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 they think that James is saying that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Obviously, this contradicts JBFATDBWTCSOF (justification by faith alone – the doctrine by which the church stands or falls).

Even more than IAOCNHWI, the Reformed faith has prized JBFATDBWTCSOF as the doctrine of doctrines. It all ends and starts with JBFATDBWTCSOF. Everything goes back to JBFATDBWTCSOF. Without JBFATDBWTCSOF, there would be no Reformed theology.

As Paul says, preach JBFATDBWTCSOF in season and out of season. Anything less is simply tickling itching ears. Soli JBFATDBWTCSOF gloria!

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.

Malachi 2:14

“Yet you say, ‘For what reason? Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:14).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that marriage is a covenant. They point out that marriages are kept by faithfulness and broken by unfaithfulness. They further assert that the paradigm of marriage corresponds to the paradigm of the covenant between God and his people. They even attempt to draw parallels between Christ and the church and marriage via Ephesians 5. Obviously, such grasping at straws reveals the eisegetical impulse of the Federal Vision.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that there are but two paradigms for covenants: works and grace. All covenants are based upon either strict works or sheer grace. Here’s the exegetical details:

The Covenant of Works is a breakable covenant, but it can only be kept by absolute perfection (WCF, 7.2). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Works because marriages are not dissolved due to a single imperfection.

The Covenant of Grace is an unbreakable covenant because it is based solely upon grace (WCF, 7.3). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Grace because marriages can break up due to unfaithfulness.

Thus, marriage is not like either the Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. For this reason, truly Reformed theologians do not consider marriage to be a covenant, exegetically speaking.

Malachi and other Federal Visionists get into trouble because they expect the Bible to inform them about the nature of covenants. However, the Ancient Near East is actually a much better source of information about covenants.

Thus, in order to stay Reformed, we must carefully study the ANE treaties. Remember, we do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Hittite suzerains.

Deuteronomy 30:11

“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach” (Deuteronomy 30:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the covenant that God made with Israel was not too difficult for them, nor was it out of their reach. They argue that the covenant was to be kept by faith. Obviously, this is utterly Pelagian.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that covenants can only be based upon grace or works. A covenant based upon grace is entirely a gift, and thus, it is unbreakable. A covenant based upon works is kept by perfect obedience. These are the only two paradigms for covenants in the Bible.

Thus, the Reformed faith has always held that the Mosaic covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works. As such, it required strict obedience. If Israel failed to perfectly obey, then they broke the covenant.

This is precisely what happened. As soon as the covenant was made, undoubtedly one of the Israelites sinned and broke the covenant. In fact, before Moses could finish reading the requirements of the covenant, Israel had probably already broken the covenant.

Thus, God could enjoy the farcical moment of Moses writing that the covenant was “not too difficult nor out of reach,” when in fact, the covenant was already broken. In reality, the covenant that God made with Israel was far too difficult from them. It was far, far out of their reach.

Genesis 2:16-17

“The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17).

Federal Visionists love these verses because they point out that God only forbade Adam from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They allege that the tree of life was not forbidden. Therefore, in the pre-fall covenant, access to the tree of life was given as a gift from God. It did not have to be earned, but it could be lost through sin.

Thus, Federal Visionists argue for a covenantal paradigm in which the blessings of the covenant were given immediately, rather than having to be earned, yet those blessings could be lost through sin. Obviously, this covenantal paradigm is sub-Reformed because it does not correspond with any paradigm from the Ancient Near Eastern treaties.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a covenant of merit. Although unstated in the text, we assume that God forbade Adam from eating of the tree of life until he earned it by perfect obedience. Why else would all branches of the Reformation call this the Covenant of Works?

Furthermore, unless we restrict ourselves to the inspired covenantal paradigms of Hittite treaties, then we depart from the Reformed faith.

John 5:28-29

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that those who have done good will be resurrected to life, and those who have done evil will be resurrected to condemnation. However, this is does not comport with the solas.

How much good does one have to do to qualify for the resurrection to life? How much evil does one have to do to qualify for the resurrection to condemnation? Is one good deed enough to save? Is one bad deed enough to condemn? This quickly becomes a Pelagian game, in which no one is saved and no one is condemned.

Jesus was obviously having a little fun with the disciples, throwing out a blatantly Pelagian statement just to get their attention. Undoubtedly, the disciples had a good laugh when they realized that Jesus was just kidding.

Isaiah 53:11

“As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we are justified because Christ bore our iniquities. They delight to say that we are justified by the death of Christ. However, such a statement betrays the carelessness of our opponents.

It is not that this statement is completely wrong, it is just deficient. We are justified in part by the death of Christ, but this is only half of the story. The Reformed faith has always insisted that we are justified by the death and the merit of Christ.

Federal Visionists see the insertion of merit as an unnecessary addition to the Biblical language of justification. On the contrary, the Reformation was all about recovering the Biblical usage of merit. If merit is so unnecessary, why did Paul spend so much time defending merit?

