.
Of course, this is a bit more complicated that it seems. First of all, you better not be singing the Psalm in English because only the original autographs were inspired. According to the RPW, we have no warrant for singing in English. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew text.
Second, under no circumstances are you to sing uninspired tunes. No matter how glorious some of our hymn tunes are, none of them are inspired, and therefore, according to the RPW, they do not belong in our worship services. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew lyrics to the original Hebrew tune.
Unfortunately, we have no idea what the original Hebrew melodies were. Until God releases these on itunes, we’re screwed. You are better off not singing at all. Thus, when properly followed, the RPW paralyzes worship. Soli Deo Gloria!
Although Federal Visionists claim to be “Biblicists,” they show their true colors in how they blatantly disregard this passage. God hates worship that departs from his specific instructions. Of course, in the NT era, we do not have detailed instructions for worship, but this does not stop us from splitting hairs.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.
For example, the Bible does not mention the installation of restrooms in churches. Therefore, according to the RPW, our churches should not have restrooms. You just have to hold it. That is why the truly Reformed suffer from constipation, both physically and theologically.
If you install restrooms in your church, then you are not worshiping the RPW. You are worshiping another god, which is no god at all. You might as well be erecting Asherahs or sacrificing to Molech.
Another area in which we need to more aggressively apply the RPW is music. Some Reformed churches do not yet practice exclusive psalmody. If you are unfortunate enough to attend one of these pseudo-churches that are offering such strange fire, it is your duty to bring Reformation. The best way to do this is to refuse to participate in such Baal-worship. Instead, pick a Psalm of the same tune and sing the inspired text, so that God is pleased with at least one person in the congregation. Perhaps your actions alone will prompt God to spare your church from annihilation.
Of course, this is a bit more complicated that it seems. First of all, you better not be singing the Psalm in English because only the original autographs were inspired. According to the RPW, we have no warrant for singing in English. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew text.
Second, under no circumstances are you to sing uninspired tunes. No matter how glorious some of our hymn tunes are, none of them are inspired, and therefore, according to the RPW, they do not belong in our worship services. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew lyrics to the original Hebrew tune.
Unfortunately, we have no idea what the original Hebrew melodies were. Until God releases these on itunes, we’re screwed. You are better off not singing at all. Thus, when properly followed, the RPW paralyzes worship. Soli Deo Gloria!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Acts 5:31
“He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance leads to the forgiveness of sins. Peter allegedly mentions repentance first because it precedes the forgiveness of sins. Thus, forgiveness is dependent upon repentance. However, these kind of geriatric objections are tiresome.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that we receive the forgiveness of sins via justification, which is by faith alone. Faith alone means that repentance is not included. Thus, repentance cannot precede forgiveness, nor can there be a link between repentance and forgiveness of sins. This is elementary logic.
We’re not really sure why Peter mentions repentance before forgiveness. Perhaps he didn’t know better, being a blue collar worker and all. Or, perhaps he intentionally confused the ordu salutis, testing the Jewish Council, to see if they really understood sola fide. Whatever, as long as we don’t let the text affect our theology.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance leads to the forgiveness of sins. Peter allegedly mentions repentance first because it precedes the forgiveness of sins. Thus, forgiveness is dependent upon repentance. However, these kind of geriatric objections are tiresome.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that we receive the forgiveness of sins via justification, which is by faith alone. Faith alone means that repentance is not included. Thus, repentance cannot precede forgiveness, nor can there be a link between repentance and forgiveness of sins. This is elementary logic.
We’re not really sure why Peter mentions repentance before forgiveness. Perhaps he didn’t know better, being a blue collar worker and all. Or, perhaps he intentionally confused the ordu salutis, testing the Jewish Council, to see if they really understood sola fide. Whatever, as long as we don’t let the text affect our theology.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Song of Songs 4:5
“Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle which feed among the lilies” (Song of Songs 4:5).
Federal Visionists are all over this verse because they think that Solomon is admiring his wife’s physical beauty, comparing her breasts to the twins of a gazelle. However, such crass interpretation flatly contradicts Reformed hermeneutics.
The ability to divide Law from Gospel has long been cherished in the bosom of Reformed hermeneuticians. Federal Visionists accuse us of interpretive augmentation, but the errors of “Biblicism” are as obvious as a pair of cheap implants.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that hermeneutics begins and ends with distinguishing Law from Gospel. Only this principle can keep things in their proper place. Thus, Law/Gospel is the brassiere of our Modern Reformation, offering support and preventing unnecessary bouncing and jostling.
On the surface, Solomon does seem to be extolling the physical beauty of his wife. However, peeping through Law/Gospel glasses enables him to see past physical endowment and appreciate the heaving suppleness of Law and Gospel. The cleavage they produce is unbelievable!
