“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.
Showing posts with label Conditions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conditions. Show all posts
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Mark 8:35
“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that salvation hinges upon whether one is willing to “lose his life.” However, this is the classic Pelagian mistake of confusing Law and Gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Gospel is an unconditional gift appropriated by faith alone. Conditions such as being willing to “lose your life” are not part of the Gospel. This is the Law.
If you try to “lose your life” for Jesus’ sake, then you are trying to save yourself. You are putting yourself back under the Law. Far better to simply rest in Jesus and forget about “losing your life.”
Discerning Law and Gospel is the key to being Reformed. Until you’ve read the Bible through Law-Gospel glasses, you are missing everything.
Along these lines, we have good news: Law-Gospel glasses will soon become obsolete! Ophthalmologists have been working closely with The White Horse Inn to develop a Lasik procedure that will produce perfect Law-Gospel vision.
Theologians who were previously unable to discern an indicative from an imperative can now have 20/20 Law-Gospel vision just one week after the surgery. WSC has already made Law-Gospel Lasik surgery a prerequisite for enrollment, and NAPARC is considering making it mandatory for those seeking ordination in Reformed churches.
There are risks with Law-Gospel Lasik surgery. Side effects include increased pompousness, a propensity towards sectarian hyper-abstract theological issues, an inability to take the Bible at face value, and a man-crush on Caspar Olevianus.
It is unknown whether Law-Gospel Lasik surgery is reversible, but you can overcome the side effects of this procedure through a cranial-rectal extraction.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that salvation hinges upon whether one is willing to “lose his life.” However, this is the classic Pelagian mistake of confusing Law and Gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Gospel is an unconditional gift appropriated by faith alone. Conditions such as being willing to “lose your life” are not part of the Gospel. This is the Law.
If you try to “lose your life” for Jesus’ sake, then you are trying to save yourself. You are putting yourself back under the Law. Far better to simply rest in Jesus and forget about “losing your life.”
Discerning Law and Gospel is the key to being Reformed. Until you’ve read the Bible through Law-Gospel glasses, you are missing everything.
Along these lines, we have good news: Law-Gospel glasses will soon become obsolete! Ophthalmologists have been working closely with The White Horse Inn to develop a Lasik procedure that will produce perfect Law-Gospel vision.
Theologians who were previously unable to discern an indicative from an imperative can now have 20/20 Law-Gospel vision just one week after the surgery. WSC has already made Law-Gospel Lasik surgery a prerequisite for enrollment, and NAPARC is considering making it mandatory for those seeking ordination in Reformed churches.
There are risks with Law-Gospel Lasik surgery. Side effects include increased pompousness, a propensity towards sectarian hyper-abstract theological issues, an inability to take the Bible at face value, and a man-crush on Caspar Olevianus.
It is unknown whether Law-Gospel Lasik surgery is reversible, but you can overcome the side effects of this procedure through a cranial-rectal extraction.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Hebrews 10:29
“How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this is a warning to covenant breakers. They note that the author of Hebrews threatens that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” Thus, it is argued that the New Covenant is conditional.
You see, Federal Visionists believe that the New Covenant is not unconditional. That is, the New Covenant can be either kept of broken. Thus, FVers do not believe that membership in the New Covenant is necessarily permanent. Some are temporary members. Such temporary members are those who break the covenant. They will not be eternally saved.
Federal Visionists point out that this verse speaks of those who were in the covenant. They were “sanctified” “by the blood of the covenant.” Thus, they were members of the New Covenant. They were given all the privileges of the covenant.
However, their covenant status is now in doubt due to their unfaithfulness. Three proofs are offered: 1) they have “trampled under foot the Son of God;” 2) they have “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant;” 3) they have “insulted the Spirit of grace.” These are certainly three damnable actions.
Admittedly, at face value, it does seem as if the author of Hebrews is saying that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” However, there is no reason to fall for such bumbling exegesis.