Thus, we must always take pains to speak of justification as the result of the death and merit of Jesus Christ. If we leave out merit, then we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

Exodus 12:24

“And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever” (Exodus 12:24).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that children were supposed to participate in the Passover. This ought to give credence to paedocommunion, they assert. However, both of these positions are completely heretical.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Passover was only for adults who had made a credible profession of faith, who had the requisite mental capabilities to examine themselves, and who had been rigorously interview by the elders. Only those who were approved had the privilege of eating the Passover.

Thus, children were strictly forbidden from participating. In no way were children allowed at the tables during Passover. In no way was the Passover for Israel and their children. Children were expected to starve during Passover, just like we starve them during the Lord’s Supper.

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.

Philippians 1:1

“Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons” (Philippians 1:1).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that being in Christ Jesus makes someone a saint. They argue that we are first united with Christ, and then, we are justified with Christ because of our union with him. Union with Christ is the ticket to justification. We are in Christ and then declared holy or “saints.” Thus, we are saints in Christ, according to Federal Visionists.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. The Reformed faith has always prized justification as the first and most important part of salvation. We are justified by faith alone, receiving both the forgiveness of our sins and the transfer of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Only when we have been justified can we be united to Christ. Justification is the ticket to union with Christ. We become holy or “saints” when we are justified, not when we are united to Christ. Thus, we are saints apart from Christ.

Romans 5:9

“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (Romans 5:9).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that it is adequate to say that we have been justified by the blood of Christ. Obviously, such a statement lacks any mention of merit, which is the sine qua non of the Reformed gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is accomplished in two stages. First, we receive forgiveness of sins through the death of Christ. Second, and most crucially, we receive the merits of Christ through the life of Christ.

Forgiveness is important and all, but the main engine that drives the Reformed gospel is merit. Federal Visionists assert that merit is neither a Biblical word, nor a Biblical concept. However, this ignores the role of the Holy Spirit in shaping Reformed theology.

The reason that merit does not appear in the Bible is that the Greek language was incapable of expressing such a theologically potent word as merit. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth Latin, and later, the English language, allowing merit to finally take its rightful place as the cornerstone of all Reformed theology.

Indeed, merit is the most glorious word in our rich Reformed vocabulary. A gospel presentation without the word “merit” is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

Thus, to say that we are justified by the blood of Christ is inadequate and sloppy. No one who is truly Reformed would speak so imprecisely.

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!

John 17:22

“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one” (John 17:22).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus wants the church to be one. They argue that unity is a doctrine that ought to be pursued, which means we ought to be “catholic” and not divide up into different denominations and sects. Obviously, this is the same tactic that the liberals used in the last century.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that doctrine must come first. Precision in abstract theology is far more important than lesser qualities like charity and peace.

Besides, the unity of the church is not really a doctrine, per se. It certainly pales in comparison with the weightier topics, such as the order of the decrees.

The problem with pursuing the so-called unity of the church on earth is that we are never quite sure who the elect are, so it is impossible for us to love them on earth. Perhaps we can love our brothers in heaven, after we find out who got in and after their theology has been straightened out.

Romans 6:1

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” (Romans 6:1).

Here is one verse that Federal Visionists hate. Paul has just finished proclaiming the gospel (Romans 1-5), and now, he faces the inevitable charge of antinomianism. Indeed, all who desire to preach JBFA will be accused of being antinomian.

Federal Visionists claim that Paul is in the middle of proclaiming the gospel and that he is only responding to a hypothetic question as a means to more fully explain the gospel.

Obviously, this cannot be true because Paul does not mention JBFA after Romans 5. Thus, Romans 6-16 is not about the gospel. These chapters are probably important for other reasons, but Romans 1-5 is all we need for the gospel.

So, when a truly Reformed preacher declares the gospel, he can expect to find a throng of the elect surrounding the pulpit, breathlessly waiting to ask the all-important question, “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” This is the hallmark of modern Reformed preaching.

Therefore, the entire goal of preaching is that we may be accused of antinomianism. Truly, there is no higher compliment than to be accused of being antinomian. Only then can you know that you have been faithful to sola fide.

In fact, if are not accused of antinomianism Sunday after Sunday, then you are not preaching the gospel. You are starving the sheep from the pure antinomian milk of JBFA.

Psalm 119:113

“I hate those who are double-minded, But I love Your law” (Psalm 119:113).

We have already dealt with the concept of believers claiming to “love” the law (here and here), but apparently, this idea pops up again in this verse. Hopefully, this is the last time we have to go over this.

Federal Visionists insist that we ought to be able to echo David’s statement, “I love Your law.” However, this completely disregards the progress of revelation.

Evidently, it was tolerable for a primitive such as David to say, “I love Your law.” God overlooks such times of ignorance. However, because we have access to Paul and Luther and the White Horse Inn, we are without excuse.

Thus, believers would be wise to say, “I hate those who are double-minded, just as I hate your law.” This is how the modern Reformed speak.

Matthew 6:10

“Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we should pray for God’s name to be hallowed on earth, for his kingdom to come on earth, and for his will to be done on earth. Obviously, this is the elementary mistake of confusing the two kingdoms.

The Reformed faith has always held that there are two kingdoms, the kingdom of the sheep, which is in heaven, and the kingdom of the goats, which is on earth. These are two separate kingdoms which operate on separate principles: earth with fleshly principles and heaven with spiritual principles.

