Galatians chapter one, and I'm gonna begin reading at verse six. And our topic is, we're looking at, we're doing a review of Reformed Is Not Enough, and this is part 10, the book by Doug Wilson, which is his introduction to the federal vision, the so-called objectivity of the covenant. And today we'll be looking at justification. I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another. But there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Now we're in the middle of a discussion of justification. We're dealing with his chapter where he is basically reassuring us that he is faithful in the doctrine of justification. There's nothing to worry about. And we're going to see that that's simply not true and is very deceptive. Wilson is the expert at lubricity, of slipping in things that are unbiblical under the guise of orthodoxy. Biblical Protestants speak solely about the righteousness of Christ, an objective or alien righteousness, and that's what Luther would say, an alien righteousness, outside of the believer, that is solely appropriated by faith. Faith is the alone instrument, purely instrumental. It is solely Christ's achievement and is therefore kept separate from the doctrine of sanctification. And we'll see later, probably this afternoon, Justification is the judicial foundation of sanctification. They're not the same thing, although one will accompany another, but they're not the same thing. It is solely Christ's achievement and therefore kept separate from the doctrine of sanctification. Jesus is the source, foundation, author, or captain of our sanctification. That is the work of the Holy Spirit within us for progressive holiness over time. but our personal holiness or covenant faithfulness has nothing whatsoever to do with our justification before God. That's very careful to keep that in mind, otherwise you become a Roman Catholic. After carefully studying the Federal Vision writings, one can only conclude that they hold the heretical view that salvation is based in part on our faithfulness, our personal holiness, our own good works that flow from grace, When Shepherd and his disciples confused the word faith with faithfulness, obedience, good works, and so on, they have abandoned the true gospel. They have abandoned the true gospel. Now, I know people disagree with me, but if we read these quotes from these writers, these federal visionists, one cannot conclude anything else. If you think I'm exaggerating, note the following quote from Richard Lusk. a minister, he's a minister in good standing in Doug Wilson's denomination. If Doug Wilson really believed in the true doctrine of justification by faith alone, then Doug Wilson would bring Richard Lusk upon charges for denying the biblical doctrine, but he's in agreement with Richard Lusk, most likely. Quote, there's quite a bit of confusion over the meaning of the term righteousness as it is used in scripture. Hebraic righteousness, as the concept is found in the Old Testament and employed in the New, does not match up with our modern notions of abstract righteousness. Righteousness, biblically defined, is simply covenant faithfulness." End of quote. Lusk, like Wilson, is fond of making general statements about theology without any exegetical proof. Now Norman Shepard, Now, the Bible speak, there is such a thing as personal righteousness, and that's what we have in sanctification. You become more holy over time. You're separated unto God. You obey the moral law of God, and you become, as you study scripture and the Holy Spirit works in you, you become more sensitive to sin, and you die daily, and you put off sin, and you put on righteous behavior. That is personal righteousness. But the Bible never confuses that with the objective righteousness of God, the righteousness of God in Christ, that the objective righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to the believer, reckoned to his account. They're two completely separate things. They must not ever be confused. Now, Norman Shepard, the father of the objectivity of the covenant movement, repeatedly says that we are justified by Christ in our own good works. Good works, new obedience, spirit-wrought obedience, or personal godliness. He writes this, quote, The exclusive ground of justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But his, that is a believer's obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification. Hebrews 3, 6 and 14. That's from his 34th thesis on justification in relation to faith, repentance, and good works, presented at the Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, November 18, 1978, thesis 21. In thesis 22, he says this, quote, the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day. End of quote. The statement could be accepted in a certain sense when it's careful to note that Jesus appeals to good works as proof of saving faith, not as co-instruments or contributors to forensic justification. But Shepard's other quote makes it clear that he has abandoned the Protestant view. For example, Thesis 23 says this. Good works done from true faith according to the law of God are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification. Romans 6, 16, 22, Galatians 6, 7, and 9. And I'm assuming Romans 6, 16 is talking about union with Christ, which is talking about sanctification, not justification. And