The Reformed Answer
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the New Covenant is unconditional. Once you are justified by faith alone, then you are eternally secure. No amount of “trampling,” “disregarding,” or “insulting” can ever threaten your covenant status. Heck, you could even deny Christ, and he will not deny you. Remember, no branches are ever removed from the vine. Once you exercise faith alone, then you are eternally secure.
This verse has long been a favorite of Arminians, and now, their bastard children, the Federal Visionists, have latched on to this verse with a vengeance. However, there is a cornucopia of ways to escape the plain language of the text and remain Reformed.
Some in Calvindom argue that this verse is speaking of those who were never in the covenant to begin with. They looked like they were in the covenant, but they were not. These are like the Frisbee that gets stuck in the tree and mistaken for a branch but is eventually removed. In order to circumvent the text, they do not take “sanctified” to refer to Sanctification, but to sanctification, which in this case means something like benefiting from the general holiness of the church.
Others prefer to speak of those who were “sanctified” as those who were in the outer sphere of the covenant, but were never in the inner core of the covenant, whatever that means.
While these are all legitimate Reformed ways of dispensing with the text, we think a better answer lies in the text itself. “Sanctified” is an aorist verb, meaning that it is referring to a one-time action. Everyone knows that Sanctification is an ongoing action, not a one-time action. Thus, while the author of Hebrews used the word “sanctified,” he was really referring to Justification.
Now, this does not get us off the hook just yet. If anything, this tightens the noose a bit because we take the author to be saying that those who have been Justified are deserving of a severer punishment. We’re not quite safe in Calvin yet.
If you look more closely at the text, you will notice that there is a question mark at the end of the sentence, indicating that this is a question. Thus, this is not an indicative statement, but a question.
The question is essentially, “How much severer punishment will those deserve who have been sanctified (Justified)?” Obviously trampling, disregarding, and insulting do deserve a much severer punishment.
However, remember that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Justified man. He has already been forgiven of all of his sins, including trampling, disregarding, and insulting God. He cannot sin his way out of Justification. That’s impossible!
Thus, the author of Hebrews is in no way saying that such a person will receive any actual punishment. He is more deserving of punishment, but he will never receive it because this was all transferred to Christ on the cross.
Thus, only a purely-Reformed understanding of sola fide can ensure that we handle such texts with integrity. Otherwise, this passage does sound FVish.
As this letter was read to the Hebrews, some newbies may have been confused by the hypothetical question, but undoubtedly, they were quickly straightened out by ANEPARC (Ancient Near Eastern Presbyterian and Reformed Council).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this is a warning to covenant breakers. They note that the author of Hebrews threatens that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” Thus, it is argued that the New Covenant is conditional.
You see, Federal Visionists believe that the New Covenant is not unconditional. That is, the New Covenant can be either kept of broken. Thus, FVers do not believe that membership in the New Covenant is necessarily permanent. Some are temporary members. Such temporary members are those who break the covenant. They will not be eternally saved.
Federal Visionists point out that this verse speaks of those who were in the covenant. They were “sanctified” “by the blood of the covenant.” Thus, they were members of the New Covenant. They were given all the privileges of the covenant.
However, their covenant status is now in doubt due to their unfaithfulness. Three proofs are offered: 1) they have “trampled under foot the Son of God;” 2) they have “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant;” 3) they have “insulted the Spirit of grace.” These are certainly three damnable actions.
Admittedly, at face value, it does seem as if the author of Hebrews is saying that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” However, there is no reason to fall for such bumbling exegesis.
The Reformed Answer
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the New Covenant is unconditional. Once you are justified by faith alone, then you are eternally secure. No amount of “trampling,” “disregarding,” or “insulting” can ever threaten your covenant status. Heck, you could even deny Christ, and he will not deny you. Remember, no branches are ever removed from the vine. Once you exercise faith alone, then you are eternally secure.
This verse has long been a favorite of Arminians, and now, their bastard children, the Federal Visionists, have latched on to this verse with a vengeance. However, there is a cornucopia of ways to escape the plain language of the text and remain Reformed.
