This is the Beryl Heights Presbyterian Church Pulpit Supplemental, and today I want to do a special program that might take more than one program. I want to do a study of contrasts. A study of contrasts. When I was, let's see, goodness, had just been married for a short time, I went to a secret sensitive megachurch, and I actually was the guy, I was the guy that played the keyboard. I played the keyboard and led the singing and led the syrupy, shallow, praise music stuff. It was terrible. And started listening to the White Horse Inn radio program, started listening to R.C. Sproul, started listening to James White, started listening to lots of good reformed scholars and getting their books and reading them and learned a ton. And eventually I had to leave that church and started looking for somewhere to go to church. Now at the time, my wife and I, we had no children yet. It's hard to remember that what that was actually like now that we have 10, but we lived in Akron, Ohio. And so we were relatively close to Parkside Church where Alistair Begg. It was, I think still is, the pastor, I don't know what's going on there these days, but I went up there to listen to him. I was told by a friend that he was a great preacher and he was. Wow, what a contrast to go listen to Alistair Begg preach and then go to the church that I was coming from. But anyway, we left that church. It was kind of an ugly thing because I tried to help them become reformed and that wasn't going to happen. So went to Alistair Begg's church and one of the things that Alistair Begg's church had, this is in the year 1999, they had like a great bookstore. Wow, it was just awesome. And I was just breaking the bank going to that store. But one of the books that I got there had just been published. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Raymond. And I didn't know who he was. I had been recommended that book by another pastor, a PCA man I had met there in Akron. And so I got Raymond's book and immediately turned to the section on justification and read it. I read it several times. It's fairly lengthy, but it's just such an outstanding exposition of justification and of Just keeping real clean, distinct, the biblical doctrine of faith. Faith is not obedience to law. Faith is not works. Faith is believing. That's what pistuo means, the verb, and what the noun pistus, belief, is actually a better translation of it than faith. The problem, remember Gordon Clark saying in a lecture one time, the problem with unbelievers is that they don't believe. Okay, belief, believing that Jesus is your savior, that his righteousness is going to justify you, it justifies you before God, and that his cross work forgives you for all your sins. That's what faith is. Faith is not working. Faith is not doing anything. Faith is receiving and resting upon Christ alone. And that's what Paul wrote Galatians all about. I've been reading Galatians with my, with my younger crop of children at home every night. And we just read Galatians three. It was wonderful. I had a really good. discussion about it with my 10-year-old, my 8-year-old, and my 7-year-old, and my 5-year-old, and my 3-year-old. great time talking with them about these all-important issues about justification, sanctification, and what this is all about. The law, its role, its purpose. We talked about what tutor means, that term pedagogos, the law was our tutor. How does the law tutor us to go to Christ? It was a really good discussion. I just get so excited about those kids. I think they're going to change the whole world. So anyway, read Robert Raymond years ago and learned so much from him, from his simple exposition from scripture of justification. And he does a good job of contrasting it with the Roman Catholic view. And when I was in seminary in 2007, 2008, that was the year I believe that the, yeah, it was the year that the committee report was done on the federal vision. And of course, I could tell this was going to be a problem because where I was going to be pastoring in Ohio, they had sent me to Jackson, Mississippi to do a year of seminary work before I came back to work for the church. There was a classical Christian school nearby and it was DRIPPING with the stuff. They had teachers promoting. Peter Lightheart actually spoke at their convocation one year. And I'd never heard of him. I didn't know much about Doug Wilson, except I had read Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning, which is a book on classical education, which is one of the reasons I liked that school. Mars Hill Academy is what it's called. And my eldest daughter went there, kindergarten, first and second grade, and then we've been homeschooling ever since then. And honestly wish that that's what we had done the whole time anyway. Anyway, had to learn about this stuff. Who are all these guys? Like, who is Bug Wilson, really? Who is Peter Lightheart? Who is Steve Schlissel? Who is Steve Wilkins? Who are all these guys? Because they have a huge influence. people that go to that school and a lot of those people that went to the school went to the big Presbyterian Church where I was a pastor and So I had to start reading and trying to understand this stuff now I have a whole bookshelf in the back there of federal vision books. So here's here's one Reformed is not enough by Doug Wilson my original copy of this reformed is not enough by Doug Wilson recovering the objectivity of the Covenant and It had no idea what he meant. Also bought and read this one, The Federal Vision, edited by Steve Wilkins and Dwayne Garner, and read the essays in here. And I'm going to be giving some quotations from this later. Also got, eventually, while I was in seminary down there in Mississippi, got this, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons, Debating the Federal Vision. And it's funny, I was just paging through this. It's been a long time since I've read this stuff. My marginal notes and all my notations and things I underline. Rich Lusk's essay in here is so bad that I was just shocked at the things that he said. I mean, it's just, it's shockingly heretical. Just unbelievable. And it was just really, really funny. I found one of those pages in here where I just doodled all over the page because of how many how many problems look at look at my note my notations all over the page here like wow a lot of bad stuff being said here horrifically bad uh heresy uh right and left So the Auburn Avenue stuff, they call it the Auburn Avenue Theology because it started at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana. So they call it the Auburn Avenue Theology or the Monroe Doctrine it's sometimes called. But it's also, you know, known as the Federal Vision. So I wanted to look at something here that I think would be really helpful for a lot of people to look at. It's been said, well, this is, you know, we don't need to worry about this. Baptists don't need to worry about this. This is a Presbyterian problem. This is a Presbyterian problem. And there's a real sense in which that is true, but they do need to worry about it though. And the thing is, a number of reform denominations did study committee reports and did a really good job, did a really good job of exposing the stuff for what it is. Now, I would like to read the section of the RCUS, their report on the Federal Vision, which they published in 2006. So this is 13 years old, 13 years old. And I'd like to contrast Doug Wilson's Doctrine of Justification, how he understands faith and obedience and works and all the nuancing and all the stuff that he's doing with that. Contrast it with Robert Raymond and his systematic theology and just I want I want you to hot I want you to understand and see the contrast and get some coffee here Now the RC the RC us report I printed it out and made some notations along the way here I've been reading through it just to kind of refresh my memory here this stuff I just for the record federal vision the federal vision is another gospel It's a false gospel. It is heresy And the people that have promoted it, or been involved in it, or been allies to it, anyone that's ever been an ally, or promoted it, or been favorable to it, cannot be in ministry. Should never be behind a pulpit, should never be allowed to be seen by anyone as a ruling elder or a teaching elder, and should never be allowed to preach anywhere. Until they repent of the false gospel, that this clearly is. That this clearly is. Now, they have a whole section in here just on Doug Wilson. They actually deal with each of the people individually. They deal with John Barrett, they deal with Rich Lusk, they deal with Steve Wilkins, and the major problematic statements of their theology. So I'd like to just read this, and you know, I remember plowing into this stuff, and reformed