continuing, faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified. Compare Luke 8, 21, James 1, 22 to 25. In an article called The Grace of Justification, February 8th, 1979, he says this. By way of repentance, men become doers of the law who will be justified and enter into eternal life. Okay, will be, future tense. Their behavior is a contributing factor to their justification. That is the Roman Catholic position. That is a position that Calvin and Luther would emphatically reject. In the article, The Covenant Context of Evangelism, Shepard writes this, quote, it is both striking and significant that the Great Commission is not given in either Matthew or Luke in terms of calling upon men to believe. Faith is not mentioned specifically, but only by implication. What is explicitly asserted is the call to repentance and good works. When the call to faith is isolated from the call to obedience, as it frequently is, the effect is to make good works the supplement to salvation, or simply the evidence of salvation. End of quote. Okay, now what's the Protestant position? From the very beginning, from 1817, I mean, excuse me, 1517, 1520. Good works are a fruit of faith. They're evidence of saving faith. They are not faith. Although Shepherd insists that the exclusive ground of justification is the righteousness of Christ, he also states that our good works are necessary for justification. Apparently, Shepard believes that our adding our own good works to faith in Christ in justification is okay, as long as we say that Jesus is the ultimate ground of justification, that is, Christ enables us to be faithful, and that our good works are non-meritorious. The problem for Shepard is that Paul's doctrine of faith alone explicitly contradicts and condemns any human contribution to justification whatsoever. Read Romans chapter three, Romans chapter four, Romans chapter five, read Galatians chapter three, read Ephesians chapter two. By faith alone, or as Paul puts it over and over again, apart from the works of the law, apart from the works of the law, apart from the works of the law. Shepherd's declaration that such contributory works are non-meritorious is arbitrary, illogical, and unscriptural. And we noted last week, Shepard believes that they're not meritorious because they come from the work of the Holy Spirit in us, which is precisely the Roman Catholic position. They reject imputation, they believe in infusion of grace, and then you cooperate with grace, and then as you cooperate with grace, you become justified over time. Shepard denies sola fide, repeatedly in his lectures, essays, and books, and yet the Reformed Orthodox Presbyterian Church refused to defrock him and transferred him to the Christian Reformed Church to continue to spread his heresies. He's been invited to speak in many Orthodox Presbyterian churches in Oregon and California. He spoke at Greg Bonson's old church. where he denied the imputation of the, he doesn't believe that Christ's positive, active righteousness plays any role in justification, which is a heresy. He's been invited to spread his errors at Steve Wilkin's church at their Auburn Avenue Conference. And of course, he spoke at the conference at Greg Vonson's old church with his Orthodox Presbyterian. This is just outrageous. Now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church had several opportunities to discipline Shepherd, and they refused. They refused. And the seminary board of trustees were not gonna fire Shepherd. What happened was is that some good gospel defenders, some good ministers and churchmen within the OPC, I think about 15 of them, published a paper and made it public to the world at large that heresy was being taught at Westminster Seminary East. And they made the thing public and they made it public that this man was not being disciplined. Well, that caused an uproar and the board of trustees got rid of Shepard because they were afraid of losing money. They were afraid of losing contributions. He was controversial. Plus what happened, the president, and I forgot his name, I think it was, I forgot his name, Clowney. I think it was Clowney. And I've seen him lecture. He was a good old guy. Finally, the president of the seminary finally sat down and he listened to like 50 of his lectures, read a bunch of his stuff, and listened to his lectures. And he finally came to the conclusion, this guy is teaching heresy. And he really worked to convince the board they needed to get rid of him. But it's just a shame. He went over to the Christian Reformed Church. He taught at Calvin Seminary for many years. And he did a series of lectures, which became his book, The Call of Grace, which I have sitting over there. And he spread his heresies, was free to spread his heresy all over the world. It's very, very bad. In the New Testament, the biblical term used to speak of justification, deka'o, always means to declare righteous and it never means to make righteous. Luke 7.29, 10.29, 16.15, Matthew 11.19, Romans 3.4, et cetera. When speaking of justification of believers, scripture never speaks of personal law keeping. or personal obedience, or subjective good works, or covenant faithfulness, or contributing, playing a role, or adding anything to faith as the alone instrument of justification. Now, Peter J. Lightheart, who is an employee of Doug Wilson's school, and he is a PCA