Some in Calvindom argue that this verse is speaking of those who were never in the covenant to begin with. They looked like they were in the covenant, but they were not. These are like the Frisbee that gets stuck in the tree and mistaken for a branch but is eventually removed. In order to circumvent the text, they do not take “sanctified” to refer to Sanctification, but to sanctification, which in this case means something like benefiting from the general holiness of the church.
Others prefer to speak of those who were “sanctified” as those who were in the outer sphere of the covenant, but were never in the inner core of the covenant, whatever that means.
While these are all legitimate Reformed ways of dispensing with the text, we think a better answer lies in the text itself. “Sanctified” is an aorist verb, meaning that it is referring to a one-time action. Everyone knows that Sanctification is an ongoing action, not a one-time action. Thus, while the author of Hebrews used the word “sanctified,” he was really referring to Justification.
Now, this does not get us off the hook just yet. If anything, this tightens the noose a bit because we take the author to be saying that those who have been Justified are deserving of a severer punishment. We’re not quite safe in Calvin yet.
If you look more closely at the text, you will notice that there is a question mark at the end of the sentence, indicating that this is a question. Thus, this is not an indicative statement, but a question.
The question is essentially, “How much severer punishment will those deserve who have been sanctified (Justified)?” Obviously trampling, disregarding, and insulting do deserve a much severer punishment.
However, remember that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Justified man. He has already been forgiven of all of his sins, including trampling, disregarding, and insulting God. He cannot sin his way out of Justification. That’s impossible!
Thus, the author of Hebrews is in no way saying that such a person will receive any actual punishment. He is more deserving of punishment, but he will never receive it because this was all transferred to Christ on the cross.
Thus, only a purely-Reformed understanding of sola fide can ensure that we handle such texts with integrity. Otherwise, this passage does sound FVish.
As this letter was read to the Hebrews, some newbies may have been confused by the hypothetical question, but undoubtedly, they were quickly straightened out by ANEPARC (Ancient Near Eastern Presbyterian and Reformed Council).
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Mark 1:15
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that preaching the gospel includes both a call to repent and a call to believe. They even claim that the call to repentance can precede the call to faith. Obviously, this denies sola fide.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is not part of justification. Thus, the call to repentance is not part of the gospel. The call to repentance is the call to sanctification.
For this reason, the call to faith must always precede the call to repentance. If you switch these, then you have fallen from Modernist Reformation. Thus, only a Pelagian would say, “repent and believe in the gospel.”
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that preaching the gospel includes both a call to repent and a call to believe. They even claim that the call to repentance can precede the call to faith. Obviously, this denies sola fide.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is not part of justification. Thus, the call to repentance is not part of the gospel. The call to repentance is the call to sanctification.
For this reason, the call to faith must always precede the call to repentance. If you switch these, then you have fallen from Modernist Reformation. Thus, only a Pelagian would say, “repent and believe in the gospel.”
Friday, April 4, 2008
Mark 1:4
“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that forgiveness of sins is contingent upon repentance and/or baptism. Obviously, this is Pelagian and/or Catholic.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that forgiveness of sins is granted in justification, which is received by faith alone. Thus, forgiveness comes through faith alone. Neither baptism nor repentance has anything to do with forgiveness. In no way are they connected to forgiveness.
Repentance is highly recommended but also highly optional. Remember that repentance is a work. Hence, those who say that repentance is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that you must do a work in order to merit forgiveness. Obviously, this is the essence of Pelagianism.
Baptism is a beautiful picture of the forgiveness of sins and a wonderful experience. However, in order for salvation to be absolutely free, baptism must be absolutely optional. In no way is forgiveness of sins dependent on baptism. Those who say that baptism is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that baptism triggers forgiveness. This inevitably leads to the old heresy of baptismal regeneration, which is the calling card of Roman Catholicism.
Federal Visionists make the elementary mistake of forgetting that John the Baptist was an Old Covenant prophet. As the Old Covenant was simply a re-publication of the Covenant of Works, the Baptist’s message was blatantly Pelagian and proto-Tridentine. That’s what the Covenant of Works was!