is not enough, and also the Federal Vision essay, the collection of essays that was put out a long time ago by all of them. I mean, listen to the, The bibliography, or not the bibliography, the table of contents here. Listen to the names, okay? All right, Steve Wilkins, John Barich, Steve Wilkins, Rich Lusk, Mark Horn, James Jordan, Peter Lightheart, Steve Schlissel, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk. There's a group for you. Now the thing is, those used to be, or maybe still are, I don't know, Doug Wilson's buddies and friends, has he ever said they're heretics? Has he ever said, yeah, Lightheart's doctrine of, yeah, forensic plus transformational is heresy? Has he ever done that? Not that I know of. I don't know that he's ever denounced any of these guys for being false teachers and heretics, which they all are. They all are. So listen to the RCUS report on Wilson. We're going to look at a couple things that he said here, and then we're going to try to work into as much of Robert Raymond's excellent treatment of justification in his new systematic theology of the Christian faith. So this is from the RCUS report. Listen closely to this, please. Doug Wilson on justification. Doug Wilson argues that he holds to the historic reform doctrine of justification by faith alone. For example, he writes, quote, the historic Protestant position on justification is correct, and the Roman Catholic understanding of individual justification as a process involving an infusion of righteousness is wrong, end quote. And that's from his book Reform Does Not Enough, the book I was just holding up for the camera there. Again he writes, quote, �Justification must not be understood as an infusion of righteousness. Rather, justification is the pardon for sins and the legal reckoning of our persons as righteous. We are justified for Christ�s sake only. God does not justify us for anything done by us and, far more importantly, for anything done in us, even by Him. Nor does God justify us because of our faith. Rather, He justifies us because of Christ�s obedience and work, and this is appropriated by us through faith.� End quote. We are saved through faith alone. Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. Justification is permanent and God never ceases to see a justified person as perfect. This has reference to the person's legal status. They are secure in their position within the family of God. Wilson reaffirms, quote, the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification of the righteousness of Christ imputed to those individuals who are elect. This plus nothing constitutes the ground of their final acceptance before God, end quote. Now, hey, how could you possibly quibble with any of that? Now listen to what the report goes on to say. On the surface, this appears to be consistent with the biblical doctrine of justification. However, there are other statements by Wilson that indicate that his understanding is at best deficient. It is necessary to examine other things written and weigh these against the above claims." Okay, now just breaking from the quotation here. This is what's so important. John Piper does the same thing. He sounds exactly orthodox, perfectly orthodox when he talks about justification. But then you find out when pressing a little more and listening a little more carefully that he doesn't think that that is what gives you a legal title to get into heaven. That there's more to it than that. That salvation is a two-stage thing and that our works are brought into the court as forensic legal evidence at the end for our final salvation from the wrath of God at the final day. It's not the blood and righteousness of Christ alone. I mean, he said it so clearly in that sermon that he preached. The survey was a totally confused survey because they asked, how do you get into heaven? You don't get into heaven by faith alone. You get justified by faith alone. I mean, that's as clear a denial of sola fide as you could get. Because justification is what gives us a legal title to eternal life and to get into heaven. But I guess I must be an antinomian then. I've already addressed that many, many, many times. May it never be. May it never be. How shall we who died to sin live in it any longer? Not, no, no, no, I'm not an antinomian. Final salvation is through works. No, it's God regenerates us and God bears that fruit. Every justified person who's getting into heaven by their justification alone will bear that fruit, but we're not saved by the fruit. That is a fatal confusion on the gospel. Now, listen to what they say here. There are good reasons to doubt the accuracy of Wilson's claim that he holds to the historic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the following arguments demonstrate these reasons. So what he does say in those quotations? Spot on the money. Exactly right. It reminds me quite a bit of reading, for example, N.T. Wright. N.T. Wright will say something on one page and nail it. Exactly correct. And then the next page, he'll contradict what he just said. And I think Wilson does the exact same thing. When you, I was sitting there thinking, you know, I haven't listened to the interview that James White did with him. I'm not sure that I'm going to. I mean, how many times can someone be interviewed and examined and write papers? I mean, over 20 years and people still, they're still wondering, what's he really believe? What's he really believe? Man, I'd get out of the ministry in a heartbeat if that was the case. If people had no idea what I was trying to say about how you can end up in heaven and not hell, I would know for sure, even if I was a Christian, that teaching is not my thing. It's not what I should be doing. If world-class theologians aren't sure exactly what you teach, as a good seminary professor I had, Dr. David Jessely told us, guys, what's a mist in the pulpit will be a thick fog in the pew. This stuff is, if nothing else, let's say that it's not heretical. None of these men should be teaching anybody because of their ambiguity, and because of their lack of precision, and because they are all over the place, and they contradict themselves. They contradict themselves. Okay, listen to what the RCUS report goes on to say here. This is really important. First of all, Wilson's summary of the historic Protestant doctrine of justification is not complete. It is missing a very crucial element. Folks, that is a key point. A lot of times what heretics and false teachers will say is right. but they're leaving out one really important thing, which if you don't have it, you really don't have the doctrine. Listen to what they point out. Though Wilson is careful to say repeatedly that good works are not in themselves the ground of our salvation and that the ground of every aspect of our salvation is Christ, he neglects to point out that the ground of justification has never been the issue in the justification controversy. The issue is whether good works are in any way an instrument of justification. Norman Shepard is the primary teacher of this distinction between works not being the ground and yet an instrument of justification. And therein is the problem. They'll say, no, it's all the righteousness of Christ. It's Christ alone. It's his imputed righteousness alone. Yeah, but you talk a lot about good works. Yeah, works are an instrument of justification, but they're not the grounds of it. Listen to what they point out here. He admits that Christ is the only ground of justification and specifically denies the Roman Catholic argument that justification is an infusion of righteousness. Nevertheless, he argues that good works, though not the ground of justification, are an instrument in obtaining justification. According to the Westminster Seminary Board, quote, Shepard questioned making justification by faith alone a touchstone of orthodoxy since, as he argued, what can be said of faith can also be said of good works. Neither can be the ground of justification, both can be instrument." To make good works an instrument of justification is to make good works necessary for continuing in a state of justification. In his 34 Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works, Shepard himself makes this perfectly clear. The exclusive GROUND of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. but his obedience is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification." End quote. That's thesis 21. Here's another one. Quote, the righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification, but, you gotta pay attention to these buts here, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment at the last day. Good works, though not the ground of the believer's justification, are nevertheless necessary for justification. Folks, that's what Mormon