Welcome to the Brittle Heights Presbyterian Church Pulpit Supplemental and today I have a special program I wanted to do. I've been wanting to do this for a while and I still need to read more of Dewey Roberts' book on the Federal Vision. But the thing is, Doug Wilson was interviewed by Chris Arnson on Iron Sharpens Iron and that was done recently and I'll put a link to that in the description here. I was really taken aback with some of the things that he said in that interview. I've got some clips here I want to play that I can do this right here. I would like to try to do this correctly. And I'd like to point out some things that were really just unbelievable that he actually said in his dialogue with Arnzem. Now Chris Arnzen is a Reformed Baptist, and he strikes me as someone who is just a really kind-hearted guy. He's really funny. He used to do all of the introductions at the Long Island debates. My favorite memory of that was when he introduced Robert Syngenis, the Roman Catholic apologist, as the papal bull, Robert Syngenis. And it was like, after standing up and making all these jokes and everything, he's a really funny guy and just seems like a really good-hearted Christian man. But this interview with Doug Wilson was rather painful to listen to because you can hear Arnzen trying his best to get Wilson to face some of the hard facts and that is his federal vision cohorts over the years like Steve Schlissel for example. Arnzen actually is going to play a clip from Schlissel and I've got it queued up here I'd like you to hear it and then hear Wilson's reaction to it because Schlissel is so crass in his denial of justification by faith alone. But to me, the real question that was asked during the interview that Arnson did with Wilson that was really just amazing to me, was he asked him this. I'm just going to go ahead and play it for you here. Are you aware of any notable names who are pastors or leaders within the federal vision movement who do, in your opinion, outright deny justification by faith alone or forensic justification? No. I'm not aware of anyone who outright denies it. What I'm gonna do in this program here is I'm gonna read quotations from men who are pastors involved in the Federal Vision, some of the original guys that were involved in the Federal Vision and have identified with the Federal Vision, Steve Schlissel, Rich Lusk, and Peter Lightheart, who are as straightforward, really, as they could be in their denials of justification by faith alone. It is positively amazing to me that when asked that question, that Wilson would say what he said, that he would say, no, I'm not aware of any that deny it. Um, what you're going to see here, what I'm going to read to you, and also some of the clips I'm going to play here are flagrant denials of the blessed doctrine of justification by faith alone. And okay, Chris Arnson, um, a few years ago had John Otis. John Otis wrote a really big book, a really, really useful book called Danger in the Camp, an analysis of the heresies of the federal vision. And he had Otis on with Steve Schlissel to talk about justification by faith alone. And I will say that having listened to many debates over the years and having, you know, argued online and also in person with Roman Catholic apologists, I have never heard anyone argue more vociferously against the doctrine of justification by faith alone than Steve Schlissel. I have never heard anyone do it more vociferously than him. But here's the clip that Arnson actually plays with Doug Wilson sitting right there listening to it and then tries to ask him about it, but listen to Schlissel arguing against John Otis. Now, If you listen to that debate, that partial debate that they did, she also got stuck in traffic and wasn't able to get there, but if you actually listen to it... Schlissel and Otis evidently know each other from the past and Schlissel is well aware He is well aware of Otis's theology. Otis is a very solid confessional reformed Christian minister who holds to the Westminster Confession and In light of that just listen to what is said here and then listen to Arnson and Wilson Go back and forth about about this here. Just listen closer to this. I Hold on. Abraham's a good example. Let's talk about him. This is the one of whom it is said, God speaking now, to Isaac, I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees, and my laws. The very things that you said Abraham couldn't do. Otis never said Abraham couldn't keep his commandments or obey his laws. What Otis has said is what Reformed Christians have always said, that keeping God's laws and commandments and ordinances is not what justifies us before him. And Schlissel knows that. Schlissel is well aware of that fact. Did he do it? Or didn't he do it, Mr. Otis? Did he obey God? He did. Absolutely, he did that. So it's possible to obey God then. Wow! Complete and total red herring. It's possible to obey God. Wow! He says. What does this have to do with justification? What does it have to do with anything that Otis said? Nothing. What a wonderful thing it is to be alive and to be able to obey God. Then it's worth living. Because if we couldn't, why bother living? The only purpose we have here is to obey him, but you're telling people they don't need to obey him. At that point, if I had been in the debate, I would have said exactly what I would have