James 2:24

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

Federal Visionists love this verse because James allegedly says that justification is by works and not by faith alone. They talk about the "whole counsel of God" (whatever that is) and how this passage ought to inform our definition of justification. They babble on about "Biblicism." They love to appeal to Sola Scriptura and all that rot. Let me show you a more excellent way.

First, Biblicism is a dangerous error that threatens our Modern Reformation. Biblicists are the reckless sort of people who attempt to read the Bible and take it seriously. The Bible is holey book that can only be handled by men who have been trained how to escape the plain meaning of the text.

Second, while we Anti-Federal Visionists feel that Sola Scriptura is a decent slogan, we must warn against its abuse. Anyone who invokes Sola Scriptura is simply trying to appeal to the Bible as our highest authority. However, this grossly misunderstands what Sola Scriptura means. Historically, Sola Scriptura means that our highest authority is how the Reformed church has interpreted the Bible.

For this reason, the Truly Reformed have always favored Sola Fide over Sola Scriptura. No one could argue with the truth that Sola Fide is more foundational to our cause. In fact, if forced to choose, we would pick Sola Fide over and against Sola Scriptura. In all fairness, we would be fine if we just changed the slogan from Sola Scriptura to Sola Traditiona.

A Brave New World

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguishing Words and Terms

Federal Visionists love to portray themselves as “Biblicists” who take the Bible at face value as argued here. However, such posturing is simply rebellion against the Reformation.

The Reformed faith has always insisted upon distinguishing between words and terms. The Bible uses words. Reformed theology uses terms. The difference is enormous. When a word is given a technical definition, it ceases to be merely a word and becomes a term. Once a word attains the status of a “term,” it can never be used as simply a “word.” This is how God works in history.

Thus, certain parts of the Bible should not be read without heavy qualifications. Otherwise, people will be confused and think that the Bible contradicts the Reformed faith.

Is Biblical Usage Primary?

Federal Visionists love to boast about being "Biblicists," claiming that we should to use Bible words in the way the Bible uses them. Not only are claims like this hopelessly naive, they are downright dangerous.

Once a technical definition has been established by the Reformed faith, we must insist that such a definition be the only way that a particular word is ever used, regardless of what the Bible or anyone else says. If we insist that the Biblical usage of words is primary, then we run the risk of contradicting the Reformed faith. This is the road to Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, and Moscow (not the one in Russia).