minister. He was brought up on charges. The charges were not upheld. He's been declared a minister in good standing in the PCA. even though he is a heretic, has a different view. He writes, quote, most recent studies, and by the way, this is from Judge Me, O God, Biblical Perspectives on Justification in Steve Wilkins and Duane Garver, The Federal Vision, Monroe, Louisiana, 2004. And Doug Wilson contributes to this book. Now, if I could trade it to a book and it had this in it, I would say, you have a choice. You either get rid of that, or I take my article out of your book. But here's what it says. Many recent studies have concluded that righteousness, Hebrew is zidik, zidika, or Greek, diekizune, is a covenant term describing loyalty within a covenant relationship. If this view can be sustained, the righteousness and justification have a much wider scope of application than the strictly judicial, but pertain to the whole range of covenant relational settings. Protestant doctrine has been too rigid in separating justification and sanctification, more rigid certainly than scripture itself. And that's absolutely a lie. I argue below that when examined under a military conflictual metaphor rather than solely under the imagery of the courtroom, justification and definitive sanctification are not merely simultaneous, nor merely twin effects of a single event of union with Christ, though I believe that is the case, rather they are the same act. God's declaration that we are justified takes the form of deliverance from sin, death, and Satan. He's just denied 450 years of reformed thought. God declares us righteous by deliverance from all our enemies, or to use the language of 1 Kings 8, God justifies by giving to the righteous according to his righteousness, by keeping his covenant promises with those counted righteous. In this paper, I cannot address all of these limitations of the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification. Instead, this is a narrowly tailored first thrust against narrowness. Now, end of quote, that is thoroughly a denial of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. The faith as the sole instrument which lays hold of Christ and his righteousness is exceptionally narrow. And it is defined in such a narrow manner, not simply because Luther and Calvin like that, in Charles Hodge and Dabney and Thornwell and every Reformed theologian since Luther, since Calvin we should say, but because Paul, the Apostle Paul does that. Paul goes out of his way to keep separate the holiness of sanctification and the righteousness of Christ that we apprehend solely by faith as an instrument. It's purely instrumental. It is exceptionally narrow. And Paul does that to protect the doctrine of justification, and it glorifies God. We don't contribute anything to it. Peter Lightheart denies that. He's an employee of Doug Wilson. Peter Lightheart also denies biblical worship, and he celebrates Ash Wednesday. He's very intellectual. His writings are extremely intellectual, but he is completely wrong. Lightheart, like Wilson, gives lip service to the forensic understanding of justification. But when we study and understand his full exposition in meaning, we see that he deliberately blurs the line between justification and sanctification or covenant faithfulness. The whole Protestant Reformation depends on a proper biblical separation and distinction between the objective, perfect, impeccable God-righteousness needed for justification, the righteousness of Christ, a declaration of righteousness in the heavenly court based solely on the righteousness of Christ, solely by Christ, and the imperfect, incomplete, sin-tainted righteousness or covenant faithfulness of the believer at the sight of heaven. Luke 17.10 Philippians 3.7-10. What did Paul say in Philippians? I regard all of my achievements, all of my righteousness, everything I've done for God as a pile of excrement so that I may own the perfect righteousness of Christ. What is that? That's an exceptionally narrow definition of saving faith. I reject all my covenant faithfulness. I reject all my good works in the sphere of justification that I may own Christ alone. to blur the line or give up this strict distinction is essentially to concede the whole argument on salvation to Rome. I forget what year it was, but Melanchthon went to Ratisbon, I believe it's Ratisbon, and he met with some Roman Catholic officials to try to come to a compromise, to try to come to an agreement so they could, you know, not wage war against each other. And Melanchthon made some very minor, what he considered minor, concessions to Rome, and he took it back to Luther, and Luther got extremely angry and rebuked him and said, you've conceded the argument. You have to protect faith as a sole instrument, which is taught in all the Reformed symbols, and they don't do this, they deny it. The declarations about the forensic traditional understanding about justification are good and necessary. But when they are explicitly contradicted by confusing justification and sanctification, or defining faith as faithfulness, or faith-filled obedience, or covenant faithfulness, then one is really no longer a Protestant. Organic whole wheat flour is good and healthy. We have a really good grinder, a German grinder, and we would grind our own. It's excellent. But if it is mixed