said. It warms my heart, Steve, to hear you objecting to my message in exactly the same way people objected to the Apostle Paul. Well, if what you're saying is true, we just have to make a mental ascent and we can do whatever we want and still go to heaven. No, Jesus will take care of it for them. All they have to do is make some mental ascent and then they can do whatever they want. And that's supposed to be the historic reform faith. He knows that's not the historic Reformed faith. Sosel knows that. He knows that's not the historic Reformed faith. You just make some mental assent, and Jesus takes care of the rest. You see, what I've told the guys that I'm training to be elders here is that people will try to force you into a false dilemma. Either you believe justification and sanctification are the same thing, or you have to be an antinomian. And I'm sorry, but that's just a classic example of the fallacy of a false dilemma. Okay, let's push on here. You hear that? He won't even allow for the historic reform position that works are evidence. He just says forget evidence. Amazing. And did Abraham obey God or didn't he? The Bible says that God chose Abraham because he knew he would obey him and keep his commandments and he would teach his children to do the same. The Bible teaches that God chose Abraham because he knew he would obey him? See, people have made the criticism that, you know, the Federal Vision sounds an awful lot like Arminianism. The Bible says nothing about God choosing Abraham because he knew he would obey him or anything like that. That's absurd. Now we're told that obedience is an optional or necessary only for evidential value of some sort of justification that came by faith. You see, some sort of justification that came by faith. Schlissel detests the doctrine of justification by faith. Now we're just being told it's evidence of that. Now, Wilson is going to be asked by Arnson here a little bit later, so, Doug, you think that Steve Schlissel believes in justification by faith alone, and Wilson after a long pause says, yeah. Which is... i say that god can make people who have no understanding into faithful people. John, can you respond to that? Well, there you have it. It seems from that exchange and from the entire exchange that Steve, being a representative of the federal vision, Now, Chris Arnson is being very, very nice and polite here. It doesn't seem like Schlissel's arguing against the gospel here or the doctrine of justification. He is arguing against it. Very plainly, clearly, and obviously, he is. He was actually pushing John Otis throughout their brief exchange to prove justification by faith alone from the scriptures, and he specified, don't use Romans or Galatians. Yeah, that part of the debate was really bizarre. Can you prove your theology without using Romans and Galatians? Which of course is easy to do, because what does Paul do? Paul cites from Genesis 15, 6, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. And his reasoning behind that is, if the doctrine of justification by faith alone was truly a biblical one, you wouldn't need to use Romans and Galatians, you would be able to find it elsewhere. But the point there being, Schlissel was arguing AGAINST justification by faith alone. Very plainly, obviously, and clearly, he was arguing AGAINST justification by faith alone. But does Steve's statements in that exchange trouble you at all? Yeah, I would say it's more troubling because I think of the confusion in it than the heresy in it. And this is how I think it's confused. is not the same thing as a necessary ground. What is the ground of our justification? The instrument of our justification is faith. The necessary consequence of having been justified is our works, because we're justified by a living faith by his dead faith. Now you gotta listen closer to this because what he means by that, and he's gonna say it here later, is that he sees works that accompany justification as, quote, more than merely evidence, but that they are organically connected to faith. You see, the Federal Vision is just a classic example of blurring the line between faith and works. And they define faith as obedience. What does Paul mean when he says we're justified by faith? That means we're justified by obeying the law, by faithfulness, by faithful obedience to God, etc. a moment later. See, and the reason is he defines faith organically connected to work. So the fact that it's living is shown by the fact that faith is the obedience of faith. See, but faith is simply, faith is not works. Faith is receiving and resting upon Christ and his righteousness held forth in the gospel. That's what faith is. And that's all that faith is. It's, it's living faith. But when God declares me righteous, it's because of the obedience of Christ, not the obedience of Wilson. Because if it were the obedience of Wilson, I'm going to hell. My works are not sufficient. God looks at, you look at Ephesians 2, 8-10, we are not saved by good works, lest any should boast, but we are saved to good works. works, which God prepared beforehand for us to do. So the good works are absolutely necessary because that's how God does it. But they are not necessary as a foundational thing. They are not a prerequisite to me being saved. They are the result of me being saved. Right, but the thing that... See, now, Arnson, of course, has