Thus, John could make outlandish Pelagian statements because he was in a different dispensation. Thankfully, Jesus ushered in an entirely different dispensation, with an entirely different covenant (NC/CoG), and an entirely different message (JBFA). Praise God for discontinuity!
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that forgiveness of sins is contingent upon repentance and/or baptism. Obviously, this is Pelagian and/or Catholic.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that forgiveness of sins is granted in justification, which is received by faith alone. Thus, forgiveness comes through faith alone. Neither baptism nor repentance has anything to do with forgiveness. In no way are they connected to forgiveness.
Repentance is highly recommended but also highly optional. Remember that repentance is a work. Hence, those who say that repentance is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that you must do a work in order to merit forgiveness. Obviously, this is the essence of Pelagianism.
Baptism is a beautiful picture of the forgiveness of sins and a wonderful experience. However, in order for salvation to be absolutely free, baptism must be absolutely optional. In no way is forgiveness of sins dependent on baptism. Those who say that baptism is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that baptism triggers forgiveness. This inevitably leads to the old heresy of baptismal regeneration, which is the calling card of Roman Catholicism.
Federal Visionists make the elementary mistake of forgetting that John the Baptist was an Old Covenant prophet. As the Old Covenant was simply a re-publication of the Covenant of Works, the Baptist’s message was blatantly Pelagian and proto-Tridentine. That’s what the Covenant of Works was!
Thus, John could make outlandish Pelagian statements because he was in a different dispensation. Thankfully, Jesus ushered in an entirely different dispensation, with an entirely different covenant (NC/CoG), and an entirely different message (JBFA). Praise God for discontinuity!
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.
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!
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!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Mark 8:34
“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Mark 8:34).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that salvation hinges on whether you deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus. However, this completely confuses the gospel with discipleship.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. That is, in justification, God only takes into account the presence of faith. Those who attempt to add conditions to promote a certain “quality” of faith are smuggling works into the gospel.
Unfortunately, Federal Visionists are among those who claim that “saving” faith must be a “self-denying faith,” a “taking-up-your-cross faith,” and a “following-Jesus faith.” Obviously, they missed the memo by the Reformers that salvation is by faith alone. If you add any conditions, then you are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
This passage is easily understood when we realize that Jesus is speaking to Christians, not unbelievers. Notice that he says, “If anyone wishes to come after Me.” This is not the gospel or the call to salvation. This is the call to discipleship. As a prominent Reformed journal persuasively argues here, discipleship is a fuller experience of life in Jesus.
Once you are saved by faith alone, you are free to deny yourself, take up your cross, follow Jesus, and thus, become a disciple. Or, not. It’s your choice. Protecting sola fide means maintaining a strict distinction between salvation and discipleship.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that salvation hinges on whether you deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus. However, this completely confuses the gospel with discipleship.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. That is, in justification, God only takes into account the presence of faith. Those who attempt to add conditions to promote a certain “quality” of faith are smuggling works into the gospel.
Unfortunately, Federal Visionists are among those who claim that “saving” faith must be a “self-denying faith,” a “taking-up-your-cross faith,” and a “following-Jesus faith.” Obviously, they missed the memo by the Reformers that salvation is by faith alone. If you add any conditions, then you are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
This passage is easily understood when we realize that Jesus is speaking to Christians, not unbelievers. Notice that he says, “If anyone wishes to come after Me.” This is not the gospel or the call to salvation. This is the call to discipleship. As a prominent Reformed journal persuasively argues here, discipleship is a fuller experience of life in Jesus.
Once you are saved by faith alone, you are free to deny yourself, take up your cross, follow Jesus, and thus, become a disciple. Or, not. It’s your choice. Protecting sola fide means maintaining a strict distinction between salvation and discipleship.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Luke 24:46-47
“Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus wants the church to proclaim repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as if there is some link between repentance and forgiveness. Of course, this is nothing but works righteousness, attempting to out-pelagian Pelagius.