with arsenic, we should not regard it as good and healthy anymore. And this is what Lighthart and Wilson and Shepard and Lusk do. They'll make statements that sound fine, and they'll turn right around and they'll add their poison to it, their heresy to it, and essentially deny it. Poison wheat flour belongs in the trash or the furnace where it cannot bear harm. You hear that James White? You've done more damage to your whole ministry, to your whole works for Christ by promoting Doug Wilson than all of the debating you've done with Muslims and atheists and heretics. You've done more damage to your ministry by promoting Doug Wilson than all of the wonderful things you've done. And he's generally great. I think, apart from Greg Bonson would be the best debater in the world, who's not around anymore, and James Lead would probably be maybe number two or number three. But he's promoting a heretic. Because he looks at the good whole wheat flour and he doesn't look at the arsenic. Roman Catholics teach that justification is subjective. It is a work in man. It is a process where good works merit eternal life. Federal visionists teach that we are justified by faith in Christ, but we are also justified by faithfulness, good works, covenant obedience, by our own works of the law. If one adds Romanistic doctrines to the Reformed faith, one does not have a more Reformed faith, but a new kind of Romanism. one that's more dangerous because it's more subtle, more equivocal. If these guys go out and they start a new denomination and they say, we're sacramentalists so we have a lot in common with Lutherans and high church Episcopalians and we teach salvation by faith plus works and we have a lot in common with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church. If they went out and did that and were honest about it, that's fine. But to go around and parade themselves as champions of the reformed faith is simply dishonest. One of the clearest, most emphatic teachings of Paul is that faith as the only instrument is diametrically opposed to works of the law for justification. And Luther is fantastic on this. The Bible, now Luther takes the antithesis between law and gospel too far in some of his statements. Because yeah, we do need the moral law for sanctification. But there is an antithesis between law and gospel when it comes to salvation. The Bible has a lot to say about sanctification and personal subjective righteousness. Those who are justified always produce good works. But the antithesis between faith and works in the realm of justification, is so strongly emphasized by Luther, Calvin, and the Reformed symbols. And the reason is they are simply a faithful reflection of the inspired teaching of the Apostle Paul. And of course, you could also quote Jesus and others. And you could go back to the Old Testament, David and the Psalms. God just, God imputes righteousness apart from the works of the law. Now the Bible has a lot to say about the necessity of holiness, good works, and faithfulness for perseverance and salvation in the broad sense of the term. But good works and faithfulness are spoken of as number one, evidential of true saving faith. James 2.17-26, 1 John 1.6-8, 1 John 2.5-6, 9-10, and 15, 1 John 3.3, and 6-9. Or as the fruits of saving faith. Matthew 7, 15 to 23, 13, 20 to 23. What does Jesus say? By their fruits you shall know them. By their fruits, by their works, you shall know if somebody has true faith or not, or whether they're simply a phony. That's how you know, by their works. Number two. They're necessary for discipline, growth and grace, or progressive sanctification. These all involve acting upon one's faith in Christ and scripture. This growth in righteousness is experiential, not objective or forensic. This progressive growth in holiness or sanctification is imperfect in this life, tainted with sin, and therefore non-meritorious. If you read Calvin's assessment of his own self late in life, And if you read Jonathan Edwards' assessment of his self right before he dies, you'd be shocked by how humble these guys were and how they hammered themselves over their ungodliness, their sinful behavior. Now, they were very holy men, but the holier you get, the more you progress in sanctification, the more you're sensitive to sin, the more you see yourself as needing Christ and his objective righteousness. The idea that such a sentient and imperfect righteousness could contribute in some way to forensic justification is simply absurd. Yet it is an aspect of the federal vision theology that Doug Wilson has supported and promoted for almost 20 years. This is the man that James White is promoting. He's promoting a man who has done more to bring people into the federal vision movement than virtually anybody. Number three, it's necessary for perseverance in the faith and the avoiding of apostasy. And we'll have a section on that later on. The fact that the Bible's full of warnings against apostasy does not mean that true Christians can apostatize. Because the Holy Spirit uses the word of God and uses these warnings to preserve us. And we'll look at that later. because the Federal Visionists assume, well, since it says this, it must mean that true Christians can apostatize. No, it doesn't mean that. Number four, it is necessary for receiving the rewards of grace of the judgment seat