to point out again and again and again and again to Wilson here, yeah, but that's not what Schlissel was saying. Wilson is trying his best to dance a jig around what Schlissel was clearly saying, and Arnson keeps going, yeah, but that's not what he was saying, though, Doug. Now listen to how he tries to do this. It troubles me, because I agree with you, but that's why I made the clarification with Steve. that John Otis does not believe in easy believism or cheap grace. He does not believe that you just need to offer some kind of mental assent. And the fact of the matter is, Steve Schlissel himself knows that John Otis doesn't believe that. That is a purposeful misrepresentation, because false teachers and legalists... I hope everyone listening to me will hear what I'm saying right now. Like, seriously, turn off everything else you're doing and listen carefully to me. Heretics and legalists just like this they will try it just as Rome tried They will try to force you into the fallacy of the false dilemma big-time either You have to believe that obedience makes you right with God obeying God is what gets you into heaven or you're an antinomian They will not allow obedience to be merely the fruit, merely the sign that justification has been received by faith alone. They won't allow it. They won't allow it. They will engage in the fallacy of the false dilemma. Either justification and sanctification are the same thing, and you get into heaven by works, or you have to be an antinomian. That's what Schlissel said. With your theology, you're telling people all they gotta do is make a little mental assent towards Jesus, and Jesus takes care of it, and they can just do whatever they want. But isn't it interesting? That's exactly what Paul's enemies said to him that he answered in Romans 6. What shall we say then? What shall we say then, Mr. Schlissel? Shall we just make a little mental assent towards Christ and then do whatever we want? What's Paul's answer to that? Is Paul's answer to that to say, well, obedience is what actually gets you into heaven and isn't it a wonderful thing? We can obey God and life is worth living. That's not Paul's answer. Paul's answer is the doctrine of regeneration. How shall we who died to sin live in it any longer? that the names change, and the nuances change, and the names of the heretics change, but the heresies don't change at all. To the truth, as the demons do, which obviously we have in the warning in James's epistle, that even the demons believe and they tremble. But when I said to Steve that John does believe in the necessity of works as an evidence, or as you just said, a consequence, What was Schlissel's response to that? Forget evidence. Is it possible to obey God or not? It's the fallacy of the false dilemma. Either you believe obedience is what saves you and justifies you and gets you into heaven, or you have to be an antinomy. You're telling people they can just go live like the devil and still go to heaven. Which is exactly what John Piper said, too. What was Schlissel's response to that? No! This is really hard. Okay, here we go. But Steve clearly radically opposed that notion. right and i would say that that would be an example uh... how uh... federal vision could misrepresent their opponents yeah it is a misrepresentation of his opponent and schlissel knows it's a misrepresentation of his opponent he knows it is if you're saved you're it's going to be the perseverance of the saints and the perseverance of the saints in holiness If you affirm that, then there shouldn't be any charge of cheap grace at all. And of course, John Otis does affirm that, and Schlissel knows that John Otis affirms that. He knows it. Yes, but what about his own view is really what the more important thing is. He seemed to be denying that works were only an evidence of Don't you feel sorry for Chris Armisen. He is really trying to get Wilson to face what he just heard and Wilson is running from it in every conceivable way. Well, I think that Steve's just misunderstanding. Steve also doesn't misunderstand anything. He's not misunderstanding what John Otis's position is. He knows what John Otis's position is. He knows what historic reform theology teaches. He just doesn't believe it. He denies justification by faith alone. Clearly. true justification of true salvation. He seemed to be muddling the differences between the temporal and earthly covenant that God had with the with Israel and the Old Covenant and how obedience and disobedience affected you in regard to your connection with the covenant of Old Testament Israel, with how one is justified before God in being given an entrance into heaven for all eternity with him. Okay, he didn't seem to be denying that. Schlissel, without question, categorically, repeatedly, emphatically, is denying that, clearly. There seems to be a muddling of difference. I mean, do you see a difference between those two things? I would say it's a muddling of categories. So, I think I would probably agree with Steve that the fruit of belief is more than simply evidence. Now you gotta catch that. Did you hear what he just said? I would probably agree with Steve that the fruit, that the fruit, the works, are more than just evidence. That's a big problem. That's a big problem. That the fruit is more than just evidence. Now, one of the things that's important to remember