The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is obtained by justification, which is received by faith alone. Obviously, this excludes works such as repentance.
Notwithstanding, some still insist on taking Jesus’ words literally. So, what did Jesus mean by “repentance for forgiveness of sins?”
Here’s where knowing Greek helps us stay Reformed. “Repentance” comes from two Greek words: meta (change) and noiea (mind). So, repentance is simply changing your mind. Repentance has nothing to do with the so-called “turning from sin.” This kind of repentance is entirely optional. You can find more Reformed thoughts on repentance here.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus wants the church to proclaim repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as if there is some link between repentance and forgiveness. Of course, this is nothing but works righteousness, attempting to out-pelagian Pelagius.
The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is obtained by justification, which is received by faith alone. Obviously, this excludes works such as repentance.
Notwithstanding, some still insist on taking Jesus’ words literally. So, what did Jesus mean by “repentance for forgiveness of sins?”
Here’s where knowing Greek helps us stay Reformed. “Repentance” comes from two Greek words: meta (change) and noiea (mind). So, repentance is simply changing your mind. Repentance has nothing to do with the so-called “turning from sin.” This kind of repentance is entirely optional. You can find more Reformed thoughts on repentance here.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Matthew 6:14-15
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” (Matthew 6:14-15).
Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that Jesus is making the forgiveness of our sins contingent upon whether we forgive the sins of others. Obviously, this is as Pelagian as the day is long.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that we receive the forgiveness of sins in justification by faith alone. Whether we forgive the sins of others has nothing to do with the forgiveness of our sins.
In this passage, Jesus was simply restating the demands of the law to show us the futility of trying to obey. If you forgive others, then you are putting yourself back under the law. Faith means that we rest in Christ by refusing to forgive others.
Frankly, we are a little puzzled at this statement by Jesus. Unfortunately, we cannot just call him up on the telephone to find out what he meant. However, if we could, we are sure that Jesus would re-align himself with Reformed tradition. He was such a fan of traditionalism, in general.
Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that Jesus is making the forgiveness of our sins contingent upon whether we forgive the sins of others. Obviously, this is as Pelagian as the day is long.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that we receive the forgiveness of sins in justification by faith alone. Whether we forgive the sins of others has nothing to do with the forgiveness of our sins.
In this passage, Jesus was simply restating the demands of the law to show us the futility of trying to obey. If you forgive others, then you are putting yourself back under the law. Faith means that we rest in Christ by refusing to forgive others.
Frankly, we are a little puzzled at this statement by Jesus. Unfortunately, we cannot just call him up on the telephone to find out what he meant. However, if we could, we are sure that Jesus would re-align himself with Reformed tradition. He was such a fan of traditionalism, in general.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Matthew 18:23-35
“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart” (Matthew 18:23-35).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus is teaching that the forgiveness of our sins is conditioned upon how we forgive others. They even go so far as to say that it is possible to lose the forgiveness of sins. Clearly, this heinous doctrine is outright Pelagian, Arminian, and Romaninian.
The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is received by faith alone in justification. Justification and forgiveness of sins are permanent realities that can never be lost. Once someone has made a profession of faith, he should never doubt whether his sins have been forgiven. He should simply rest in the finished work of Christ.
Jesus is not seriously teaching that someone can lose their forgiveness. Even in this parable, the wicked slave is not “unforgiven.” He simply has to re-pay the debt that his master had forgiven. So, the wicked slave does not ever lose forgiveness; he merely forfeits fellowship with his master.
Also, Jesus is obviously using the Covenant of Works to show his disciples that they cannot accomplish the righteousness of God on their own. The standard is perfection. Unless we forgive perfectly, we have failed. Thus, we would be better off not even trying to forgive others, but rather to rest in the perfect righteousness of Jesus.
Furthermore, when Jesus says, “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you,” this is a hypothetical warning. Jesus is trying to put the fear of God into the disciples (not that fear should be a motive. Gratitude is our only motive for obedience).