Clearly, Solomon is ravished by the Law and the Gospel. Everywhere he looks, he cannot help but see these twins. We should do the same, praying that we would experience the rapturous joy of discerning Law and Gospel. To be truly Reformed, we must fall in love with this mistress of our Modern Reformation.
As Solomon elsewhere says, be exhilarated with her love. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let Law/Gospel satisfy us at all times!
Federal Visionists are all over this verse because they think that Solomon is admiring his wife’s physical beauty, comparing her breasts to the twins of a gazelle. However, such crass interpretation flatly contradicts Reformed hermeneutics.
The ability to divide Law from Gospel has long been cherished in the bosom of Reformed hermeneuticians. Federal Visionists accuse us of interpretive augmentation, but the errors of “Biblicism” are as obvious as a pair of cheap implants.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that hermeneutics begins and ends with distinguishing Law from Gospel. Only this principle can keep things in their proper place. Thus, Law/Gospel is the brassiere of our Modern Reformation, offering support and preventing unnecessary bouncing and jostling.
On the surface, Solomon does seem to be extolling the physical beauty of his wife. However, peeping through Law/Gospel glasses enables him to see past physical endowment and appreciate the heaving suppleness of Law and Gospel. The cleavage they produce is unbelievable!
Clearly, Solomon is ravished by the Law and the Gospel. Everywhere he looks, he cannot help but see these twins. We should do the same, praying that we would experience the rapturous joy of discerning Law and Gospel. To be truly Reformed, we must fall in love with this mistress of our Modern Reformation.
As Solomon elsewhere says, be exhilarated with her love. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let Law/Gospel satisfy us at all times!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Ephesians 1:7
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Ephesians 1:7).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that in Christ we have the forgiveness of our trespasses. Obviously, Federal Visionists do not understand the first thing about the gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. Justification itself includes the two biggies: the forgiveness of trespasses and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Yet, justification is also the key that unlocks all the other graces of the gospel. Once we have been justified, we are redeemed, reconciled, adopted, united to Christ, et al.
Federal Visionists assert that union with Christ is the priority. After we are united to Christ, then we receive the other graces of the gospel. They would even go so far as to say that union with Christ precedes justification. Obviously, this is a utter heresy.
We cannot be united with Christ until our sins are forgiven in justification. This is impossible. We must be justified before we can ever be united with Christ. Thus, technically speaking, we are justified apart from Christ.
Therefore, we would never say that we have forgiveness of our trespasses “in him.” Rather, apart from him we have the forgiveness of our trespasses.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that in Christ we have the forgiveness of our trespasses. Obviously, Federal Visionists do not understand the first thing about the gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. Justification itself includes the two biggies: the forgiveness of trespasses and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Yet, justification is also the key that unlocks all the other graces of the gospel. Once we have been justified, we are redeemed, reconciled, adopted, united to Christ, et al.
Federal Visionists assert that union with Christ is the priority. After we are united to Christ, then we receive the other graces of the gospel. They would even go so far as to say that union with Christ precedes justification. Obviously, this is a utter heresy.
We cannot be united with Christ until our sins are forgiven in justification. This is impossible. We must be justified before we can ever be united with Christ. Thus, technically speaking, we are justified apart from Christ.
Therefore, we would never say that we have forgiveness of our trespasses “in him.” Rather, apart from him we have the forgiveness of our trespasses.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ephesians 5:25
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is giving instructions on how to be a better husband. They assert that a husband, by imitating Christ’s example, can love his wife better by giving himself up for her. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only way that we can become better husbands is by looking to Christ. To the extent that we try to be better husbands, we are only cementing our failure. The law was given to drive us to Christ. If we try to “do” the law, then we are failing to rest in Christ.
Many read the commands of the Bible and think that we are supposed to try to obey them. They read Paul’s commands about marriage and think that he is actually writing about how we can improve our marriages. These same people go to marriage seminars and hear about how to be better husbands. They read books on marriage and think that these are helping their marriages.
However, this is fruitless. We do not need marriage seminars. We do not need to read another book on improving our marriage. This misses Paul’s entire point.
Rather, we need to love Christ and rest in his works. We need to stop working and simply look to Christ. Husbands need to stop being Marthas and be Marys.
Thus, Paul’s real message is revealed: husbands, do not love your wives, nor give yourselves up for her.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is giving instructions on how to be a better husband. They assert that a husband, by imitating Christ’s example, can love his wife better by giving himself up for her. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only way that we can become better husbands is by looking to Christ. To the extent that we try to be better husbands, we are only cementing our failure. The law was given to drive us to Christ. If we try to “do” the law, then we are failing to rest in Christ.
