Genesis 15:6

"Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).

Federal Visionists claim to love this verse. They claim to believe in justification by faith alone.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. We know that, deep down, all Federal Visionists are wolves that do not believe the gospel.

Thus, the secret to attacking to Federal Vision is to twist everything they say into an attack on justification by faith alone. Turn everything they say into an assault on the gospel. For instance ...

• If an FVer ever wants to question our modern understanding of law-gospel, then simply declare that they have rejected sola fide.
• If an FVer ever wants to investigate the historical understanding of law-gospel, then simply declare that they have renounced justification.
• If an FVer ever wants to nuance law-gospel, then simply declare that they have denied JBFA.

They will then waste all of their time and energy explaining how they really do believe the gospel. Yet, no matter how hard they try, they will never convince us because we know their hearts. Nothing they say matters.

This diversionary tactic works not only on law-gospel, but on pretty much anything. If an FVer wants to debate the meaning of a particular passage of scripture with you, you don't really have to listen to their argument. Instead, you can simply assert that they are preaching another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

If an FVer wants you to hear what Calvin said on an issue, don't listen. It doesn't matter. There's no way in hell that we would ordain Calvin anyway. Just say, they have departed from the historic reformed faith.

This is protocol for anything. If an FVer comments that the sky is blue, they have denied sola fide. If an FVer maintains that grass is green, they are seeking to be justified by works.

Hopefully, the FVers will get the message that engaging us is fruitless. Whatever the means, we have to guard our flock. The gospel is at steak!

2 Timothy 4:3-4

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

We usually apply these verses to Federal Visionists. Alas, we regret to inform our readers that today they remind us of the sad apostasy that has recently come to light.

Our dear leader, R. Scott Clark, recently argued that all NAPARC churches are wrong, and that he alone is right.

Let that sink in.

He wrote in response to a would-be critic: "[H]ow could it be that virtually ALL the NAPARC churches ... are wrong and you alone are right?"

Dr. Clark was not writing about the Federal Vision, but he might as well have been. When someone opposes NAPARC, they are opposing the Holy See that God uses to infallibly guide his invisible church.

Apparently, NAPARC is simply a pawn in Dr. Clark's agenda. When he agrees with NAPARC, then NAPARC is the arbiter of all things Reformed. When he disagrees with NAPARC, then NAPARC can conveniently be tossed aside.

Thus, for Dr. Clark, NAPARC is only a tool to be used or abused or ignored. Just like the Federal Visionists, Dr. Clark disregards the authority of NAPARC.

Obviously, Dr. Clark has taken the first step in the slippery slope from orthodoxy to heterodoxy. First, NAPARC is wrong. Second, Federal Vision is not so bad. Third, home to Rome.

Dr. Clark is now one small step removed from the CREC and two steps removed from praying to Mary. May God have mercy on his soul!

Ezekiel 25:17

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you” (Ezekiel 25:17).

Federal Visionists love this passage and consider it to be one of the jules of the canon. We are rather busy re-reading St. Muller at this time, so we are not going to comment on this text.

We are, however, going to take this opportunity to announce that Modern Reformation will be changing its name to Modern Antinomianism. This move is to explicitly align ourselves with what we truly believe.

We are not historical antinomians. That is, we are not against the Ten Commandments. Neither are we antinomians in the generic sense that we are against the use of the law in the life of believers. The law shows us our sin.

We are Modern Antinomians in the "Zane Hodges sense." Sola fide demands fide to be sola. In order to preserve the purity of justification by faith alone, we must urge people to simply believe.

Focus your mind on the minimum number of propositions necessary to activate justification. Purge your mind of any notion of fidelity or trust or faithfulness or loyalty or commitment or repentance. These poisons destroy the purity of the gospel. In fact, this becomes another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

Thank God that the gospel is Absolutely Free!

That Federal Vision Heretic, John Gerstner

John Gerstner has recently been exposed as an incipient Federal Visionary and a heretic. The evidence appears in footnote 798 on page 211 of this dangerous book.

Regarding Norman Shepherd's paper, "The Grace of Justification," Gerstner wrote these disturbing words: "This paper is very clear evidence of his sola fideism to which only an antinomian could take exception."

Only an FVer/heretic could make such a statement. Unfortunately, Gerstner actually read Shepherd's paper and came to his own conclusions. Apparently, he did not get the memo that Shepherd was to be lynched without a proper trial.

Of course, Gerstner did speak rather prophetically by predicting that only an antinomian would find Shepherd offensive. The entire Anti-Federal Vision movement could be summed up as antinomian. Our goal is to redefine sola fide as antinomianism.

Trust and DISobey: An AFVSB Book Review

Federal Visionists love Norman Shepherd, which, of course, automatically makes them all heretics. As everyone knows, Shepherd was fired with cause from Westminster Theological Seminary for the heresy of denying the biblical truth of Sola Fide.

Amazingly, Ian Hewitson has just published a book, Trust and Obey: Norman Shepherd & The Justification Controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary, that attempts "to remove suspicion from Shepherd and to restore to him that which is more precious to him than silver or gold - his good name." Of course, this would be tantamount to renouncing our faith in Luther. Me genoito!

Trust and Obey marshalls a ton of evidence to implicate WTS of injustice. The first half of the book proves that WTS "did not have adequate grounds to remove Shepherd." The second half of the book demonstrates that WTS "also had no grounds theologically to remove" Shepherd.