of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5.10. To understand how the Federal Visionists attempt to justify their denial of sola fide from scripture, let us look at some of their main exegetical arguments. The first regards Romans 2.13. Shepard's, and by the way, I was going to seminary at Reformed Episcopal in the late 70s, I attended the presbytery meeting where they discussed this passage. So for like 10 hours, I watched these guys go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth on this verse. And it's extremely sad. My thing is a lot of people defended Shepard because they were friends with him and they liked him. He's a likable guy. He's actually better on worship than 99% of the other people in the area. He's actually quite good on worship. He was good on worship and believed in the regular principle. It's tough. I like Doug Wilson. I mean, he's a really nice guy. He's the kind of guy I would like to hang out with and have a beer. But our job as a Christian, our job as an elder or minister, is when heresy comes, you have to refute those who contradict. It may not be pleasant, you may not like it. People will not like you for doing it, but it's our job. Here's Shepherd's Thesis 20. The Pauline affirmation of Romans 2.13, the doers of the law will be justified, is not to be understood hypothetically, in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that the faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified. Compare Luke 8.21, James 1.22-25. There are a number of reasons, end of quote. That's his quote, which is shocking. He says that and that he doesn't get fired from Westminster right away. It takes seven years or six years, seven years or something. And he only gets fired because they're worried about money. These are the people leading, the leaders of denominations today, generally speaking, are kind of scary. They're kinda crappy. Well, there are a number of reasons why this interpretation is totally untenable. First, it completely contradicts the broader context. From Romans 1.18 through Romans 3.20, Paul's main focus is to establish the universal guilt of humanity, both Jew and Gentile. All men have sinned and fallen short of the perfect and perpetual obedience that God requires. This section concludes with these words. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. Romans 3, 19 to 20. Now does the apostle stop in the midst of a lengthy section establishing universal guilt and the failure of the law to justify? Not only for Gentiles, but also for Jews who are in the covenant, They're part of that objectivity of the covenant. Does he stop to tell us that we are saved by the law after all? Such thinking is not only unsound exegetically, but it's errant logically. It's just simply irrational. Makes no sense whatsoever, but that's what Shepard teaches and that's what his followers teach. Second, it also violates the narrow context. Verse 13 explains verse 12. Let's read them together. For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. Okay, that's the Gentiles. And as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. The majority of Jews in Paul's day followed the Pharisees and thus pleaded their privileged position. I'm a Jew. I'm going to heaven, man. I'm a Jew. They were the chosen people and they possessed the sacred Torah. They heard the law every Sabbath day in the synagogue. Keep in mind, most people didn't have copies of the Bible back then. They were extremely expensive. Their hand copied it. For the Jew, it would probably be on a scroll of lambskin or something. Very expensive. Rich people had them. But the average person, they heard the law read in the synagogue. But possessing covenant privileges and hearing the law is not enough for salvation. If one wants to be justified before God on the day of judgment and one is relying on possession of the law and not Jesus Christ alone, then one can only be justified by actually keeping the whole law in exhaustive detail. From birth until death. No man other than Jesus Christ has accomplished this. So Shepard's off his rocker. And so are his followers, like Peter Leihart and Doug Wilson. That Paul is making this point is confirmed by his supporting argument in verses 21 to 24. You, therefore, who teach another, do you teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say do not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you. What did Paul just say? You Jews haven't kept the law. So you're possessing the law. If you don't have Christ, and you think the law's gonna save you on the day of judgment, you got another thing coming, buddy. Charles Hodge says this, if men rely on works, they must have works. They must be doers of the law. They must satisfy its demands, if they are to be justified by it. For God is just and impartial. He will, as a judge administering the law, judge every man, not according to his privileges, but according to his works and the knowledge of duty which he possessed. On these principles, it is his very design to show that no living flesh can be justified. So is Paul pausing in the midst of an argument why you're not saved by the law to tell us, yeah, you are saved by the law. If that makes sense to you, I would suggest you read a few books on hermeneutics. Paul has nothing against God's moral law. Romans 7.12, he says it's just, it's holy, and it's good. He says he