Many read the commands of the Bible and think that we are supposed to try to obey them. They read Paul’s commands about marriage and think that he is actually writing about how we can improve our marriages. These same people go to marriage seminars and hear about how to be better husbands. They read books on marriage and think that these are helping their marriages.
However, this is fruitless. We do not need marriage seminars. We do not need to read another book on improving our marriage. This misses Paul’s entire point.
Rather, we need to love Christ and rest in his works. We need to stop working and simply look to Christ. Husbands need to stop being Marthas and be Marys.
Thus, Paul’s real message is revealed: husbands, do not love your wives, nor give yourselves up for her.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God is wishing for all to come to salvation. Besides sounding universalist and a-reformed, this fails to maintain the elementary distinction between justification and sanctification.
The Reformed fatwa has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All that happens afterwards is sanctification, which would include repentance.
Thus, the Lord is patient, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to sanctification.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God is wishing for all to come to salvation. Besides sounding universalist and a-reformed, this fails to maintain the elementary distinction between justification and sanctification.
The Reformed fatwa has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All that happens afterwards is sanctification, which would include repentance.
Thus, the Lord is patient, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to sanctification.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Luke 5:32
“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is calling sinners to salvation. However, this is confusing justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. Repentance is not faith alone; therefore, repentance has no role in justification. Repentance is part of sanctification.
Thus, Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to sanctification.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is calling sinners to salvation. However, this is confusing justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. Repentance is not faith alone; therefore, repentance has no role in justification. Repentance is part of sanctification.
Thus, Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to sanctification.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Colossians 1:21-23
“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach – if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:21-23).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that glorification is conditional. They assert that Paul states two conditions: 1) “continuing in the faith” and 2) “not moving away from the hope of the gospel.” According to FVers, only if you keep these two conditions will God “present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.” They make glorification dependent upon our fulfilling conditions. Obviously, this threatens the GCS (Golden Chain of Salvation).
The Reformed faith has always insisted that glorification is a technical term that is only used to refer to the final stage of salvation. So, in the GCS passage (Romans 8:29-30), when Paul promises that all who are justified are also glorified, he teaching that our final salvation is only dependent upon justification. This is the glorious simplicity of the GCS.
Thus, once you have received justification, there are no conditions to fulfill. Eternal life is guaranteed. Nothing can threaten your status. According to the GCS, eternal life is conditioned only upon being justified.
If FVers would read Colossians more carefully, they would see that Paul is addressing people whom Christ “has now reconciled.” They have been justified, and thus, according to the GCS, they will be glorified. There are no conditions that they must fulfill. Whether they “continue in the faith” or not is irrelevant. Whether they “move away from the hope of the gospel” or not has no bearing on their glorification.
Now, Paul does state two conditions, but the question is: to what do these conditions apply? Obviously, they cannot be conditions of glorification because that breaks the GCS. Paul must be speaking of sanctification. Sanctification is not part of the GCS, and thus, it is not guaranteed.
Being “presented before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” might sound like glorification, but clearly, Paul must be talking about sanctification. The GCS demands this.
Thus, being Reformed depends on our ability to use the GCS to flatten out any conditions that appear to threaten glorification.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that glorification is conditional. They assert that Paul states two conditions: 1) “continuing in the faith” and 2) “not moving away from the hope of the gospel.” According to FVers, only if you keep these two conditions will God “present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.” They make glorification dependent upon our fulfilling conditions. Obviously, this threatens the GCS (Golden Chain of Salvation).
The Reformed faith has always insisted that glorification is a technical term that is only used to refer to the final stage of salvation. So, in the GCS passage (Romans 8:29-30), when Paul promises that all who are justified are also glorified, he teaching that our final salvation is only dependent upon justification. This is the glorious simplicity of the GCS.
Thus, once you have received justification, there are no conditions to fulfill. Eternal life is guaranteed. Nothing can threaten your status. According to the GCS, eternal life is conditioned only upon being justified.
If FVers would read Colossians more carefully, they would see that Paul is addressing people whom Christ “has now reconciled.” They have been justified, and thus, according to the GCS, they will be glorified. There are no conditions that they must fulfill. Whether they “continue in the faith” or not is irrelevant. Whether they “move away from the hope of the gospel” or not has no bearing on their glorification.
Now, Paul does state two conditions, but the question is: to what do these conditions apply? Obviously, they cannot be conditions of glorification because that breaks the GCS. Paul must be speaking of sanctification. Sanctification is not part of the GCS, and thus, it is not guaranteed.
Being “presented before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” might sound like glorification, but clearly, Paul must be talking about sanctification. The GCS demands this.
Thus, being Reformed depends on our ability to use the GCS to flatten out any conditions that appear to threaten glorification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)