is that the Council of Trent addressed this very issue, the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation. In Canon 24 of Session 6, it says, "...if anyone shall say that the justice received is not preserved and also increased in the sight of God through good works, but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification received, which is what the Protestant Reformation said and what the Bible teaches, Saying that they're merely the fruits and signs of justification received, but not the cause of the increase. Let him be anathema. And here you have Doug Wilson, who's really disagreeing with the Reformation and inciting with the Council of Trent. He says, works are more than just fruit and evidence. Organically connected to saving faith in that. Okay. Okay, do you hear that? It's more organically connected to saving faith than that, he says. Okay, more organically connected to saving faith than that. Very important that people recognize this, but okay. Now, there's a little bit more of a dialogue that goes on here. I'd like to go ahead and listen to some of this and comment on this as well. So just give me one second here. Are you aware of any notable names who are pastors or leaders within the federal vision movement who do, in your opinion, outright deny justification by faith alone or forensic justification? No. I'm not aware of anyone who outright denies it. No, I'm not aware of anyone like that. And most of them would say that they affirm it. What I regard this issue as is the implications of certain positions. For example, Jim Jordan denies the classic understanding of regeneration. Okay? So... What does he specifically believe about regeneration? Well, he doesn't... He has a monograph where he... In the monograph he tentatively suggests, and then later he came sort of down on it. He doesn't believe... It has to do with... He doesn't believe that we have a nature that can be transformed. I would be a classic evangelical and I would say that God takes away my heart of stone and gives me a heart of gold. And of course, how could anyone deny that? That's a direct quotation from scripture. No one is saying we have a nature that's quote-unquote transformed. The new birth or regeneration is the changing of our affections. It's changing the heart of stone into a heart of flesh. Those who hate God now become lovers of God and haters of their sin. And so that's really what's at the heart of regeneration. a love for God and a desire for repentance and faith. That's what's put there by God. It's not that whether or not we have a nature that can be changed or not. All right. And, uh, and Jim would say, I don't, I think the Holy Spirit comes into your life and he wrestles with you, but he doesn't fundamentally change your nature because you, it has to do with, um, a philosophical view of whether we even have such a thing as a nature. Okay, now that can get very complicated, but I think that those sorts of speculations have downstream consequences for things like justification by faith. But I've never heard anybody flat out deny justification. Okay, sorry to have to play all that other stuff. I just wanted you to hear him affirm it again. I have never heard anyone outright deny it. Now he just listened to Steve Schlissel arguing very passionately against justification by faith alone. Just kind of, you know, bear that in mind. So you actually believe that, uh, my friend Steve Schlissel believes that we are justified by faith alone? Yeah. Wow. So Wilson, after listening to Schlissel there, and I'm going to read some more quotes from Schlissel. Wilson is saying Steve Schlissel believes in justification by faith alone. What can I say to something like that? That's just unbelievable to me that he could actually get that those words out. I've always wanted someone to ask him about these other guys. Um, but this, this just amazes me. It truly, truly does. I believe, yeah, I think that he has a... You hear Chris Arnson's like, really? After being there for the debate, and I'll put links to the debate again, listen to the debate. Schlissel is arguing, he sounds exactly like a Roman Catholic apologist, to me. I mean, exactly. He despises the idea that we're justified by faith, that you get into heaven, that your right to eternal life is on the basis of the blood and righteousness of Christ alone. Well, I'll put it this way. I've not heard him deny it. I've heard him quarrel with and argue with certain expressions of it, but those expressions, like in the exchange, the recording that you just played, I thought that there was a misunderstanding of the... There's no misunderstanding here. I'm sorry, that's wishful thinking on his part. Schlissel is well aware of what John Otis believes. He knows exactly what we believe. There is no misunderstanding here. The man denies the gospel. The man is against justification by faith. The man despises the issue. He despises the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, apart from our obedience. He thinks that that's antinomianism, and that's why he said, you're telling people that they can just do this and go do whatever they want, which is exactly what the Judaizers and the heretics in the New Testament said to the Apostle Paul himself. So I'm sorry, there is no misunderstanding on Steve Schlissel's part. He knows exactly what these people believe. Of the