delights in the law according to the inner man, his regenerate self, Romans 7.22. He appeals to it frequently when discussing sanctification, Romans 13.8-10, he appeals to the Ten Commandments. But he always emphatically rejects the law as a means of justification. Note what he says immediately after demonstrating the universality of sin in Romans 3 21 to 24. He's established the universality of sin and guilt of the Jews and the Gentiles, who, by the way, were circumcised, the men were circumcised, they were God's covenant people, they participated in the objectivity of the covenant, and they weren't saved by keeping the law. They were all guilty. If they did not believe in Christ, they were all guilty. Here's what he says, but now the righteousness of God, apart from the law, did you hear that? Apart from the law is revealed. Being witnessed by the law and the prophets, in other words, the whole Bible teaches this, this is nothing new. even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe. Now, why is that so? Why is it solely by Christ? Why is it solely by faith? Well, here's Paul's answer. For there is no difference for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace to the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. And then he goes on to talk about propitiation by Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. God was angry with you, you were sentenced to hell. But once you're washed by the blood of Christ, the guilt is gone. You're free. And Christ's righteousness is imputed to you. Sola Christi and Sola Fidei are the logical result of the fact that all men have sinned and all are guilty before God. If the law must be kept by Christians to be justified, as the Federal Visionists assert, then Paul's statement, apart from the law, cannot be correct. Cannot be correct, because he's talking about Jews and Gentiles. Jews are in the covenant. I'll take the Apostle Paul over Norman Shepard and Doug Wilson and his heretical disciples any day. Third, The federal vision system, like every form of legalism before it, must lower the concept of obedience to the law in order to make it easier to keep, for it is impossible for even mature, faithful, dedicated Christians to fully keep God's law. It's impossible. Because the law applies to your noggin, it applies to your thoughts and your words. Yeah, you may not go out and get drunk at a bar, you may not go out and hustle women, but your thoughts are not always pure. Now, they do this because they take passages that speak of covenant faithfulness in the sphere of sanctification, which is what covenant faithfulness is all about, and they apply them to justification. And this is the exact same error as the Pharisees. The Pharisees held to a legalistic view of Leviticus 18.5. Oh, I didn't finish writing this down. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which of man do he shall live in them? I am the Lord. The Targum, the Jewish Targum adds, with a life of eternity. So it was common for rabbis to see this passage as teaching salvation by works. And I'm sure Paul was aware of that. A view similar to Shepard's interpretation of Romans 2.13. This is also the view of the old school dispensationalists. They see this passage as proof that the Mosaic covenant was one established on works or law keeping. We can reject such thinking for the following reasons. Number one, In his arguments against Jewish legalism, Paul, in both the book of Romans and Galatians, points out that Abraham was justified apart from the works of the law. See Romans 4, 1 to 12, in Galatians 3, 6 to 18 and 29, and of course read Genesis 15, 6. The covenant of grace is not a salvation by works covenant. It's quite clear. You can't say that Abraham was justified apart from works, but everybody else has to be justified by works. Of course, he's arguing against the Jews there. Number two. As we have noted, the Bible explicitly teaches that fully keeping the law is absolutely impossible. Only Jesus Christ kept the law, Romans 3, 10, and 20. There is none righteous, no, not one. By the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified and deciphered. By the law is the knowledge of sin. The law can tell you you're a sinner. The law can tell you that you need Christ. You better go to Christ. But the law can't save you. And then number three. The obedience required for justification is a perfect, exhaustive, impeccable, perpetual obedience, while the obedience of sanctification necessary for covenant faithfulness is a habitual obedience, but not a perfect obedience. And that is a critical difference, which I'm amazed none of these people recognized. This can be proved by the following observations. A, the Mosaic Law was given to a redeemed people. How did the Ten Commandments begin? Well, I saved you from the land of Egypt. You're saved now. Now let's talk about my stipulations for how you're going to walk so that you can have a good relationship with me as safe people. The law is given as a means of holiness, not a means of justification. In addition, Leviticus 18 begins with covenantal language. I am the Lord, your God. indicating that the covenant of law is designed to maintain a relationship with God, sanctification and perseverance, and not establish a relationship, regeneration and justification. The keeping of the law was the way for Israel to be sanctified