Shepherd taught. That's what Doug Wilson teaches too. It's not, they're not the ground, but they are instruments. They are instruments. See, when the Bible, when Paul uses every conceivable formulation of it, justification is by belief apart from observing the law, by belief apart from works of law, it is Either you believe upon and accept and trust in the righteousness of God or you're ignorant of that and are seeking to establish your own righteousness, Romans 10, 3 and 4 says. Okay? Good works are not an instrument in our justification. They are not an instrument in it. Okay? Faith, belief lays hold of Jesus Christ and it's Christ's righteousness and his cross work alone that are the instrument that gets us into heaven. Hey listen, Wilson argues a similar position, similar to Norman Shepard. While he says that justified persons are secure in their position within the family of God, he adds the qualification. Always listen for that. Gotta listen for the but and the qualifications. He adds the qualification that, quote, men fall away because their salvation was contingent upon continued covenant faithfulness in the gospel." End quote. Now, that's quotation. From reformed is not enough. Okay? Now, oh, you're taking it out of context. Just listen. Let's see if we can find it here. Let me read the whole paragraph for you so there won't be any flack for that. Listen. But this relates to perseverance, backsliding, and apostasy. Cori Saria notes the importance of this in questions of apostasy, quote, This does not mean that God is surprised by our actions by no means. It means that this is how we see things played out in the providential fulfilling of the decrees of God. The means by which men apostatize from the covenant is unfaithfulness. The means by which men persevere in the covenant is faithfulness, end quote. In other words, to assert that men fall away because their salvation was contingent upon continued faithfulness in the gospel is not to deny the sovereignty of God at all. So what's he asserting? That's a close quotation. What's he asserting? Men fall away from the gospel by not continuing in faithfulness. Their salvation is contingent upon their covenant faithfulness. By making salvation contingent upon the covenant faithfulness of a believer, he has made salvation contingent upon a personal quality in, or a state of being of, the believer. This is the simple meaning of the suffix ness, in faithfulness. In doing so, Wilson has shifted the means by which we appropriate the work of Christ from the exercise of faith to a change in the quality of one's character. This can be understood in no other way than salvation being contingent on something in or of a person other than Christ. He's exactly right. Our salvation is not contingent upon our works, upon our fruit, upon our covenant faithfulness, or anything like that. Our salvation is secured by Jesus Christ alone. And it's always secured by Jesus Christ alone. And we receive that by belief alone, not by working. So go ahead, bring the accusation, call me an antinomian, just like people called Paul an antinomian. By the way, the federal vision camp will never have that charge made against them. Never. No one would ever read the essays in the pink book, where did I put it? It's over here on the Auburn Avenue. No one would ever read the essays by those guys and say, oh, they're antinomians. Why? Because they teach that you get into heaven by good works. You're saved by the fruits of your faith. It's the good works that are an instrument. They're not the grounds, not the grounds, but they are an instrument. Okay, the RPC, not RP, the RC, U.S. alphabet soup, probably. Sorry. Second, Wilson so defines faith that, at times, faith becomes indistinguishable from good works. This is a problem I've always seen with him, too. When people want one to argue and hammer the point, we believe in sola fide, we believe in justification by faith alone, we believe in justification by faith alone, you ask them, what's faith? And they say, it's obedience to the law. It's obedience. It doesn't really make any sense. That's not what Pistiuo, the verb, means. It doesn't mean works. It means belief. To assent to something. You believe in Solus Ossensis? No, we don't. But when you assent to and receive and rest upon Christ and his righteousness, you are believing to be true what the Gospel promise says. That if, that you believe that Christ died for your sins according to the scriptures, he was buried and rose again. That alone is what justifies us and gives us a legal right to eternal life. The moment we believe and the last moment that we live in this world. Wilson defines faith and making it indistinguishable from good works. Of course, the worst one on that is Schlissel. I mean, Schlissel says that justification by faith means you get, that it means justification by law keeping. Now listen to what it goes on to say here. This is lunacy. This is heresy of the highest order. This is a slap in the face of Christ. This is exactly why the Apostle Paul said in Galatians 3.1, you stupid Galatians, you foolish Galatians. That term, I'm not a toy. I mean, it means you, you dumb idiots. How can you do this? I portrayed Christ among you as crucified. If those who are of the law, if those who believe that faith is obedience, if they're heirs, faith is made void in the promise of no effect. So Paul teaches, that's what the Bible teaches, that's what the gospel always has been. Listen to what the report, the RCUS report goes on to say. For Wilson, faith and good works are used interchangeably in scripture. Quote, we simply want to say that for those faithful to the covenant, initial faith and initial obedience are used interchangeably in scripture. Just breaking from the quotation here. That is such a bad exegesis of, for example, Romans 1.5, the obedience of faith. What that's talking about is obedience that arises from faith. It's also addressing the fact that when the gospel is preached, imperatives are issued. Repent and believe. That doesn't mean that faith is obedience. Faith is still belief. But it is a response to the imperatival call, repent and believe the gospel. Those are imperatives that we obey. It doesn't mean that we're justified or get into heaven by obeying anything, by obeying the law or anything like that. Listen, Wilson continues. Consequently, this ought to be one of the scriptural definitions of obedience. For example, take Romans 6, 17, and 18. This is a converting obedience. Another scriptural name for this is faith. Okay, let's read Romans 6, 17, and 18 here real quick. That is not what it says. Listen to his comments again. Consequently, this ought to be one of the scriptural definitions of obedience. Romans 6, 17. But God bethanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Yeah, you obeyed that form of doctrine. Is there any possible way that you could construe that to be saying, When you say you're justified by faith, in a sense it's obeying law. It's obeying, keeping the commandments of God. The phrase that's used there... In fact, I remember I preached through this and I had to address this issue because becoming a Christian is. It is submitting to the doctrines of scripture. It is a form of knowledge. The illumination of the Holy Spirit gives us a correct knowledge of God. And what that says here, you were obedient from the heart. The term hupakuo. The hupe kusata de ekkardias. Obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, eis an paradatheite tupon didakes. Didakes is where we read the term didake, teaching. You were delivered and obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, the form of doctrine to which you have been delivered or handed over. That's what paradidomi means. What does that have to do? Well, we should use faith interchangeably with good works. Why? Why would Romans 6, 17, and 18 mean? Yeah, when Paul says you're justified by faith, he means justified by good works. You know, I sat down with Guy Waters before I left RTS down there. I had him as a professor. Wonderful guy. Great guy. First-rate scholar. And I had written down 56 questions about the federal vision, because I've been doing all this reading. I've been reading the Auburn Avenue book and other stuff, because I was wanting to get ready to go back to Cincinnati. I knew I was going to have to fight this battle. And one of the things that Dr. Waters said to me that stuck to me, he said, these guys are part of a credentialing process that has really no standards or accountability. And I was like, what do you mean by that? Waters said, it would never occur to me to teach subjects at a seminary or a Bible college that I did not have formal education in. And I was like, is that what they do? He said, yeah, Doug Wilson has no theological training, none. His training's in philosophy. I was like, wow, I didn't know that. He said, yeah, there's no, I mean, you just like found your own school and you can do and teach, I guess, whatever you want there. But look at this massacre of Romans 6, 17, and 18. He says, we simply want to say that for those faithful to the covenant, initial faith and initial obedience are used interchangeably in scripture. Just because it's called, you became obedient from the heart to that form of doctrine to which you were committed. That that means that, how does he say it? Good works are used interchangeably with faith, initial faith and initial good works. That's not what it's talking about. You became obedient to that form of doctrine. What is the doctrine? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Those who believe are obedient from the heart. They're obedient from the heart unto that which you've been given over to the form of doctrine you've been given over to, you've been committed to. That's what paradidomi tupan didakes means. How could any serious exegesis of this passage say, yeah, belief and good works are interchangeable in the Apostle Paul? This, I mean, if you turned that in to an exegesis professor at an undergraduate Bible program, you should have gotten an F for even trying to say something like that. That's not what this is talking about. Unbelievable. Okay, listen to what it goes on here. Wilson says, this is a converting obedience. Another scriptural name for this is faith. The gospel is to be obeyed. Yeah, the imperative, believe. And how is it obeyed? By believing. Not by keeping God's commandments or doing good works or anything like that. He goes on to say, another way of saying this is that the gospel is to be believed. End quote. Wilson grants, this is the RCUS report, Wilson grants that one should not use the phrase, faith is obedience, without qualification. But his qualification does not exclude every kind of obedience from justification, only a certain kind of obedience. And so, to qualify again, to think a man can earn his way into heaven autonomously by any amount of choosing, willing, running, do-gooding, obeying, brownie-pointing, Westminster-confessing, or whatever else a foolish man may think up to take credit for, is a false gospel." And the Roman Catholic Church and the Council of Trent would agree wholeheartedly. Anyone who would say that you can do things autonomously to get yourself into heaven is anathema, according to the Council of Trent. That's not the issue, never has been the issue. Not the issue and never has been the issue. The RCUS report continues. This is, again, a misunderstanding of the way in which the scripture relates faith to obedience and opposed faith to good works. Obedience does indeed flow from true faith. As Paul states in Romans, that the purpose of his apostleship is to bring about the obedience of faith. Romans 1.5. Now, folks, obedience of faith doesn't mean obedience is faith. because they're contrasted everywhere in scripture. But there is an obedience that arises from faith. This is classic proof texting that heretics have done for years and years and years and years and years. I mean, you just proof text. You find a little phrase here, a little phrase there, you string them all together and there it is, see? Faith and obedience are the same thing. No, they're not. No they're not. I remember listening to a debate with a guy named Louis Ruggiero on predestination and election, and his answer to every text of scripture demonstrating predestination and unconditional election was, Proverbs 129, they didn't choose the fear of the Lord. They didn't choose the fear of the Lord. So an indicative statement about what people did implies that all men have the ability to have free will and all men have no inability caused by the fault. That's proof texting. That's not how you do exegesis. Okay, continuing on here. But that is precisely the point. If obedience is of or from faith, it must be the case that faith is prior to and the motive for that obedience. That is a greatly worded sentence. Right on the money. The RCUS guys, whoever you were that wrote this report, my hat goes off to you. Well said. Listen to that again. If obedience is of or from belief, it must be the case that belief is prior to and the motive for that obedience. As such, obedience cannot be an instrument by which we appropriate to ourselves the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, if, as Scripture teaches and the Belgic Confession affirms, any good works or acts of obedience are preceded by and flow from faith. Well said. Right on the money. Obedience and good works are not what faith is. Okay? Belief is what belief is. Good works are what good works are. They're not the same thing. Just because the gospel is said to lead to obedience, obedience of faith, and that we obey from the heart that form of doctrine, namely the gospel, we obey the imperative, repent and believe, doesn't mean, oh, see? Obedience is the same thing as faith. No, it's not. No, it is not. Amazing. Third, Wilson shows that by covenant faithfulness and obedience, he means precisely good works as an instrument of justification. He insists, quote, we have to say, using biblical language, that we are justified by good works, end quote. Like Norman Shepard, Wilson does not endorse the traditional reconciliation between Paul's statement that Abraham was not justified by works and James' statement that Abraham was justified by works. Okay, stop here just for a moment. I was actually a distance student with a mentor at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary when I very first started my seminary work. And I took five classes there. And then I eventually transferred to RTS. And for the entrance exam to get into Greenville Seminary, one of the essay questions I had to answer was the statement, reconcile James Chapter 2 and Paul in Romans chapter 4 and their their use of Abraham as an example My first sentence that I wrote in my response was there is no need to reconcile friends There is no contradiction here not even an apparent one it is one of the most silly and common errors of beginning bible students to think that, oh, the word justified is used there, must mean the same thing is used everywhere else. You have to look at terms in their semantic domains, you have to look at the possible usages for them, and look at their contexts. Look at what they're talking about. James 2, 14 to 26, as a whole paragraph, is Enormously important to the day and age that we live in the church needs to hear that passage preached with all of its Fervor that one could possibly muster because it's been lost. It really has been been lost Okay, it goes on here the RC us report continues Wilson argues that James is using the term justification in the same sense as Paul and Okay, so you have an irreconcilable contradiction because Paul says, what does the scripture say? What shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, which is what Wilson is saying, he has something to boast about, but not before God. What does the scripture say? Genesis 15, six, Abraham believed in Yahweh and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now to the one working, his faith is not credited as grace, but as debt, but to the one not working, but believing on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Just as David speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven and whose transgressions are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. In James 2.24, you see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. So justification means exactly that it's in the same sense, in the same relationship in the two places? Forget the Bible then, there's an irreconcilable contradiction in it. You know, years ago, I used to do these online debates on web forums with Roman Catholic apologists, and I had one with a guy that went on for like eight months, and I eventually cut and pasted the whole thing into a Word document, it ended up being 250 pages long. And it was so bizarre arguing with him because the first thing that he quoted in every response that he sent to me, the leading sentence of every response he sent to me was James 2.24 says, you see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone. Therefore, we have to understand these other passages in Paul, and in Galatians, and Romans, and Ephesians, and Colossians, and Philippians, and the book of Hebrews, and Genesis 15, and all these other passages in scripture. We have to understand them in a nuanced way to reconcile them with this passage. James 2.24 is not talking about our forensic legal declaration of righteousness on the side of God. The term dikayo, the verb, to justify, what is it talking about there? A man is not justified in saying he has faith