The church is part of the kingdom of heaven, which means that we must minimize the impact that the church has on this world. Indeed, the purer the church, the less impact she has on the world.

Therefore, we should pray that God’s will would not be done on earth, so that the stark contrast between the two kingdoms can be observed. Furthermore, we should pray that God’s name would be blasphemed on earth and that his kingdom would remain in heaven. We must keep the kingdoms separate at all costs.

Federal Visionists call this a “Lutheran” scheme. However, such profane language is unjustified. As far as we know, all Reformers and Puritans held to this two kingdoms view. Federal Visionists simply refuse to drink the gnostic kool-aid that drives our modern Reformation. MGHMOTS!

1 John 3:10

“By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the difference between children of God and the children of the devil is that the children of God practice righteousness and love their brother. Obviously, this is works-salvation, making assurance based upon one’s lifestyle, which is a denial of solus Christus.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that salvation is through Christ alone (solus Christus), which means that we are saved not by our works, but by the works of Christ alone.

Solus Christus also means that assurance of salvation comes from meditating on the works of Christ, not examining our own works. In no way is assurance linked to anything we do. In no way is assurance dependent upon our works, our life, our “righteousness,” or our love for the brethren.

The children of God and the children of the devil are obvious, indeed. The children of God look only to the works of Christ for assurance. The children of the devil look at their own works for assurance.

In fact, those who ask you to look at your own works for assurance prove that they, themselves, are children of the devil. Such can be assured of one thing, that they are damned.

The need of the hour is for rogue bloggers to scour the internet for Federal Visionists, pronounce the NAPARCian judgments against them, and assure them of their damnation. Additionally, we must pray that all Federal Visionists would receive a full and robust assurance of damnation. May God have mercy on their souls.

Ephesians 2:8-9

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Federal Visionists claim to love these verses, but what they take away with the left hand, they give with the right. They only quote this passage to make themselves seem orthodox, but they don’t really believe it.

Federal Visionists constantly whine about being misunderstood, but this is the plea of all heretics. No, Federal Visionists are actually easy to figure out. Here’s a simple, two-pronged approach to attacking the Federal Vision:

1) If a Federal Visionist says something that is unorthodox, then take them at their word and prosecute them as heretics.

2) If a Federal Visionist say something that seems to be orthodox, then do not take them at their word. They are lying. They really believe the opposite and need to be persecuted as heretics.

Thus, no matter what Federal Visionists say, they cannot win. They are either telling the truth about their unorthodoxy or lying about their orthodoxy. These are the only two options.

John 14:1

“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me” (John 14:1).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we are saved by believing in Jesus, emphasizing that we must believe in the person of Christ, not merely propositions about Christ. Obviously, this puts Federal Visionists in bed with the neo-orthodox and other liberals.

Since the Reformation, the elect have cherished sola fide, the doctrine that we are saved by faith alone. Now, technically, the object of our faith alone is Jesus. However, Jesus is not merely a wax nose that can be shaped by anyone. The content of our faith alone is crucial. What do we believe (alone) about Jesus and God?

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the most fundamental doctrine of theology proper is that God justifies by faith alone. Justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. This is the doctrine that saves your soul. This is the doctrine that divides the sheep from the goats.

At the judgment, many will say to Jesus, “Lord, did we not believe in you?” But he will say, “You did not believe in justification by faith alone. Depart from me. I never knew you.”

Federal Visionists accuse us of making sola fide our god, but this is a baseless charge. We can only answer that we align ourselves with the Reformed tradition, trusting wholeheartedly in sola fide. Here we stand. We can do no other. So help us, sola fide.

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!

Ephesians 2:1

“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1).

This is one of the most important verses in all of Calvindom. The classic reading of this text has always held that unbelievers are dead in their sins. This was true of us. As unbelievers, we were dead and could not respond to the gospel. The Holy Spirit regenerated us, and then we responded in faith. This is Calvinism 101.

Federal Visionists claim to believe all of this, but do not be duped by their assertions of orthodoxy. Federal Visionists argue that Paul was speaking of death as a metaphor, not as a literal reality. Thus, unbelievers are not literally dead. Rather, Paul used death as a metaphor to describe how radically unbelievers are separated from God: it is as if they are dead. Obviously, this implies that regeneration is also not a literal reality, but only a metaphor for how radical the change is from unbeliever to believer.

Conversely, the Reformed faith has always insisted that Paul was speaking of literal death. Unbelievers are literally dead. They are corpses. They need literal regeneration. They need to be brought back to life, literally.

Of course, unbelievers are not really dead. Their bodies are alive. Their souls are alive, too. What part, then, of an unbeliever is dead?

The Reformed faith has always insisted that unbelievers are dead spiritually, that is, their spirits are dead. Man has three constituent parts: body, soul, and spirit (Hebrews 4:12). The bodies and souls of unbelievers are alive, but their spirits are dead. Regeneration is the literal resuscitation of their spirits. Thus, trichotomy becomes a key weapon in fighting the Federal Vision heresy.