traditional classic reformed expression, I think Steve was misunderstanding it. Steve Schlissel does not misunderstand it, and he knows exactly what it is, and he rejects it and argues against it and despises it. And rejecting the misunderstanding. Well, it's fine to reject the misunderstanding. It's like debating an atheist. And I can tell an atheist, you know the God you don't believe in? I don't believe in that one either. Right. Yeah, well, he seemed to be like, for instance, he Poor Chris Armson's like well he yeah, but but he but he seemed to be saying he didn't Schlissel didn't seem to be saying anything Schlissel hates the gospel Schlissel hates the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He thinks it's antinomian There's no misunderstanding of it here. He knows what the doctrine is and he does not believe in it and denies it. And, you know, Aronson did a good job of queuing up that clip and playing it to get, you know, Wilson's response. I think, you know, I honestly thought maybe Wilson would go, wow, I'd never heard that before. Wow. I guess maybe some of them do deny the justification by faith alone because you're listening to the guy do it and he's like, no, no, he doesn't believe it. He affirms it. Amazing. And instead of affirming, he never in that debate affirmed justification by faith alone, by the way. He never said, I do believe in that. What he did was he tried to press his opponent to prove it from the Bible without using Romans and Galatians. He seemed to be in opposition to that point of view. And at the very least, he didn't seem to think it was a salvific issue if you fell on The view that you believe that works were somehow required in a meritorious way. He didn't seem to think that that was all that horrific. Yeah. Yeah. He, he certainly didn't seem to think that that was all horrific and he, he doesn't think it's horrific because, um, he believes that we get into heaven by obeying God's law and that that's what makes us right with God. And Schlissel, in particular, has bought hook, line, sinker, and has been drugged to the bottom of the ocean with the new perspective stuff, as we're going to see here in a moment. Now, I'd like to read some stuff, some quotations here that I've put together from Peter Lightheart and Rich Lusk and Steve Schlissel. Now, just remember, Doug Wilson has affirmed twice in this podcast or this interview that he did with Chris Harnson He's not aware of any. Any pastors, no one involved in the federal vision who denies justification by faith alone. Okay. Now, Rich Lusk. So let's hear Rich Lusk. Quote. Lusk, by the way, is a pastor who has spoken alongside of Wilson. You can see, I will put a link up to a video to the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Conference where you can see Rich Lusk and James Jordan and Doug Wilson and I think the other guy is John Barrett or Jeff Myers all sitting there together. So Lusk and Wilson speak at conferences together and Wilson doesn't know of any, no Federal Vision writers that deny justification by faith alone. Okay? Listen to Lusk. Quote, Paul states, just as emphatically as James, that the doers of the law will be justified. Romans 2.13, James 2.14. But who are these doers of the law? Is Paul speaking hypothetically of a class of sinless people who do not really exist? Or does he have something in mind? Let's start by unpacking what it means to keep the law. The law simply did not require perfect obedience. It was not designed for the angels or sinless humans. It was given to a fallen but redeemed nation at Sinai and was perfectly adapted to their maturity level and ability. Law-keeping in this context is not a matter of scoring 100% on an ethics test. It's not even a matter of scoring 51%. It simply doesn't work that way. Conformity to the law was a matter of relationship, not something mechanical. The law called for a life of faith, a life of full-orbed loyalty to the lawgiver. If one sinned, one did not automatically become a law-breaker, except in a highly technical sense. After all, the Torah made provision for sin in the sacrificial system. Law-keeping included rituals for law-breaking." Now, you gotta chew on that for a minute. So, the law doesn't even require perfect obedience. It doesn't require 100% obedience. It doesn't even require 51% obedience. It doesn't require that, we're told. It's all a matter of, you know, relationship, we're told. Okay, Lusk continues, listen. Okay, stop there. So, Lusk is saying, the doers of the law will be justified. But Wilson doesn't know of anybody in the federal vision movement that denies sola fide. None of them do. Never heard any of them do it. Lust continues. Several other texts bear on Romans 2. In James 1.22, James speaks in non-hypothetical terms of doing the law. Jesus is not kidding or messing around when he speaks of a future justification according to our words. Remember that passage, by your words you will be justified, Matthew 12.37? Lusk continues, when Jesus describes two paths, one leading to life, the other leading to death, he isn't propounding a hypothetical way of salvation by walking the narrow path of obedience. Rather, he is demanding obedience as a non-negotiable condition of salvation. When Hebrews says that without holiness, no man will see the Lord, it is not proposing holiness as a hypothetical plan of salvation by