if he has no works, if his life is completely untransformed. That's the problem. And also, Romans 4.10 says, How then was it accounted? When was Abraham justified in relationship to his circumcision? Was it before or after? Paul says, I tell you, it was not after, but before. Not after, but before. When was Abraham justified? Not after his circumcision, but before it. But the illustration brought up in James 2 is the offering of Isaac. Question, was the offering of Isaac before or after Abraham's circumcision? It was after. A long time after. A long time after. So, how can you say that's justification in the same way? You just agreed with Paul's enemies then. You know, Richard Loss talks about future justifications. Justification is a one-time act. Once you're forensically declared righteous, it doesn't happen anymore after that. James 2 cannot be talking about the same thing unless you want to set it irreconcilably at odds with Paul in Romans 4. Abraham's justification was not after his circumcision, Romans 4 10. It wasn't. But the offering of Isaac brought up in James 2 was after his circumcision. So, if you say his justification in the same sentence as Paul, you have an irreconcilable contradiction on your hands and you're agreeing with Paul's enemies. But, what do they care? Okay, done with my coffee. Now I'm really wired. Okay. Listen to what he goes on to say here. Okay, he doesn't accept the traditional reconciliation. There's no need to reconcile friends. James is not at odds with Paul. and James' statement that Abraham was justified by works. Wilson argues that James is using the term justification in the same sense as Paul, and so he says, a la Norman Shepard, that it is proper to speak of justification by means of good works, as long as we understand that James is not speaking of rabbinical works righteousness, or Pelagian self-salvation, or of medieval merit theology. Okay, and that's, again, a citation from Reformed is Not Enough, page 173. Note that Wilson here does not reject good works as an instrument of justification. He rejects only self-righteous and meritorious works as instruments of justification. And even the RCUS report put an exclamation mark after that. He doesn't reject good works as an instrument of justification. He rejects only self-righteous and meritorious works as instruments of justification. By the way, that is exactly how Roman Catholic apologists have argued for centuries against us. All he's condemning is self-righteous works. He's not condemning works that are spirit-born, works that arise from the presence of the spirit in us. And our point is, yes he is. Paul is excluding all human activity, all human transformation. Justification is a once-for-all forensic legal change in our status before the law of God, based solely, completely, and only upon the crosswork of Christ and the righteousness of Christ that are imputed to us once and for all eternity. They are received by belief alone, not by works, lest any man should boast, not by works, not by works, not by deeds of righteousness we have done, not by observing the law. No flesh shall be justified in his sight by that. That is not just excluding self-righteous or meritorious works, it's excluding works, period. Okay, now listen, this is an important paragraph. Again, if Wilson wants to be orthodox, He must unambiguously proclaim that good works are not an instrument of justification. He needs to embrace what has been taught by Reformed theology concerning James' use of the term justify. Calvin says it well when he writes, quote, if you would make James agree with the rest of Scripture and with himself, you must understand the word justify in another sense than Paul takes it, end quote. We must take notice of the twofold meaning of the word justified. Paul means it in the gratuitous imputation, means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God. And James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, show to me thy faith, end quote. That's what James 2, 14 to 26 is talking about. Think about the leading verse in the paragraph. What good is it, my brethren, if a man says, if a man makes a profession of faith, I have faith, but has no works? Can that faith, the hay pistis that's used there, hay is functioning in a demonstrative way, the article can function demonstratively, look it up in Daniel Wallace, it's called an onophoric usage of the article. Can that faith save him? Can a faith that doesn't produce that fruit save him? Obviously not, because it wasn't divinely given faith. But we're still justified by belief, by faith alone. Not by works, not by our transformation, not by sanctification, not by covenant faithfulness, not by non-meritorious or non-self-righteous works as instruments of our justification. That is fatal to the Christianity. That's fatal to the gospel. That's another gospel that's no gospel at all. So Calvin, thanks man, appreciate your hard work to produce good pastors and ministers and to prepare them for ministry, to be ministers of the true gospel. Now the RCUS, this is the last thing I'm going to read from it, and I'm going to get into Wilson's sacramental theology. They have a whole section on Wilson on sacraments. This section on justification concludes. In rejecting this understanding of James, Wilson rejects the traditional interpretation of James and places James at odds with and in contradiction to the teachings of Paul. Therefore, Wilson is wrong. James is not using justification in its usual declarative Pauline sense. When James says Abraham was justified by works, he does not mean God declared Abraham righteous. or that Christ's righteousness was imputed to Abraham when he offered up Isaac. He is simply teaching that, like wisdom, the outcome proves the possession. In making good works a co-instrument with faith in the appropriation of Christ our righteousness, Wilson denies that justification is truly, by faith, alone. Well done. It's been said, this is a Presbyterian issue. I know. And our guys did a great job of exposing it and put in many long hard hours plowing through all these books and all this stuff and transcripts of talks at conferences and reading what they've said over long periods of time to make sure you're accurate. Let me get, make sure all my federal vision, books reformed is not enough. Oops. Going back to the, going back to the heresy shelf back there with all my Piper stuff too. This is not the gospel, folks. This is not the gospel. This is not Christianity. And it's a shame that people don't see it that way. A lot of Presbyterians and Reformed guys did a lot of hard work to be fair, to be charitable, to be accurate, to make sure we understand. It's not enough to say we don't believe good works are the grounds of our justification or of getting into heaven, but they are instruments in our justification. That's what James 2 is talking about. That's not the truth. That's false. That's another gospel that's no gospel at all. Okay, so that's the RCUS report. I might put a link to it in the description here. So there's that. Now, let's get started here on Robert Raymond. Gotta love Robert Raymond and his systematic theology. People have fussed and said, oh, he's got issues in his Christology. And I think there might be some problematic things in what he says about eternal generation. I haven't actually read that entire section before, but The stuff on the gospel here is great. The stuff on the gospel is around the money. And I wanted to take the time to read some... Oh, before I do that, there was another section of this. I put two bookmarks in here. The Covenant of Works stuff. In fact, we might not even get to justification yet. The Covenant of Works. One thing that's bizarre to me, that needs to be pointed out. For example, John Piper. John Piper, in the prologue to his book, Future Grace, sings the praises of Daniel Fuller as if the guy walks on water. Fuller denied inerrancy, Fuller denied the biblical gospel, he denied that there's a covenant of works in scripture, and it led to a repudiation of the gospel, of the Christian faith. He was a heretic, he was a false teacher. Now, Raymond has a really good quote here, where he points out the importance of understanding that Adam would have received a reward, and yes, merit, He would have earned by pure personal merit, the right to eat of the tree of life. If you don't have this clearly delineated in your covenant of works, you're gonna get everything else wrong. And all this stuff, why I don't like all these medieval assumptions about merit, it's so bizarre. You read Rich Lusk, he's like, well there is not a hint of merit theology here at all, but our works are rewarded. And you think, what does merit mean? Reward. We don't believe in rewards, but by golly, we're rewarded. I don't get it. We don't