Besides, this is just a parable. Everyone knows that parables were given to simplify Jesus’ message for the masses, so that they would not miss the main point. The details are arbitrary and cannot be taken literally.
Notice also how Federal Visionists rely heavily on Jesus. It is important to remember that Jesus did not leave any of his writings behind. He never saw the gospels and did not have the chance to edit, polish, or correct any misquotations. Jesus certainly would have submitted his writings to critical peer review so that he could have clarified his message before it went to print.
Alas, Matthew and the other gospel writers are simply paparazzi who gave us a lot of off-the-cuff remarks and off-the-record statements that Jesus may not have wanted published. For precise theology, it is better to stick with trained theologians like Paul and graduates of NAPARC seminaries.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus is teaching that the forgiveness of our sins is conditioned upon how we forgive others. They even go so far as to say that it is possible to lose the forgiveness of sins. Clearly, this heinous doctrine is outright Pelagian, Arminian, and Romaninian.
The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is received by faith alone in justification. Justification and forgiveness of sins are permanent realities that can never be lost. Once someone has made a profession of faith, he should never doubt whether his sins have been forgiven. He should simply rest in the finished work of Christ.
Jesus is not seriously teaching that someone can lose their forgiveness. Even in this parable, the wicked slave is not “unforgiven.” He simply has to re-pay the debt that his master had forgiven. So, the wicked slave does not ever lose forgiveness; he merely forfeits fellowship with his master.
Also, Jesus is obviously using the Covenant of Works to show his disciples that they cannot accomplish the righteousness of God on their own. The standard is perfection. Unless we forgive perfectly, we have failed. Thus, we would be better off not even trying to forgive others, but rather to rest in the perfect righteousness of Jesus.
Furthermore, when Jesus says, “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you,” this is a hypothetical warning. Jesus is trying to put the fear of God into the disciples (not that fear should be a motive. Gratitude is our only motive for obedience).
Besides, this is just a parable. Everyone knows that parables were given to simplify Jesus’ message for the masses, so that they would not miss the main point. The details are arbitrary and cannot be taken literally.
Notice also how Federal Visionists rely heavily on Jesus. It is important to remember that Jesus did not leave any of his writings behind. He never saw the gospels and did not have the chance to edit, polish, or correct any misquotations. Jesus certainly would have submitted his writings to critical peer review so that he could have clarified his message before it went to print.
Alas, Matthew and the other gospel writers are simply paparazzi who gave us a lot of off-the-cuff remarks and off-the-record statements that Jesus may not have wanted published. For precise theology, it is better to stick with trained theologians like Paul and graduates of NAPARC seminaries.
Monday, January 21, 2008
James 4:6
"God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds as if God gives grace to the humble. However, this interpretation reverses the classic ordo salutis.
When a Federal Visionist says that God gives grace to the humble, he is making humility a condition of grace. Yet, the Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is unconditional. If a condition is added to grace, then grace ceases to be grace and becomes merit.
Besides, no one can humble themselves before they receive the grace of God. This is impossible. And, really, no one can humble themselves even after they receive the grace of God. “There is none who does good” (Romans 3:12).
If we bring the light of the Reformation to James, then we see that he is simply employing one of our favorite paradigms. James is giving the law (you must be humble), so that the readers will feel guilty for failing to keep the law, which will drive them to reflect upon the grace of God, which will then move them to gratitude. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
You may have notice how much Federal Visionists rely on the book of James. Beware of those who quote James. This is dangerous. James is rather loose with his terms. He fails to use “justification” in the Reformed sense, contradicting sola fide.
James was one of the last books to be approved as canonical. James was barely an apostle, and some dispute this. He lacked the formal education of Paul. Luther rightly referred to James as a “strawy” epistle. While we respect some of the practical things that James says, we cannot allow his writings to influence our theology. Paul is much safer ground if you want to stay Reformed.
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds as if God gives grace to the humble. However, this interpretation reverses the classic ordo salutis.