Leviticus 1:3

“If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:3)

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we can do something of our own free will. Obviously, this is Arminian.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we do not have free will. Ever since the fall, our wills are tainted, and they are anything but free. In no way do we ever do something “of our own free will.” You are an Arminian if you ever utter the phrase “free will” except as a denunciation.

Ephesians 4:4-5

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4-5).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is saying that there is only one baptism, that is, that water baptism and spirit baptism are identical. Or, as one Light-hearted Federal Visionist often says, “baptism is baptism.” Obviously, this is a regurgitation of the Roman Catholic heresy of baptismal regeneration.

The Reformed faith has always held that there are two baptisms: water baptism and Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism is where the action is: regeneration, union with Christ, Covenant of Grace Membership, Invisible Church Membership, etc. Water baptism is where you get wet in front of the church.

Anyone should be able to see the clear difference between these two kinds of baptism. The failure to distinguish water baptism from spirit baptism means that you have exited the Reformed freeway and are now on the Roman road, ecclesially speaking.

One of the great things about the current Anti-Federal Visionist reign of terror is that it unites all Christians under the label “Reformed,” including Baptists (as long as you are willing to be called a “Reformed Baptist”). This is because baptism has nothing to do with being Reformed. Thus, a Reformed Baptist is just as Reformed as a Presbyterian. There’s no difference!

Sure, there are superficial differences in their practice of baptism: Reformed Baptists use a lot of water whereas Presbyterians only use a little. Presbyterians baptize babies whereas Reformed Baptists only baptize the elect.

While their practices differ, their doctrines of baptism are virtually identical, separated mostly by semantics. Presbyterians sometimes talk about baptism as a “means of grace,” but after thoroughly qualifying this, they are on the same ground as Reformed Baptists.

Thus, the key to being Reformed is whether you are a Tulipist or not. (Side note: we hesitate to say Calvinist because Calvin’s view of baptism may have been proto-FV. We’re not sure because we don’t bother reading primary sources anymore. Better to site Reformed scholars like Kuyper and Ryrie).

In summary, to be Reformed, you only have to believe in TULIP. That’s it! Everyone who is Tulipistic is Reformed. Here’s an easy tautology to remember this:

Reformed = TULIP

Getting back to the task at hand, what Paul means by “one baptism” is that there is one real baptism or one genuine baptism, which is, of course, Spirit baptism. While water baptism is probably important for some reason, Spirit baptism is the only one that really counts.

(See here for how to circumvent the obviously-Tridentine language of the Nicene Creed.)

1 Timothy 2:5-6

“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:5-6).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Christ gave himself as a ransom for all. Conversely, such a sentiment denies Limited Atonement, the doctrine that is one of the fundamentals of our modern Reformed cul-de-sac.

The Reformed faith has unanimously insisted that Christ died for the elect only. His death was sufficient, efficient, and beneficent for the elect only. In no way did Christ “give himself” for “all.” In no way was Christ “a ransom” for “all.”

This is known as Limited Atonement, which was first articulated in the Canons of Dordt as one of the Five Points of Calvinism (it is the “L” in TULIP). The Magisterial Reformers, including Boettner, Steele, and Thomas, all held to Limited Atonement.

Federal Visionists are attempting to resurrect the abominable heresy of Amyraldianism, which has been rejected as heterodox and universally condemned by every Reformed creed and blog.

In this passage, the word “all” is a masculine-plural adjective sans antecedent. The lack of a noun means that Paul is using the Genitive of Limitation. Thus, by “all,” Paul does not mean every person, but every kind of person.

Christ gave himself as a ransom for all kinds of people – Dutch Reformed, Swiss Reformed, German Reformed, French Reformed, Scottish Reformed, etc.

1 Samuel 24:3

“He came to the sheepfolds on the way, where there was a cave; and Saul went in to relieve himself” (1 Samuel 24:3).

Federal Visionists and other budding theologians routinely miss the import of passages such as this because they have rejected Reformed hermeneutics.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the most basic hermeneutical principle is distinguishing between law and gospel. Some have difficulty understanding this, but it is as simple as recognizing the differences between indicatives and imperatives.

The law comes to us in imperatives, such as “abide in me,” “deny yourself” or “repent and believe.” These are commands, which are designed to bring terror.

The gospel comes to us in indicatives, such as “there is none who does good,” “there is none righteous,” or “all our righteousness is as filthy rags.” These are indicatives, which are designed to bring comfort.

Every verse in the Bible is either law or gospel, either terror or comfort. Being Reformed means having the skill to distinguish the law from the gospel. On the other hand, confusing law and gospel is the quickest ticket to Rome and her suburbs (e.g., CREC, CoE, EO, etc.).

So, what is 1 Samuel 24:3? Is this law or gospel? Clearly, this is an indicative statement, which means that this is gospel. Thus, Saul’s bowel movement is designed to bring you comfort, not terror.

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.

Romans 13:10

“Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that if they love their neighbor, then they will fulfill the law. This is a blatant denial of the most sacred of all doctrines, the IAOCNHWI (imputation of the active obedience of Christ – no hope without it).

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we cannot fulfill the law in any way, shape, or form. All we can do is rest in finished work of Christ and receive the blessed IAOCNHWI. There is none righteous (Romans 3:10); that is why we need the IAOCNHWI. All our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), and so, we are dependent upon the IAOCNHWI.