ever put God in debt. Yeah, God would have been obligated to bless him with glorified eschatological life had he obeyed him, by pure personal merit. If you don't have that clearly in your theology, please hear me, folks. If you don't have a clearly delineated covenant of works, it's just a matter of time. before you're going to get rid of justification by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Because if there is no covenant that requires it, if there is no covenant that requires it, your theology doesn't need it. And eventually, you're going to be consistent. Maybe the first generation won't be consistent, but the children and the grandchildren will be. The first generation might not be so bold, the next generation will be. Listen to Robert Raymond here. Quote, increasing number, actually let me back up one paragraph. How should we characterize this covenant between God and Adam? Most commonly today, it is called either a covenant of works or a covenant of life. The former characterization emphasizes that the confirmation and righteousness which God would give Adam upon the latter successful sustaining of his probationary test, he would necessarily give to Adam in justice and that what Adam would receive, he would receive as reward or merit for his obedience. The latter covenant of life characterization specifying the nature of the reward which Adam and his posterity would receive if he obeyed God, right? They would have lived forever. They would have taken from the tree of life. eaten from the Tree of Life and lived forever. And that's why when they were expelled, a cherubim with a flaming sword was put there to guard the way to the Tree of Life. Okay, now listen to Raymond's criticism of Daniel Fuller here. This is really important. And this is important for anyone who is not clear in their Covenant of Works. Or for those who say, yeah, we believe in the Covenant of Works, but even in the Covenant of Works, Adam had to live by grace through faith. The reason that I don't speak that way is, number one, the Bible doesn't. And number two, and this is extraordinarily important, prior to the fall of man into sin, there's no need for grace yet. The biblical terms, the Old Testament terms, and the New Testament terms for grace, and the term, you know, the term chesed, covenant faithfulness, and those terms do not have a context in which they can really make any sense until man falls into sin. And so while it sounds like it's exalting grace, no, even before the fall, all of God's dealings with man are on a gracious principle. You're gonna end up destroying the gospel doing that. It negates grace altogether. Now listen to what Raymond says here. This is very insightful on his part. Quote, increasing numbers of biblical scholars today led by Daniel P. Fuller are expressing unhappiness with the former characterization, claiming that whatever Adam received from the hand of God would have been undeserved and a gift of grace. This grace being understood, however, more in terms of God's goodness and establishing the conditions of the new covenant than in terms of God's sovereignly applying salvation to the elect. He explicitly refuses, Fuller, to see a works-grace contrast in the divine-human relationship anywhere in history, even before the Fall. In his book, which Piper thinks is the greatest book ever written, Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum, he insists upon a continuum of divine grace in all of God's dealings with man, including even his pre-fall dealings with Adam. The irony in all this, It says, Raymond, the irony in all this is that Fuller declares that this grace does its work of justification through what he calls the work or obedience of faith. Now, who else likes the phrase obedience of faith as being what faith actually is? Faith is obedience to the law of God. Piper uses that phrase a lot. And he misuses it a lot from scripture. He's getting that from Fuller. Listen. He is quick to insist that such good works are not meritorious. That's what they all do. Norman Shepard said that. Yeah, good works are the instrument. They're an instrumental cause of our justification, but they're not meritorious. They're rewarded, but not in a strict merit sense of reward. Right, so they're rewarded, but not in the sense of getting reward. That does not make sense. That's a contradiction. Okay. Accordingly, a view that insists upon grace everywhere. This is Robert Raymond. Listen to this carefully. Accordingly, a view that insists upon grace everywhere winds up with true grace nowhere, and a kind of works principle everywhere, with his representation of the relation of works to justification coming perilously close to what late medieval theologians would have called works having not condign but congruent merit." Now you need to know a little bit about Roman Catholic theology. Meritum Dei Congruo. Okay, congruent merit. It becomes, with the infusion of grace into our souls through sacraments, we're not putting God really in debt to us. Rather, it's fitting. It becomes fitting for God to reward our good works with eternal life. So it's not strict merit, but it's meritum de congruo. Congruent merit. You end up with that in Fuller's theology, and with Wilson's theology, and with Piper's theology. Listen to that, I'm gonna read that sentence again because it's so important. A view that insists upon grace everywhere, meaning before the fall and after the fall. A view that insists upon grace everywhere, winds up with true grace nowhere, and a kind of works principle everywhere. With his representation of the relation of works to justification coming perilously close to what late medieval theologians would have called works not having condign, but congruent merit. One thing is certainly clear from Fuller's representation of this whole matter. He has departed from the sola fide principle of the Protestant Reformation. Exactly right. Now Raymond continues, Meredith Klein declares Fuller's construction to be an error of massive proportions and insists that justice, not grace, is the governing principle and element of continuity in both the pre-fall and redemptive covenants. Folks, I mean, think about that. Why does Jesus have to come into the world and live a whole life of obedience and die such a horrendous death? It's precisely because there is a works principle there. Because there is a works justice principle there in the covenant of works. What did God tell Adam? In the day you eat of it, you will surely die. It's called an infinitival absolute. An infinitive absolute. You will die, die. You will die the death. What did Jesus have to come do? Die. and not only die, but rise again to destroy death, to conquer the curse. Which is what he does do for us. Because that works principle, that merit principle is there. And if you don't have it, you don't have the gospel. If you don't have a Savior that enters into the broken covenant of works, what in the world do you think Jesus does then? He becomes basically a cheerleader. He'll cheer you on as you Do non-meritorious works as the instrumental cause of your justification? That's nonsense. That's not Christianity. Listen to this quotation from Klein. If the first Adam had obediently fulfilled the stipulations of God's covenant with him, then assuredly he would have been worthy of being declared righteous by his Lord. Adam's justification would have been on the grounds of his works and would have been precisely what those good works deserved. God's declaring Adam righteous would have been an act of justice, pure and simple. In fact, any other verdict would have been an injustice. There is absolutely no warrant for obscuring the work's character of such an achievement of justification by introducing the idea of grace into the theological analysis of it." That's a home run. He nailed it out of the park. There is nothing good that can come by saying Adam lived by grace through faith before the fall Why would he need grace before he even sinned? Grace is the the favor of God on account of Christ It is it is something that man needs after he falls into sin He doesn't need it when he's first made because he was created in righteousness and holiness Klein continues rejection of the works principle with reference to Adam extends in the logic of this construction to the second Adam and Norman Shepard notes that the covenantal relationship is a father-son relationship, and from this concludes that parental grace, not any claim of strict justice, accounts for any favorable treatment man receives from God, his father. Isn't that what Lusk said? God doesn't use strict justice to judge us. He judges us the way a new husband judges the meal of his wife, or a parent does the artwork of their children. Listen to that again. Norman Shepard notes that the covenant