“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.
Showing posts with label NT - Acts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NT - Acts. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Acts 17:30
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is speaking of the spread of the gospel. Notice how they equate the call to repentance with the gospel. However, this is the deadly error of mixing justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted upon maintaining a strict distinction between justification and sanctification. Failing to keep these doctrines separate is the leading cause of apostasy from our modern Reformation.
Justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is excluded. Repentance has no part in justification, which means that repentance is not part of the gospel.
So, where does repentance belong? Repentance is part of sanctification.
In this verse, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent. That is, God is now declaring the message of sanctification. Thus, Paul was delivering the message of sanctification to the Athenians.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is speaking of the spread of the gospel. Notice how they equate the call to repentance with the gospel. However, this is the deadly error of mixing justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted upon maintaining a strict distinction between justification and sanctification. Failing to keep these doctrines separate is the leading cause of apostasy from our modern Reformation.
Justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is excluded. Repentance has no part in justification, which means that repentance is not part of the gospel.
So, where does repentance belong? Repentance is part of sanctification.
In this verse, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent. That is, God is now declaring the message of sanctification. Thus, Paul was delivering the message of sanctification to the Athenians.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Acts 2:38
“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance and/or baptism is somehow linked with the forgiveness of sins. However, there is no reason to take this verse with such wooden literalism.
As we have described earlier, the Reformed faith has always insisted that, in justification, we receive the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s passive obedience, and we receive the righteousness of Christ through Christ’s active obedience. This justification is received by faith alone.
Thus, neither repentance nor baptism have anything to do with justification or the forgiveness of sins. In no way is Peter establishing a cause and effect between repentance and forgiveness of sins (which is legalism) or between baptism and forgiveness of sins (which is baptismal regeneration).
Unfortunately, this verse has made its way into the Nicene Creed in the line, “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” This poses a problem because no who is truly Reformed can confess this as it stands. Several options have been suggested:
1) Some churches do not use the Nicene Creed at all. This is certainly a viable option. After all, the Nicene Creed lacks any mention of justification by faith alone, which is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Thus, the Nicene Creed is rather unimportant historically.
2) Other churches drop this line, which is another option. Certainly, no non-Reformed Confession is inerrant.
3) Many churches insert an asterisk (*) with a disclaimer saying, “we don’t really believe this.”
4) One new trend is to slightly alter the wording to make the creed orthodox. Here are some examples:
· “We don’t acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
· “We acknowledge one baptism, but for the remission of sins, faith alone is required.”
· “Heretics acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance and/or baptism is somehow linked with the forgiveness of sins. However, there is no reason to take this verse with such wooden literalism.
As we have described earlier, the Reformed faith has always insisted that, in justification, we receive the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s passive obedience, and we receive the righteousness of Christ through Christ’s active obedience. This justification is received by faith alone.
Thus, neither repentance nor baptism have anything to do with justification or the forgiveness of sins. In no way is Peter establishing a cause and effect between repentance and forgiveness of sins (which is legalism) or between baptism and forgiveness of sins (which is baptismal regeneration).
Unfortunately, this verse has made its way into the Nicene Creed in the line, “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” This poses a problem because no who is truly Reformed can confess this as it stands. Several options have been suggested:
1) Some churches do not use the Nicene Creed at all. This is certainly a viable option. After all, the Nicene Creed lacks any mention of justification by faith alone, which is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Thus, the Nicene Creed is rather unimportant historically.
2) Other churches drop this line, which is another option. Certainly, no non-Reformed Confession is inerrant.
3) Many churches insert an asterisk (*) with a disclaimer saying, “we don’t really believe this.”
4) One new trend is to slightly alter the wording to make the creed orthodox. Here are some examples:
· “We don’t acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
· “We acknowledge one baptism, but for the remission of sins, faith alone is required.”
· “Heretics acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Acts 11:18
“When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:18).
Federal Visionists love passages like this because it sounds as if repentance leads to eternal life. Beware! Such slippery eisegesis makes grace conditional, denying sola gratia and sola fide.
As David Gadbois has helpfully pointed out here, the Reformers universally rejected repentance as a condition of justification. Justification has nothing to do with repentance. Once you have been justified, you can repent if you want. Remember, justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is optional.
So, what about the so-called “repentance that leads to life?” Notice how the Federal Visionists eisegetically stretch “life” to mean “eternal life.” Unfortunately, this shoddy handling of the word of God is typical in FV circles.
In this passage, “eternal life” is not in view. “Life” simply refers to the quality of our fellowship with God. You can think of this as “HD” fellowship. “Repentance that leads to life” means that repentance leads to a more fulfilling relationship with God.
So, while repentance is somewhat necessary for fellowshipping with God, let us be clear that “eternal life” in no way depends upon repentance.
As you know, the Reformed faith is under constant attack by the Federal Vision and other heretics, but we can be thankful for our friends over at Greenbaggins and especially the Grace Evangelical Society (love their web address – faithalone.org!). Together, these stalwart defenders of the Reformed faith are fighting to make sure that faith is always alone.
Federal Visionists love passages like this because it sounds as if repentance leads to eternal life. Beware! Such slippery eisegesis makes grace conditional, denying sola gratia and sola fide.
As David Gadbois has helpfully pointed out here, the Reformers universally rejected repentance as a condition of justification. Justification has nothing to do with repentance. Once you have been justified, you can repent if you want. Remember, justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is optional.
So, what about the so-called “repentance that leads to life?” Notice how the Federal Visionists eisegetically stretch “life” to mean “eternal life.” Unfortunately, this shoddy handling of the word of God is typical in FV circles.
In this passage, “eternal life” is not in view. “Life” simply refers to the quality of our fellowship with God. You can think of this as “HD” fellowship. “Repentance that leads to life” means that repentance leads to a more fulfilling relationship with God.
So, while repentance is somewhat necessary for fellowshipping with God, let us be clear that “eternal life” in no way depends upon repentance.
As you know, the Reformed faith is under constant attack by the Federal Vision and other heretics, but we can be thankful for our friends over at Greenbaggins and especially the Grace Evangelical Society (love their web address – faithalone.org!). Together, these stalwart defenders of the Reformed faith are fighting to make sure that faith is always alone.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Acts 20:35
"In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (Acts 20:35).
Federal Visionists and even semi-heretics like John Piper love this passage because Paul says that we should “remember” that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” Federal Visionists argue that by “remember,” Paul means that we should be motivated by the promise of blessing. Unfortunately, such Scripture-twisting demonstrates how far the Federal Visionists are from the historic Reformed faith.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that gratitude is our only motivation for obedience. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
Thus, while Jesus may have said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (actually, this statement is not in the gospels and may be the insertion of a proto-FV redactor), the promise of blessing is not to motivate us.
If blessing does come, we are not to link it with our works, otherwise we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. To be faithful to the Reformed faith, we would do best to concentrate on obeying out of gratitude, rather than remembering the promise, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Federal Visionists and even semi-heretics like John Piper love this passage because Paul says that we should “remember” that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” Federal Visionists argue that by “remember,” Paul means that we should be motivated by the promise of blessing. Unfortunately, such Scripture-twisting demonstrates how far the Federal Visionists are from the historic Reformed faith.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that gratitude is our only motivation for obedience. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else and you are not Reformed.
Thus, while Jesus may have said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (actually, this statement is not in the gospels and may be the insertion of a proto-FV redactor), the promise of blessing is not to motivate us.
If blessing does come, we are not to link it with our works, otherwise we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. To be faithful to the Reformed faith, we would do best to concentrate on obeying out of gratitude, rather than remembering the promise, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)