If you try to love your neighbor, you are putting yourself back under the law. You are better off not even trying to love your neighbor, but rather resting in the IAOCNHWI. Thank God for IAOCNHWI! No hope without it!

Exodus 20:11

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God created the world in six days. This naïveté betrays the anti-intellectualism of the Federal Vision.

The Modern Reformed faith has always held that the first chapter of Genesis is poetic, and as everyone knows, poetry cannot be used to convey history. Poetry always compromises accuracy.

This becomes even more clear when we notice that the sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there were mornings and evenings for the first three days, not to mention the creation of light on the first day.

The only explanation for this chronological gaffe is that God is communicating poetically rather than historically. This violation of the law of non-contradiction leads us to the obvious conclusion that we cannot not take this account literally. Thus, the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created.

Federal Visionists wrongly accuse us of being dishonest with the text. On the contrary, our position is not only honest, but heroic. When the doctrine of the Creation ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given us, we openly rejected it. We preached against it. We took every risk.

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.

Matthew 6:6

“But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:6).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that Jesus is offering a reward for those who pray in secret. They argue that this promise of the reward should help motivate us to pray in secret. Obviously, this is anti-Reformed.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that our only motive for obedience is gratitude. We hear God’s law, then we feel guilty for not being perfect, then we remember the grace of God, then we obey out of gratitude. It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else, and you are not Reformed.

God may reward us, but we are not supposed to think about this. We are never to be motivated by the promise of rewards. Certainly, God would never base rewards on such works as “praying in secret” or “fasting in secret.” Rewards imply Pelagianism. It is best to ignore those who speak of rewards.

James 2:21

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” (James 2:21).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Abraham was justified by works. They argue that there are different types/aspects/perspectives of justification. They speak of initial justification, ongoing justification, and final justification. Obviously, such sentiments are not even remotely Reformed.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. There is no further justification or final justification. Period. No further discussion is necessary.

So, what are we to do when someone brings up James 2? We have found a catch phrase that effectively dismisses any Federal Visionists who dares to bring up James 2 or any other Biblical argument. We simply say, “Every heretic quotes the Bible.”

The power of this phrase is stunning. There is no possible rebuttal. This is the ultimate smokescreen. It is like a magic bullet or a get-out-of-jail-free card. It completely disarms your opponent because the more he quotes the Bible, the more he looks like a heretic. It works every time!

This is the Catch-22 that Federal Visionists find themselves in. If they quote the Bible, they’re heretics. If they don’t quote the Bible, they’re heretics. They're damned if they do and damned if they don’t. And, in their case, literally!

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.

Romans 3:20

“Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Romans 3:20).

Federal Visionists frequently misunderstand this verse to mean that no one can be justified by works of the Law. However, this is a rejection of Covenant Theology.

The Reformed faith has always held that the Covenant of Works offers life to those who keep the law perfectly. Of course, none of us could do this, but Jesus did keep the law for us. His works of the law are credited to us. Thus, we are justified by works, that is, by the works of Christ.

Admittedly, this sounds bizarre, but it is simply the ancient sprouline gospel that the Reformed faith has always proclaimed.

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.

Romans 9:31-32

“But, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone” (Romans 9:31-32).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think Paul is saying that Israel should have pursued the Mosaic Covenant by faith rather than by works. Paul allegedly argues that Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, but they did not “arrive” at the law because they pursued the law by works. If Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, then this would mean that the Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant of Grace rather than a Covenant of Works. Obviously, this is neo-Shepherdian-legalism.

The Reformed faith has unanimously insisted that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works. The Mosaic Covenant did not require faith; it required absolute perfection. Thus, Israel was correct to pursue it by works rather than by faith. Israel failed because they were not perfect, not because they did or did not have faith. Faith has nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.

Ephesians 1:3

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God gives every spiritual blessing to those who are in Christ. They argue that when we are united with Christ, it is through this union that we receive justification, adoption, redemption, etc. Besides disturbing the sacred ordo salutis, this reveals the corrupt hearts of Federal Visionists.

First, the Reformed faith has always held that justification is the heart of the gospel; it is the foundation of our salvation. Everything starts with justification. Without justification, there is no union with Christ. We cannot be united to Christ without first receiving his righteousness in justification (which we receive by divine fiat). Once we are justified, we receive all the other unimportant parts of salvation (union with Christ, adoption, redemption, etc.).

Second, we need to remember that in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul is not dealing with the gospel. As you may have noticed, Paul does not mention justification at all in Ephesians. There is a simple explanation for this: Ephesians is about ecclesiology, not soteriology. If you want to understand Reformed soteriology, study Romans and Galatians, not Ephesians.

Romans 13:8

“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that it is possible for sinners to fulfill the law. However, this is thinly-disguised Pelagianism.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the law requires absolute perfection. Since we have all sinned, it is impossible for any mere man to fulfill the law.

Furthermore, no one loves his neighbor perfectly, and so, no one “fulfills” the law. Only Jesus loves perfectly, and thus, only Jesus can fulfill the law. Paul must be referring to the fact that we receive Jesus’ law keeping in the imputation the active obedience of Christ. Thus, we should be moved to love out of gratitude, knowing that love does not fulfill the law.

