“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.
Showing posts with label Covenant Breakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Covenant Breakers. Show all posts
Monday, December 1, 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).
Friday, February 15, 2008
Isaiah 45:4
“For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me” (Isaiah 45:4).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God is referring to all of Israel as “My chosen one,” including both the saved and unsaved under the one title of “elect.” Thus, Federal Visionists argue that one can be “elect” corporately, but “non-elect” soteriologically. However, this so-called corporate election is a myth designed to overthrow the Reformed tradition.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that election can only mean election unto to eternal life. You will not find corporate election or ecclesial election in any of the Reformed Confessions. On the contrary, in Reformed theology, election is always identical to salvation.
We freely recognize that the Bible speaks of election in differing ways, but Reformed theology has never made an allowance for these different kinds of election. Remember, we dare not add or subtract from the Modern Reformed magisterium. Semper Reformanda is a slogan, not a policy.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God is referring to all of Israel as “My chosen one,” including both the saved and unsaved under the one title of “elect.” Thus, Federal Visionists argue that one can be “elect” corporately, but “non-elect” soteriologically. However, this so-called corporate election is a myth designed to overthrow the Reformed tradition.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that election can only mean election unto to eternal life. You will not find corporate election or ecclesial election in any of the Reformed Confessions. On the contrary, in Reformed theology, election is always identical to salvation.
We freely recognize that the Bible speaks of election in differing ways, but Reformed theology has never made an allowance for these different kinds of election. Remember, we dare not add or subtract from the Modern Reformed magisterium. Semper Reformanda is a slogan, not a policy.
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
John 15:2
"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away” (John 15:2).
Federal Visionists love passages like this because Jesus says that someone can be in Christ, but if he does not bear fruit, he will be taken away. Federal Visionists argue that this is referring to non-elect covenant members (NECMs) who are “in Me” yet “taken away.” Obviously, this violates nearly every sola.
First, there is no such thing as an NECM. Neither the Westminster Standards nor the Three Forms of Unity allow for this. The Reformed faith has unequivocally taught that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect and is, therefore, unbreakable: “They will all know me” (Jeremiah 31:34). Election goes hand-in-hand with covenant membership.
Second, we are saved by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide). Election is unconditional, and so our salvation cannot depend upon whether we bear fruit or not. Obedience is optional.
So, what does Jesus mean by “he takes away.” Since the elect cannot lose their salvation, this must be a hypothetical warning. Jesus is just trying to scare the disciples, kind of like parents who never carry out their threats.
Federal Visionists love passages like this because Jesus says that someone can be in Christ, but if he does not bear fruit, he will be taken away. Federal Visionists argue that this is referring to non-elect covenant members (NECMs) who are “in Me” yet “taken away.” Obviously, this violates nearly every sola.
First, there is no such thing as an NECM. Neither the Westminster Standards nor the Three Forms of Unity allow for this. The Reformed faith has unequivocally taught that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect and is, therefore, unbreakable: “They will all know me” (Jeremiah 31:34). Election goes hand-in-hand with covenant membership.
Second, we are saved by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide). Election is unconditional, and so our salvation cannot depend upon whether we bear fruit or not. Obedience is optional.
So, what does Jesus mean by “he takes away.” Since the elect cannot lose their salvation, this must be a hypothetical warning. Jesus is just trying to scare the disciples, kind of like parents who never carry out their threats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)