When a Federal Visionist says that God gives grace to the humble, he is making humility a condition of grace. Yet, the Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is unconditional. If a condition is added to grace, then grace ceases to be grace and becomes merit.
Besides, no one can humble themselves before they receive the grace of God. This is impossible. And, really, no one can humble themselves even after they receive the grace of God. “There is none who does good” (Romans 3:12).
If we bring the light of the Reformation to James, then we see that he is simply employing one of our favorite paradigms. James is giving the law (you must be humble), so that the readers will feel guilty for failing to keep the law, which will drive them to reflect upon the grace of God, which will then move them to gratitude. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
You may have notice how much Federal Visionists rely on the book of James. Beware of those who quote James. This is dangerous. James is rather loose with his terms. He fails to use “justification” in the Reformed sense, contradicting sola fide.
James was one of the last books to be approved as canonical. James was barely an apostle, and some dispute this. He lacked the formal education of Paul. Luther rightly referred to James as a “strawy” epistle. While we respect some of the practical things that James says, we cannot allow his writings to influence our theology. Paul is much safer ground if you want to stay Reformed.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
John 15:6
"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned" (John 15:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this refers to “covenant breakers.” However, this is thinly-disguised Arminianism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Covenant of Grace is unbreakable because “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16).
Some have argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to hell. Those who do not abide in Christ are those who never were “in Christ.” They never did abide in Christ. They might have looked like it, but they were never united to Christ, and thus could never abide in him.
While this interpretation has some support in Reformed churches, we prefer the view put forth by the renowned scholar Charles Ryrie. Ryrie has cogently argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to the judgment of those who built their lives on wood, hay, and straw. Yet, notice that “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Ryrie deftly defends the gospel from conditions such as “abiding in Christ.” This is simply works-righteousness packaged as the gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. Praise God for men like Charles Ryrie, who help protect the solas.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this refers to “covenant breakers.” However, this is thinly-disguised Arminianism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Covenant of Grace is unbreakable because “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16).
Some have argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to hell. Those who do not abide in Christ are those who never were “in Christ.” They never did abide in Christ. They might have looked like it, but they were never united to Christ, and thus could never abide in him.
While this interpretation has some support in Reformed churches, we prefer the view put forth by the renowned scholar Charles Ryrie. Ryrie has cogently argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to the judgment of those who built their lives on wood, hay, and straw. Yet, notice that “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Ryrie deftly defends the gospel from conditions such as “abiding in Christ.” This is simply works-righteousness packaged as the gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. Praise God for men like Charles Ryrie, who help protect the solas.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Matthew 24:13
"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds like Jesus is making endurance a condition of salvation. However, this is blatantly Roman Catholic, Arminian, and Pelagian.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia). Salvation is unconditional. When Federal Visionists attempt to add conditions, such as endurance, to the gospel, then they are offering a works gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
Federal Visionists try to squeeze too much out of this passage. There is no cause and effect here. Jesus is simply remarking that some who endure are saved. Jesus says nothing about those who do not endure; some are saved and some are not. It depends upon whether they are elect or not.
The elect who endure will be saved, and the elect who do not endure will be saved. The non-elect are not saved, whether they endure or not. Remember, election is unconditional, which means that endurance is optional. In no way does salvation depend upon endurance.
Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds like Jesus is making endurance a condition of salvation. However, this is blatantly Roman Catholic, Arminian, and Pelagian.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia). Salvation is unconditional. When Federal Visionists attempt to add conditions, such as endurance, to the gospel, then they are offering a works gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
Federal Visionists try to squeeze too much out of this passage. There is no cause and effect here. Jesus is simply remarking that some who endure are saved. Jesus says nothing about those who do not endure; some are saved and some are not. It depends upon whether they are elect or not.
The elect who endure will be saved, and the elect who do not endure will be saved. The non-elect are not saved, whether they endure or not. Remember, election is unconditional, which means that endurance is optional. In no way does salvation depend upon endurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)