Psalm 119:165

“Those who love Your law have great peace, And nothing causes them to stumble” (Psalm 119:165).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that it is possible for sinners to love the law. However, this is a blatant denial of Total Depravity.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the law only brings a knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). Thus, no Christian could ever say that they love the law. That is impossible.

If we look more closely at David’s statement, we notice that he is simply making the comment that those who love the law will have great peace. Well, who has great peace? This can only describe Jesus. Only Jesus loves the law, and only Jesus can have great peace.

Jesus loves the law. We don’t. What’s so hard to understand about this?

A Brave New World

Federal Visionists love to paint themselves as “Biblicists” who take the Bible at face value. They accuse us of placing tradition above God’s word.

Admittedly, we are more familiar with the Reformed confessions, but as we have unmistakably proven over the past month, we are quite capable of handling God’s earlier revelation when necessary.

As much as the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible has ministered to the elect, we would have an even greater advantage over our foes if we had our own version of the Bible. Perhaps NAPARC could be persuaded to publish a new translation to bring the light of the Reformation to God’s word.

This would make our job of rebutting Federal Visionists even easier. We could clarify some of Jesus’ careless statements, insert “alone” where Paul mistakenly left it out, and edit those pesky passages in James where he confusedly speaks of "justification" by works and not by faith alone.

In general, we could bring the Bible into line with the magisterium of twenty-first century reformed thought. We could call it the “Modern Reformation Bible.”

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.

Psalm 18:20-24

“The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, And have not wickedly departed from my God. For all His ordinances were before me, And I did not put away His statutes from me. I was also blameless with Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity. Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes” (Psalm 18:20-24).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that David is speaking of himself, and therefore, it is proper for all Christians to speak this way. This is pure folly.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that man is totally depraved. This means that we can never say anything good about ourselves. Yet, look at what David attributes to “himself”:

· Righteousness
· Cleanness of his hands
· Keeping the ways of the Lord
· Not departing from the Lord’s statutes
· Blameless with the Lord
· Keeping himself from his iniquity
· His righteousness (again)
· Cleanness of his hands in the Lord’s eyes (again)

We know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10) and that “all our righteousness is as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). Thus, it is quite impossible that David is saying all of this about himself.

This passage is probably a prophecy about Jesus, because only Jesus kept the Covenant of Works perfectly. Another possibility is the David is speaking about his position in Christ. We have pointed out that other passages (like this and this and this) where someone claims to be “righteous,” they are obviously speaking of positional righteousness, not intrinsic righteousness.

This brings up an important point. When someone asks us how we are doing, we often respond, “good.” Is this an accurate response? No! As Jesus said, “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18), so none of us should ever hint that we are “good.” It would be better to reply, “I’m not perfect, just forgiven.”

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.”

Matthew 19:14

“But Jesus said, ‘Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these’” (Matthew 19:14).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus wants children coming to him during the Lord’s Supper, i.e., paedocommunion. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, Federal Visionists repeatedly wrench verses out of their context to fabricate their wretched doctrines, such as paedocommunion. The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected paedocommunion as heterodox.

The first three rules of exegesis are context, context, context. A brief perusal of this passage indicates that the Lord’s Supper is nowhere in view, either in the near context or far context.

However, baptism is clearly what Jesus was referring to. We can tell this because when Jesus says, “Do not hinder them from coming to Me,” the word “coming” is an aorist infinitive, which implies a one-time action.

Thus, Jesus is saying, do not hinder them from coming to Jesus in baptism (a one-time action), but do hinder them from coming to Jesus in the Lord’s Supper (ongoing action, albeit infrequent).

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.

Psalm 119:97

“O how I love Your law!” (Psalm 119:97).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because they think that David is actually expressing love for the law. However, this is simply neo-legalism.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the law is repugnant to man, as Paul states, “For by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). Since the law only brings the knowledge of sin, it is impossible for anyone to say anything positive about the law, particularly that they “love” the law.

The one exception is, of course, Jesus, who was sinless. So, the law did not bring the knowledge of sin to him. Thus, when David says that he loves the law, he must be speaking from the perspective of Jesus. Jesus loves the law. Christians do not. Anyone who says they love the law is not Reformed.

Matthew 12:37

"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:37).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we will be justified by our words, which they use to support two of their most nefarious doctrines: 1) justification apart from faith; and 2) future justification. Obviously, these Pelagian doctrines bear little resemblance to the solas.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification can only refer to the forensic declaration of righteousness that is received by faith alone. Our words have nothing to do with justification. This is simply works-righteousness repackaged as the gospel, which is no gospel at all.

Furthermore, no Reformed theologian has ever held to a “future justification” or a so-called “future-aspect of justification.” The only kind of justification that is future is for the elect who are not yet justified.

When Jesus said, “by your words you will be justified,” there is no reason to assume that he is meant spoken words. Spoken words would be a work, and we know that “a man is justified by faith apart from works” (Romans 3:28). Jesus must be referring to words of the mind, or thoughts. As soon as you can think the thought, “I believe in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ” then you have faith and you are justified by this faith that is alone. Praise God for sola fide!