merit. When Jesus requires cross bearing and life losing as a condition of eternal life in the Gospels, he means exactly what he says, and on and on we could go. Now, you see the confusion he's making here. Well, obviously we believe all those passages too, but that's not how we're justified before God, and that is not how we gain our legal right to eternal life. Lus continues, quote, the initial clothing in white is received by faith alone. Now listen to that carefully. Initial justification, initial clothing in white is received by faith alone. This is the beginning of Joshua's justification. Here he's talking about Zechariah chapter three. But if Joshua is to remain justified, that is, if the garments he has received are not to become re-soiled with his iniquity, he must be faithful. So what is this saying here? Close quotation. What is he saying here? How do you get into heaven? It's initial justification by faith, or as they would teach, as you're gonna see as we do more of these programs, by baptism. And then you maintain your status by covenant faithfulness. Lusk continues, Thus, initial justification is by faith alone. Subsequent justifications include obedience. That is as clear of a denial of justification by faith alone as a person could say. Saying, well, initially it's faith alone, initially it's grace alone, and then grace enables us to then have subsequent justifications by obedience. Listen to what Lusk says next. I mean, that's just so crass. So crass. Forensic justification that the legal verdict cannot be separated from the good works that make the saints worthy of their new apparel. Amazing. Amazing. Justification is by the imputation of righteousness to us, of the God-righteousness to us. Paul, I don't want to get off on arguing against you. I just want you to hear. these denials of justification. Doug Wilson, he's not aware of any. None of these guys that he has spoken at conferences with and done stuff with, none of them, none of them deny justification by faith alone. Listen. Okay, where did I stop here? Those who will be vindicated in the end are those who have been faithfully obedient. There is not a hint of merit theology in these passages, but there is no escaping the close nexus formed between priestly investiture, justification, and obedience. To the question, are the saints robed in Christ's righteousness or their own obedience? The imagery of Revelation answers, yes. See, this is a federal vision thing. When you ask them questions that really are one or the other, like when Wilson was asked, so are good works the fruit or the cause of our salvation? He says, yes. Well, no, the answer to the question biblically is good works are the fruit, not the cause of our salvation. Lusk continues. In other words, the word pictures drawn in this book do not support a rigid separation of justification from holy living. Justification and sanctification are of a piece, both symbolized by the same white robes. That is the clearest denial of justification by faith alone I have ever read, including Roman Catholic theologians and apologists. Justification and sanctification are of a piece, both symbolized by the same white robe. So my holiness and righteousness by which I will get into heaven is a mixture of Christ's righteousness and my own obedience. That is as clear of a denial of justification by faith alone, which is shorthand for justification by the righteousness of Christ alone, as I have ever read from any person ever. Lusk isn't finished though, listen. The Bible is clear. Obedience is necessary to receive eternal life. There is no justification apart from good works, but more needs to be said about final judgment. What role will faith play? What role will works play? Again, we find the Bible teaching that future justification is according to works. Final justification is to the faithful doers of the law, Romans 2.13. And by those good works which make faith complete, James 2.14. Justification will not be fully realized until the resurrection. In fact, the main reason justification comes up at all in scriptures is because someday we will all stand before God's judgment seat and answer for our deeds done in the body. So what's going to get you into heaven? Your good works. I mean, he's as clear as he could be, isn't he? And what Wilson, remember, Wilson said, I'm not aware of anyone that denies justification by faith, let alone who's a federal vision proponent. Even after listening to Schlissel argue against it vociferously, the best that Wilson can come up with is, well, I think he's misunderstanding the reform position. Schlissel does not misunderstand the reform position. He knows exactly what Otis believes. He knows that position. He rejects it. That's the problem. But Lusk is not finished. Listen. But the Bible nowhere says God will apply absolute justice at the last day. So why do we make that assumption? The only places where God enforces strict justice are at the cross and hell. For the covenant people, at least, it seems God will use fatherly justice in the final judgment, not absolute justice. I mean, just break from the quotation. The problems with what's being said here are so bad, are so manifold. Well, strict justice is used at the cross. What's going on at the cross in this man's thinking? The cross is where Christ bears the judicial curse of the law in the place of his people. That's