relationship is a father-son relationship, and from this concludes that parental grace, not any claim of strict justice, accounts for any favorable treatment a man receives from God, his father. But if the elimination of simple justice as the governing principle is thus due to the presence of a father-son relationship, mere justice could no more explain God's response to the obedience of his son, the second Adam, than it could explain his dealings with the first Adam. This means that in Fuller and Shepard, in their theology, consistently developed, listen, the work of obedience performed by Jesus Christ did not merit a verdict of justification from his father. The justification of the second Adam was not then according to the principle of works in contrast to grace, but rather found in explaining, found its explanation in the operation of a principle involving some sort of grace, a grace required because of the inadequacy of Christ's work to satisfy the claims of justice." End quote. Now that is right on the money, right on the money. If you don't have a clear covenant of works with merit, reward, or Adam would have earned by pure personal merit, a right to eat of the tree of life, you are going to lose the gospel eventually. You're going to lose the gospel eventually. It's a great little paperback book published by Reformation Heritage called Council to Gospel Ministers by John Brown of Haddington. Goldmine of a book. And he points out in there, like Vilhelmus of Brockel points out, you get the covenant of works wrong, eventually the gospel is going to go with it. Eventually, you're not going to have justification by belief alone upon the meritorious work of the Lord Jesus Christ alone as that which gets you into heaven. It's just a matter of when. It's just a matter of when. And that's why, I really believe, Wilson can listen to Schlissel and Lusk and Lightheart and Wilkins and Baric, Myers, all of them, deny the gospel with viciousness. And he, no, they're still Augustinian. They're still Augustinian, they're good. because it is not a common works is not jesus entering into that broken covenant works he doesn't have that And so the gospel gets destroyed easily when it's over. Robert Raymond says this. But a rejection of the full meritoriousness of the work of Christ has devastating implications for the doctrine of justification through the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. For if Christ's obedience has no meritorious value, neither has a penal satisfaction been made for our sins, nor is there a preceptive righteousness available to be imputed to us. End quote. He's right, you don't have a covenant of works. What did Jesus do? Why the incarnation then? Why the incarnation? Raymond continues, in order to justify their use of the term grace rather than works to describe the character of the pre-fall covenant, advocates of the Fuller approach have urged that the blessing to be bestowed upon Adam for his obedience, eternal life, would have so far exceeded the value of his obedience that the concept of simple justice is inadequate as a description of the ground of the covenantal pre-fall relationship between God and man. Accordingly, they urge that we can only speak of the ground of this covenant in terms of grace. But as Klein rightly observes, this alleged disparity in value between the obedience to be rendered and the reward to be bestowed is very debatable. First, since insofar as Adam's obedience would have glorified God and given him pleasure, it would have had infinite value. All obedience to God is infinite in its worth. Second, if we allow the factor of relative values to become the judge of justice, we would have to accuse the father of injustice towards his son. inasmuch as his son's atonement was sufficient in its worth for all mankind, but he receives from his father not all men, but only the elect. We can avoid such a blasphemous conclusion, Klein writes, quote, listen, this is Meredith Klein, only if we recognize that God's justice must be defined and judged in terms of what he stipulates in his covenants. The specific commitment of the Father in the Eternal Covenant was to give the Son the elect as the reward for His obedience, and that is precisely what the Son receives, not one missing. Judged by the stipulated terms of their covenant, there was no injustice, but rather perfect justice. By the same token, there was no grace in the Father's reward to the Son. It was a case of simple justice. The Son earned that reward. It was a covenant of works and the obedience of the Son was meritorious. What was true in the covenant arrangement with the second Adam will also have been true in the covenant with the first Adam. For the first was a type of the second, Romans 5.14, precisely with respect to his role as a federal head in the divine government. Accordingly, the pre-fall covenant was also a covenant of works, and thereto Adam would have fully deserved the blessings promised in the covenant had he obediently performed the duty stipulated in it. Great as the blessings were to be, which the good Lord committed Himself, the granting of them would not have involved a gram of grace. Judged by the stipulated terms of the covenant, they would have been merited in simple justice." End quote. He's right on the money. There is not an ounce of grace. There is no grace whatsoever. None. Zero. In the pre-fall covenant of obedience and works. And Adam would have earned by pure personal merit, by his good works, by his own righteousness, a right to eat of the tree of life. And if you don't have that in your theology, if you say, no, no, no, all of God's dealings with man are on a grace principle, as Raymond pointed out, if you have grace everywhere, in effect, you have grace nowhere. And law becomes grace. You don't have a bi-covenantal structure in your understanding of scripture, you're going to lose the gospel. It's just a matter of when. It's just a matter of when. And, insofar as you still believe that it's Christ's righteousness, that's the ground of our justification, you don't really think that that's necessary because there's no covenant of works, there's no covenant of merit and reward. So, if somebody denies it, are they a heretic? No, they're okay. They're just an amber ale version of something else. They're an oatmeal stout version, and I'm just an amber ale guy. No, you're both false teachers. Amber ale or oatmeal stout cyanide will still kill you. This is not the gospel. This is not Christianity that we're talking about here. And it's amazing to me that people are being taken in and duped by Doug Wilson still. I don't get it. I don't get it. I wish ministers would take the time to look at all these reports. R. Scott Clark put out a link with all his federal vision resources on them. All those reports are readily available. The reports that Reform Denominations did are pretty good. They pull the citations, they pull out, you know, their attempts to sound reformed, all their affirmatively, we believe all that can perform confessions, we believe these things, we're not heretics. Well, of course they say that. Pelagius, in Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision, by Dewey Roberts, another book here, I'm gonna do some stuff from this. He points out, Pelagius himself said, we believe in salvation by grace alone. Of course they're going to say that. But you have to look carefully at what they're saying. What is the instrumental cause of our justification? Belief in Jesus Christ alone. Works are not instruments in our justification. They are not. And to say that they are is to deny the gospel. I don't care what you say the grounds of our justification is. I mean, it's pretty clear that your covenant faithfulness is what justifies you. Your covenant faithfulness is an instrumental cause of your justification, but not a grounds of it. That's heresy, that's a false gospel, that's false teaching. That's the very thing that the Apostle Paul, I'm just gonna read it. I read this to my kids, I've been trying to help them understand the gospel since they were little kids. I don't want any of them to be taken in by this federal vision silliness and by the smooth words of flattery and all the stuff that goes on in every generation. Listen, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. Why do they have to do that if there's no covenant of works? Why do you have to do that? It's precisely because there's a covenant of works whose sanctions have to be dealt with for us to go to heaven. He became a curse on our behalf, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through belief. Not covenant faithfulness, not justification by works as instruments, but not as grounds. Listen to verse 15. Brethren, I speak in the manner of men, though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. Speaking