Romans 4:23-25

"Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (Romans 4:23-25).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that the resurrection has something to do with justification. However, this is utterly Tridentine.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification only involves the life and death of Jesus. Jesus’ life (law-keeping) is given to us in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Jesus’ death (payment for sin) is given to us in the imputation of passive obedience of Christ.

The resurrection has nothing to do with justification. The resurrection is probably important for other reasons, but it has no place in the Reformed doctrine of justification.

Distinguishing Words and Terms

Federal Visionists love to portray themselves as “Biblicists” who take the Bible at face value as argued here. However, such posturing is simply rebellion against the Reformation.

The Reformed faith has always insisted upon distinguishing between words and terms. The Bible uses words. Reformed theology uses terms. The difference is enormous. When a word is given a technical definition, it ceases to be merely a word and becomes a term. Once a word attains the status of a “term,” it can never be used as simply a “word.” This is how God works in history.

Thus, certain parts of the Bible should not be read without heavy qualifications. Otherwise, people will be confused and think that the Bible contradicts the Reformed faith.

Is Biblical Usage Primary?

Federal Visionists love to boast about being "Biblicists," claiming that we should to use Bible words in the way the Bible uses them. Not only are claims like this hopelessly naive, they are downright dangerous.

Once a technical definition has been established by the Reformed faith, we must insist that such a definition be the only way that a particular word is ever used, regardless of what the Bible or anyone else says. If we insist that the Biblical usage of words is primary, then we run the risk of contradicting the Reformed faith. This is the road to Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, and Moscow (not the one in Russia).

1 Corinthians 13:2

"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:2).

Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds as if Paul is saying that faith alone is not enough. However, this kind of exegesis is historically naïve.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone (sola fide). Love is not part of faith, and thus, love is not a requirement for salvation. Love is a work and cannot be included in salvation in any way without compromising the gospel of sola fide. So, Paul does not really mean that faith without love is “nothing.” He is just exaggerating to make a point about how we should obey from gratitude.

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.

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.

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.

James 2:14

"What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14).

Federal Visionists love this passage because when James asks whether faith without works can save, he anticipates a negative answer (due to the presence of the Greek particle me at the beginning of the sentence). Thus, James is boldly declaring that faith alone cannot save, which seems like a blatant contradiction of sola fide.

However, there is no reason to ditch the historic Reformed faith. As the esteemed commentator Zane Hodges has pointed out, the word “save” probably refers to being “rescued” from trials. James is not speaking about eternal salvation but earthly deliverance, namely that faith without works cannot deliver us from earthly trials. Thank God for men like Zane Hodges who are committed to protecting sola fide!

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.

Romans 6:17

"But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed" (Romans 6:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because it sounds like Paul is saying that obedience can come from our hearts. This is sheer Arminianism.

Our hearts are “more deceitful than all else and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9). This is total depravity. To suggest that our hearts can be obedient is to contradict historic Calvinism.

Notice that Paul does not say, “you became obedient from your heart.” He says, “you became obedient from the heart.” Obviously, this is referring to the heart of Christ because only Jesus’ heart can be obedient.

James 2:12

"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty" (James 2:12).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think it shows a positive use of the law, as if “the law of liberty” refers to the law setting us free. However, there is no reason to take James to mean this.

The Reformed faith has always taught that the law only brings us a knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19-20). In no way does the law set us free. This is the path to legalism!

Notice, too, that this comes just before James 2:14-26, where James makes some rather unguarded statements about justification. Remember that James is not a systematic theologian. He writes on a practical level. Thus, the Reformed faith has rightly disregarded James when it comes to systematic theology.

1 Corinthians 15:58

"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Federal Visionists love verses like this because it sounds as if Paul wants us to do something so that our “toil” in the Lord is not in vain. However, such an interpretation betrays the anti-Calvinist flavor of the Federal Vision.

God is sovereign, and we are not. God does not depend upon us in any way. In fact, it is impossible for our toil to be in vain. God has foreordained it, and so it cannot be in vain. Beware of anyone who wants to say that God depends upon us in any way. This is Arminian!

Genesis 7:1

"Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time" (Genesis 7:1).

Federal Visionists love to argue that verses like this prove that man can be righteous apart from God. Pelagian alert! This is simply twisting the Scriptures for their own benefit.

We know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, this verse must be speaking of positional righteousness, not experiential righteousness.

So, when the Lord says that he “sees” that Noah is righteous, the Lord sees Noah wrapped in the robes of righteousness that only come through the righteousness of Christ (Zechariah 3:1-5).

Romans 1:5

"Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake" (Romans 1:5).

Federal Visionists verses like this because they think that Paul is saying that faith can obey. This is sheer Romanism.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that faith is not a work. Faith does nothing but rest in the active obedience of Christ. If you try to get your faith to obey, then you are failing to rest in Christ. Christ has done it all so that you can do nothing!

Ephesians 1:3-4

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:3-4).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is speaking of ecclesial election rather than soteriological election. Do not be deceived. There is no such animal as ecclesial election. This is an invention of Federal heretics like Steve Wilkins.