and protect her separated holy status from the surrounding pagan nations. Be ye holy for I am holy, thus says the Lord. And that's repeated by the Apostle Peter. We're saved to be holy. were set apart unto God, B. The Bible itself speaks about the righteousness necessary for justification and sanctification or covenant faithfulness in two very different ways. Scripture is so clear on this matter that it is astounding that Shepherd and the Federal Visionists miss it. Covenant faithfulness, the Bible says, is possible. And it has been done by many people, countless people. But the sinless perfection needed for justification is impossible, except for Jesus, who is sinless and divine. Covenant faithfulness is possible. In Deuteronomy 30, we have a prophecy about the restoration of Israel. Verses five to 14 says this. Now listen carefully. And I'm quoting from the New American Standard Bible, just because it's a little better translation in certain parts of this. the Lord your God will bring you into the land which your father's possessed and you shall possess it and he will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul so that you may live. The Lord your God will inflict all these curses on your enemies and those who hate you, who persecuted you and you shall again obey the Lord and observe all his commandments which I command you today. Then the Lord your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body, and in the offspring of your cattle, and in the produce of your ground. For the Lord will again rejoice over you for good, just as he rejoiced over your fathers. If you obey the Lord your God to keep his commandments and his statutes, which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. For this commandment, which I command you today, is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven that you should say, who will go up to heaven for us, get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it. Nor is it beyond the sea that you should say, who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it. But the word is very near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart that you may observe it. So Moses emphasizes that the law covenant was something that should be committed to and obeyed. Verse 11, for it is not too difficult, nor is it beyond your grasp. Now what does Jesus say in the Sermon on the Mount, and what does Paul say in the book of Romans, and Ephesians, and Galatians, and other places? You can't keep the law for justification, it's impossible. You need Christ. But in sanctification, covenant faithfulness, it's something you can keep. So there's a difference. The whole point is that Israel had no excuse whatsoever to reject the covenant or evade the responsibility because a covenant could be fulfilled. It was not too difficult. It recognized their sin and weakness and it provided expiatory sacrifices to deal with the continued transgressions that flowed from their sinful nature. In the new covenant, what do we have? We have the Lord's Prayer. which is both a pattern, and if you wanna say it verbatim, I have no problem with that, which we should say every day, more than once. Forgive us our trespasses. We sin every day. Christ acknowledged this in the Sermon on the Mount. If the Mosaic Covenant was a new covenant of works, it demanded sinless perfection, not only would Moses' reason for committing oneself to the covenant be completely untrue, it would also be cruel, for he would deliberately be setting up the people for failure. No one can keep the law perfectly, and the Mosaic Law acknowledges that. That's why every day there were sacrifices, atoning sacrifices for sin, which pointed the people to the blood of Christ. In the Bible, the faithful believer is not a person who is sinless. In fact, John says, 1 John 1 10, if we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us. It rather is a person who is committed to keeping God's moral law, who does not habitually walk in sin. The person that sins in a present continuous tense, who does not hate his sinful behavior and repent, is not a true believer. And if you take your Greek out and you look at 1 John in the Greek and you look at the verb tenses, he switches back and forth. He talks about present continuous sense of sinning. Is it your lifestyle? Is it the way you walk? Well, if it is, you're not a Christian. But don't say you're without sin. If you say you're without sin, you call God a liar. He who says I know him, 1 John 2.4, he who says I know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2.15, if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 3.8 and 9, he who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. Whoever has been born of God, the new birth, does not sin, present continuous tense, for his seed remains in him and he cannot sin because he has been born of God. 1 John 3.6, whoever abides in him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen him nor known him. Now given 1 John 1.10 in the Lord's Prayer, which includes a petition for the forgiveness of sins, John is contrasting the habitual sinner, someone living in a sinful lifestyle, and you who, before you were a Christian, were a typical pagan, the men out, you're out hustling women in bars, and you're trying, you wanna fornicate as much as possible, and you're getting drugs, and you're getting