Whether or not the author is correct is irrelevant; expedience is our catapult. In the end, God's will was done, and the heretic was removed. Who cares about justice and integrity? The gospel is at steak! We are ordained to use whatever means necessary to preserve our theological paradigms.

Rest assured, we did not actually read Trust and Obey, as we need to guard ourselves against the schemes of Satan. Just a cursory skim of the book reveals an ungodly obsession with details and a constant footnoting of source documents. Do not let this pseudo-scholarly enterprise fool you into Sympathy for the Devil. God is not in the details.

Here's a howler from the conclusion to Trust and Obey: "Shepherd must be held in high esteem for his solid commitment to Scripture and for his insistence that every generation must continually revise dogmatic formulations in light of the Word of God."

Obviously, the FVers have learned from their godfather, as this is a classic FV ploy: suggesting that the Confession should be revised in light of the scriptures. Don't they know by now that an appeal to sola scriptura is never going to faze us? We read the scriptures in light of the Confessions, not the other way around. We are not interested in getting into a "whose bible interpretation is correct" debate.

Therefore, we at the AFVSB are issuing this grave warning: under no circumstances should you read Trust and Obey. We have worked hard at circulating half-truths and outright lies about Norman Shepherd. A dangerous book like this could undermine all of our efforts. Soli Deo Gloria!

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.

Friend of AFVSB on Twitter

Follow one of our disciples on Twitter!
http://twitter.com/WSC_fanboy

Matthew 26:27

“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you’” (Matthew 26:27).

Federal Visionists love this verse. They think that it is okay for a twenty-first century pastor to repeat Jesus’ line about “Drink from it, all of you.” This is because Federal Visionists are all about being inclusive with regards to the Lord’s Supper. They will let anyone who is baptized take communion, even children. Obviously, this is a radical departure from what our Lord had in mind.

The first rule of interpretation is context, context, context. At the last supper, Jesus could say, “Drink from it, all of you” because he knew that no children were present. However, for a contemporary minister to say “Drink from it, all of you” in the presence of children is outright dangerous. Every year, dozens of children spontaneously combust when the communion juice hits their lips. It’s not widely reported, but we must stop the madness.

When Jesus said, “Drink from it, all of you,” he never intended this exact phrase to be infrequently repeated year after year. This line was basically a throwaway, an off-the-cuff remark that Jesus probably wished was never recorded in Scripture.

Ultimately, Anti-Federal Visionists are not very interested in what Jesus said. We are much more interested in guessing how Jesus would fence the table today if he were a NAPARC pastor.

Thus, the mark of a truly Reformed pastor is that he does not emulate Jesus. In no sense should we ever attempt to be like Jesus and say “Drink from it, all of you” in the presence of a mixed multitude. When a modern Reformed minister administers the cup, at best, he can say, “Drink from it, some of you.”

John 15:2, 6

“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away … 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 15:2, 6).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus is speaking about “taking away branches” and “burning branches” that were previously “in Me [Christ].” This would support their claim that someone could be “in Christ” covenantally and yet not attain final salvation (whatever that is). However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Some find this passage troublesome to the truly Reformed faith, but a little knowledge of horticulture is helpful in order to avoid the obvious implications of the text. In fact, there are a variety of eisegetical solutions that we, the elect, have resorted to in order to keep our system in tact.

1) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is simply speaking hypothetically. These are hypothetical warnings. Jesus is just trying to scare the disciples, kind of like parents who never carry out their threats.

2) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is speaking of branches that are legally but not organically connected to Christ. Creating these extra-biblical labels helps confusticate the plain meaning of the text.

3) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is not speaking of branches, but Frisbees that were accidentally thrown into the tree. They were never really branches. They simply looked like branches. Except that they were Frisbees.

4) When Jesus allegedly speaks of “taking away branches” and “burning branches,” he is simply speaking about believers losing theirs rewards in the bema seat judgment (1 Corinthians 3:15). The only down-side to this argument is that it puts us in bed with Zane Hodges and other no-lordship salvationists. Truthfully, there is very little difference between us and them.

It's a Conspiracy, Man! (Part Two)

The historic Reformation was an attempt to return the church to the Scriptures. Even as the Reformation first spread through Europe, Reformed practice and theology diverged widely from region to region. As the Reformation has now spread across the globe, these divergences have only increased. Even as we are approaching the five hundredth anniversary of Luther’s ninety-five theses, the variety of expressions found in Reformed churches continues to increase.

At the same time, not every segment of the Reformation remained true to what the Reformation was originally about. At some point, such infidelity causes a church to be Reformed in name-only.

Because of this infidelity, various Reformed sects have tried to claim that they alone are the true heirs of the Reformation. We at the AFVSB are proud to carry on this sectarian battle.

Although we represent a microscopic trickle from the ocean of Reformed traditions, nevertheless, we are currently engaged in a hostile takeover of the historic Reformation. This is a political attempt to kidnap the historic Reformation and destroy those who disagree. Some might call this a reign of terror. We like to call it “Modern Reformation.”

We make every effort to present the Reformation as a monolithic movement of which we Klinians are alone the heirs. This has been done through a very selective reading of church history by people who know better. Historical revisionism is our middle name.

The chief error of the Federal Visionists is not theological, but political. The Federal Visionists want a piece of the pie; they want a place at the table called “Reformed.” This is a tactical mistake.

We do not want merely a piece of the pie or a place at the table. We want to be the pie. We want to be the table. That is why there is no room for charitable discussion or peacable disagreement. Those who disagree with us are out. It has to be this way. Our gospel is at stake!

It's a Conspiracy, Man! (Part One)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.