For those who are non-scholars, you may have noticed that our English translations do not mention “election.” However, the Greek does. When Paul writes, “He chose us,” the word “chose” could also be translated as “elected.” Paul is saying that God “elected” us. This is simply the classic Reformed doctrine of election.

Federal Visionists have muddied the waters by trying to insert two kinds of election into the Scriptures: ecclesial and soteriological. That is, some are “elected” to be members in the visible church, while others are “elected” to eternal salvation. Conversely, the Reformed faith has always insisted that election always refers to eternal salvation.

Federal Visionists point out that Paul seems to use the word “elect” without qualification, meaning that all members of the Ephesian church would be elect. Some Anti-Federal Visionists argue that because Paul was intimately familiar with the church at Ephesus, he knew indisputably that everyone in the church at Ephesus was elect.

While we respect all who battle against Federal Visionists, this interpretation seems doubtful. Most scholars believe that the letter that we call “Ephesians” was actually a circular letter, intended for distribution in multiple churches. It is unlikely that Paul could have insured that only the elect would have read his letter.

We would like to propose the following alternative explanation. When Paul writes, “He chose us,” Paul is obviously using what Greek grammarians call the subjunctive accusative. The word “us” is in the subjunctive mood, which would change the translation slightly: “He chose some of us.” Thus, any church could read this letter with integrity, knowing that only the elect would be assured of their election.

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."

James 2:24

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

Federal Visionists love this entire passage in James 2 because it seems to teach justification by works. They love to point out that the only place in the Bible that says “faith alone” is here, where James says that justification is allegedly “not” by faith alone.

The Reformed faith has always taught that justification is by faith alone (sola fide). Now, the Bible never actually says this, but Paul comes close enough when he says, “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28).

Had James been aware of Paul’s writings, or even more importantly, had James known how the historic Reformed faith would have spoken of justification, James never would have written so carelessly. Then again, James has never been known as a systematic theologian. This drove Luther so nuts that he called James an epistle of “straw.”

While James is not much of a theologian, he is wonderfully practical and good to read for inspiration. However, when it comes to systematic theology, the Reformed faith has rightly looked to Paul rather than James.

Genesis 26:4

"I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws" (Genesis 26:4).

Federal Visionists love to use this verse to show that it is possible for us to keep the law. This is modern-day Pelagianism.

The commandments, statues, and laws of God require absolute perfection. Only Jesus could keep these perfectly. Thus, this passage must be referring to the glorious truth that Christ kept the law for Abraham.

Luke 1:5-6

“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:5-6).

Federal Visionists love this verse because it seems to support two of their favorite false doctrines: 1) righteousness does not always mean perfection; 2) keeping the law does not always require perfection. These false doctrines betray theological immaturity and a lack of familiarity with the doctrines of the Reformation.

First, we know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, Luke must be speaking of the positional righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth. They have been righteous in Christ by possessing the alien righteousness of Christ.

Second, Luke does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth actually walked blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. Only Jesus kept the Covenant of Works and merited eternal life by his own righteousness. This must be referring to what Christ accomplished for them. Remember, “all our righteousness is like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).

1 Peter 3:21

"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21).

Federal Visionists love this verse because Peter says, “baptism now saves you.” By wrenching such statements out of context, this brings them into union with Rome regarding baptismal regeneration.

The Reformed faith has always taught that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide). Baptism is no way saves us. Had Peter known how the Federal Visionists would pervert his statement, he surely would have phrased this differently.

If Peter really meant to say that baptism now saves us, what he meant was that Spirit baptism now saves. When an elect person is regenerated, he is also baptized in the Spirit. This kind of baptism saves us.

While this should be abundantly clear, it is best to far away from any language that sounds remotely Roman, such as "baptism now saves you." It is better to stick with the time-honored solas.

2 Corinthians 5:10

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10).

This is one of the favorite passages of the Federal Visionists because at face value, this seems as if Paul is saying that we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to be recompensed for our deeds, according to what we have done, whether good or bad. However, there is no reason to fall for this kind of clumsy exegesis.

First of all, no one does good (Romans 3:12), so half of this verse cannot apply to anyone except Jesus. Only Jesus can be recompensed for the good that he has done.

Second, the word "deeds" is not in the Greek manuscripts! This would be better translated as "things." Unfortunately, this does not help us that much because it still sounds like Paul is saying that we will be judged for what we do. However, we know that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide) through grace alone (sola gratia) in Christ alone (solus christus), so Paul cannot really mean that a person will be judged by any other standard. Thus, the elect will not be judged according to what they have done.

So, to sum up, we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ where
1) Christ will be recompensed for the good things that he has done.
2) The reprobate will be recompensed for the bad things they have done.
3) The elect will have the best seat in the house.

Introduction

Every heretic quotes the Bible. This especially applies to Federal Visionists, as they are quite skilled at overwhelming the unsuspecting with a smokescreen of Scriptures.

We are here to help. Many of us have already thought through these issues. By carefully explaining the pet passages of the Federal Visionists, this blog hopes to be a resource to assist in refuting these slippery snakes. Soli Deo Gloria!