“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.
Showing posts with label NT - Hebrews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NT - Hebrews. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2008
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)