drunk, and you're snorting cocaine, and you're smoking pot, and you're doing all this stuff, and you're lying all the time, and you're ripping people off and doing all that. You know the difference between a sinful lifestyle and being a Christian, a Christian lifestyle. There's a huge difference. So he contrasts the habitual sinner with the habitual obedient Christian. Someone faithful to the covenant. For the Apostle John, the habitually sinful, professing Christian, is someone who has never been regenerated. For the Federal Visionist, he is someone who is in danger of losing regeneration and forgiveness or who has already lost it. Because in their concept of the Objectia Covenant, people who are baptized are all regenerated, saved, united to Christ, forgiven. And it's their job by faithfulness to keep that going. That's why you're saved by your works. You see the difference. John's theology is completely incompatible with a federal vision system. Christians can and do backslide, that is true, but true believers always repent and confess their sins. Look at King David, look at the Apostle Peter. Many, many Christians have fallen into sin, but they repent. If they don't repent, they're not Christians. The keeping of the covenant. of course, as a result of God's sovereign grace, in that Jehovah will circumcise their hearts, regeneration of the new birth, enabling them to love him and thus receive the blessings of covenant living, verse six. In the broader context of scripture, regeneration is the starting point of sanctification that logically precedes or is coterminous with justification. Remember, justification is the judicial foundation of regeneration and sanctification. Clearly in Moses' teaching, the keeping of the covenant is within the sphere of Israel's sanctification, and it's not a means of achieving justification. And you read the prophets, like Ezekiel and so forth, and you'll see the Israelites in gross immorality and idolatry and all this, and they'll say things like, well, what you need is heart circumcision. You're not regenerated. You need to have a heart regeneration. You need to have a heart cleansing so you will obey the law. They needed to be regenerated so they could habitually obey the covenant. If we contrast covenant faithfulness, which is in the sphere of sanctification, with justification, we see radically different expectations. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus refutes the false view of the law taught by the Pharisees, our Lord points out that unjust anger and insults are sin, not just the act of murder. Matthew 5.21-22, unlawful lust in the heart, not simply an act of adultery, is sinful. Matthew 5.27-28, God expects and demands ethical perfection from his rational creatures, Matthew 5.48. Fallen men do not have a perfect control of their thoughts or tongues, and thus Christians must confess their sins every single day. But the righteousness required for entrance into heaven is absolute ethical perfection and thoughtward indeed. It only takes one sin to merit the eternal death penalty, one. Adam and Eve, they ate of the fruit. Now, I understand that involved unbelief and covetousness and other sins of the mind and so forth, but they disobeyed one command and they were kicked out of the garden. Ethical perfection is necessary for justification. Therefore, only the righteousness of Christ can procure everlasting glorified life. Consequently, Paul says that Christ died for the ungodly, Romans 5.6. And I'll read this and then we'll take a break. Philippians 3, 7 and 9. But what things were gained to me, these I count of loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things lost for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things. And count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him. Okay, so he regards all his own righteousness as rubbish. And then listen to what he says, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith. An objective righteousness, a righteousness that does not come from ourselves, because our righteousness is never adequate for justification. Luke 17.10, everything you do is tainted with sin. You know, I'd go out when I was young, I'd go out and I'd street preach and pass out tracts. Talk about the cross and Christ. And while I'm doing that, I'm lusting because a girl's coming up to me in a bikini. Thinking in through thoughts. Everything we do is tainted with sin. Everything. Christ alone has the righteousness we need. We'll continue this in a moment. Let us pray. Father, we thank you so much for your gospel. Lord, We ask that you would bring revival in the Reformed churches, that they would have the guts, have the biblical fortitude to resist heresy and suppress it, eliminate it, exterminate it, cast it out. For without Christ, without your gospel, our lives are worthless. They're worse than worthless. We're just building up damnation for hell. We're just building up a life of filthy trash, satanic trash. But with Christ, our life has meaning. And he enables us by the power of his spirit to be covenantally faithful. So help us, Lord, to be consistent with that. For our flesh wants us to do the opposite. So help us, Lord, and help people wake up to exactly how wicked and evil and satanic the federal vision is. These men are liars. Strike the movement, Lord. Protect your church. In Jesus' name, amen.