here about the promise, the gospel that was preached to Abraham, that Abraham believed and was accounted as righteous. Now to Abraham and his seed where the promise is made, yet he does not say unto seeds as of many, but as of one, and to your seed who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was 430 years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Listen to verse 18. Vital verse destroys the federal vision and all of its heresy, for if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise. Okay, let me apply that. If the inheritance comes through the instrument of good works, if the inheritance comes through the instrumentality of our covenant faithfulness as instruments but not as grounds, it is no longer of promise. It is no longer a promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Well, what purpose does the law serve then? It was added because of transgression. So the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. For if there had been a law given, which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. By the way, the term dikaiosune, righteousness, it's also the term justification. If there had been a law, if there had been works that could have been instruments to give you life, justification would have been by those instruments, by those good works, by your covenant faithfulness. If there had been a law given which could have given life, righteousness would have been by the law. But the scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by belief in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Listen to that. The scripture is confined all under sin. Your works as a Christian cannot be instruments in your justification. Your righteousness can in no way be an instrument in your justification. Your good works cannot be the non-meritorious instruments of your justification. The scripture has confined all under sin. The only way to be justified and get into heaven is by promise, by belief in Jesus Christ alone. But it's living faith. That living faith produces good works. That's right. That's right. But those works don't save us. They're not instruments. They are not instruments. They are the fruit that grows on the tree. Okay? The fruit that grows on the tree does not make the tree good or bad. It only makes it known to other men, whether the tree is a good tree or a bad tree. Works are the evidence of justification. They are merely, fruit, merely evidence. They are not organically connected to faith. They are not instruments in our justification. By the way, the Westminster Confession of Good Works, Chapter 16, how can someone who says that works are an instrument in our justification, how can they possibly bring themselves to say that they affirm Chapter 16 of the Westminster Confession? How can they possibly say that? Listen. Point five, we cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life at the hand of God by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come and the infinite distance that is between us and God whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins. Okay, not even non-meritorious rewards. Not even as non-meritorious instruments. Our best works as Christians cannot get us anything from God in terms of our salvation, in terms of eternal life. It goes on, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty and our unprofitable servants. And because as they are good, they proceed from his spirit. And as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment. Your good works are not, cannot, will never be instruments in your justification. They are not and can't be. They can't be because if those who are of the law are heirs, belief is made void and the promise of no effect. Galatianism is rampant today by people who quote Galatians. Galatianism is rampant today by people who say this is the Galatian heresy, thinking that initial justification is by law-keeping. But you get finally saved by the fruits of your faith. That's Galatianism. That's the very thing Paul's writing to refute. If you believe that, you're going to hell. You're not a Christian. You're outside the kingdom of God. People say, boy, you're so rigid. You're so rigid in your beliefs. Protestant rigidity is so repulsive. It's not Protestant rigidity. It's the Apostle Paul's insistence that there is only one gospel that can save people. It's justification by belief alone, apart from works of any kind that you do. It is Paul's insistence that those who take one step in the direction of thinking that works are an instrumental cause of our justification, Christ will be of no benefit to you, Galatians 5.3. You are severed from him and you become a debtor to keep the whole law. This is very serious. These are soul-damning errors. Now listen to point six. Notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works are also accepted in Him. Not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God's sight, but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. All the passages about God is not unjust to forget our works. He sees what we do. He sees our sacrifices. He is so gracious even to reward them. But to confuse that with the instruments of justification is fatal to Christianity. Fatal. Fatal to Christianity. We live in strange times. Very strange times. I have deep concerns about the future. I'm training new guys to be elders now. I'm really trying to get them up to speed on all this stuff. You've got to listen for the subtleties of speech. There are men who will look you square straight in the face and tell you they believe in justification. We believe of all these reform confessions. We have a whole book of confessions. We believe all of them and they don't, they don't. So, so men are deceived or liars. Yeah, lots of them. A lot of them out there are like that. We have to be better than this. We have to recognize how serious these issues are. And ministers of the gospel cannot be quiet about this. We can't just say, well, let the discernment ministries take care of this stuff. The discernment ministries aren't helping us anymore. Ministers of the gospel need to step up and point out, look, the internet has created all kinds of problems for us. Cause now you have people that come and listen to your preach and they listen to 15 other people too. And you need to have an idea of who these people are and where they're coming from and what they believe and all this stuff. I hope this has been helpful. I wanna read more from Robert Raymond. Just a positive presentation on his Doctrine of Justification. That section of his Systematic Theology is really good. I also wanna contrast it with some of Peter Lightheart's essay, Judge Me, O God, According to My Righteousness, in the Federal Vision book. That is a heretical article, too, with gospel heresy throughout. And he makes some very odd statements in there and says a lot of things that are perfectly false about Protestant Systematic Theologies. and their use of justification. He says, well, the term justification has broader usages than Protestant systematics point out. I'm just sitting there, I remember reading that years ago thinking, I learned about the broader usages from Burkoff, Raymond, Dabney, Warfield, the Hodges. I learned about those wider usages from those guys, from their systematic theologies. So, bizarre, weird. Anyway, hope this has been helpful to you. Gotta have Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace. Otherwise, if you don't have a clearly defined Covenant of Works, where Jesus Christ enters into the broken Covenant of Works and earns by pure personal merit our right to eat from the Tree of Life, eventually, you're not gonna have the Gospel at all. And while people think that saying it's all grace, all of God's dealings with man are by grace, even before the fall, that sounds like it extols grace, the irony is, at the end of the day, if you have a grace principle everywhere, You have grace nowhere. And in fact, a works principle everywhere. And that's exactly what you have. What Wilhelmus of Brockville says about the covenant of works, he who errs here, we must suspect that he will err on the covenant of grace. That is exactly what you have. It's exactly what you have. Thank you for listening or for watching. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, and you've been listening to the Pulpit Supplemental Podcast. You can find us on the web at www.bridwellheightspca.org. Our sermons are streamed through sermon audio, and you can listen to that on the iTunes podcast version of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church. Feel free to join us any Sunday morning for worship at 11am sharp at 108 Ridwell Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee. And may the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.