what the cross is. That's what it does. That's why we're saved there. So at the last day, God uses not strict justice, but fatherly justice. So basically what they have to do is they have to lower the standard. God doesn't expect perfection. He just expects us, I mean, listen to what he says. He will judge us the way parents evaluate their child's artwork or the way a new husband assesses the dinner his beloved wife has made. The standard will be soft and generous because God is merciful. I mean, guys, folks, breaking from the quotation. This is Pelagian theology. This is the theology of the natural man. This is the false gospel of the natural man. This is what people believe that you talk to on the street about the gospel. What do they all believe? Oh, God is fatherly. I've been a pretty good person. I'm pretty good and my goods probably outweigh the bad. God will judge us the way that, you know, a husband judges his new wife's dinner or their children's artwork when they bring them something they made at school. That's the way God, that's what the natural man thinks. The natural man is constantly making these kinds of errors. They misunderstand the holiness of God and they overestimate themselves. This is delusional thinking. Fatherly justice in the final judgment? The reason Jesus came and suffered the terrible agony that he did is precisely because God's nature, as holy, cannot be set aside. God cannot lower the standard. That's why Jesus had to die for us. That's why we need a savior to do all these things in our behalf. But Lusk still isn't done. Listen, the standard will be soft and generous because God is merciful. Our works will not have merit before God, but they will have worth precisely because of the covenant relationship we are in. That's a contradiction. Merit means worth. Merit means worth. So he just basically said, our works won't have worth before God, but they'll have worth. Precisely because of the covenant relationship we're in. Again, compare this notion to the passages in scripture which claim a particular saint is righteous or has kept the law or has done good. These examples show the kind of soft evaluation God makes of his people. Of course, what's being quoted there, Zacharias and Elizabeth, they were righteous and blameless, observing all the commandments of God. any lexicography of the terms. Dikaios, the adjectival form of the term to justify, means upright or just. There's a forensic sense, which is what Paul is talking about when he uses the word, and then there's a sense of general moral uprightness. How do I know that? Just look it up. Look it up in Thayer's, look it up in Bauer, Dunker, Arden, Gingrich, look it up in Fridberg, look it up in Lua, Nida, look it up in all the standard lexicography. There is an entry for general moral uprightness, which we can describe someone as being a just person. That doesn't mean that they were saved by their good works. It doesn't mean that they're justified before God on the basis of their obedience. When the Bible says that John the Baptist's parents, that his parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth, were just and righteous, walking in all the commandments of God, that does not mean that they got into heaven by being righteous. All that's talking about is the parentage of John the Baptist. We're moral, upright, godly people. The passage isn't even remotely addressing the topic of how we're justified before God. Not even close. Lusk continues, quote, a judgment about works is really a judgment about faith and vice versa. You hear that? For them, for the federal vision, works and faith are the same thing. So they'll say, yeah, we believe in justification by faith alone. Faith is obedience. Faith is works. Which really doesn't make any sense, because now you have Paul, okay, Romans 3, 28. Therefore, we maintain that a man is justified by obedience, apart from observing the law. Apart from obeying the law. It's a contradiction. Faith is not obedience. Faith is receiving and resting upon Christ alone. It's not working. Okay, Paul even says that, Romans 4, 5. To the one not working but believing, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Listen, for example, it is not eisegesis to assume that the doers of the law in Romans 2 are those who have demonstrated the obedience of faith, rather than those who have scored 100% on a moral exam. God is not looking for perfection from his people, rather he desires a core commitment of loyalty that overshadows everything else we do, no matter how badly we may fail from time to time. You see, this is the theology of the natural man. This is what every pagan I've ever witnessed to already believes. Well, are they going to go to heaven? Yeah, probably. Why? Because God is nice. He's fatherly. He'll look at my good works. Yeah, I fail from time to time. I fail from time to time, but I'll probably get into heaven. Lust continues. In discussion, his view of soteriology, Lusk, this is Otis, I'm sorry. In discussing his view of soteriology, the doctrines about salvation, Lusk wants to tout his soft judgment theology, quote, third, the softer standard simply seems to be the teaching of scripture. Isn't that an amazing way of putting it? It just seems to be the teaching of scripture. Pietistic Protestantism has created a sort of holy worm theology in which we are never allowed to feel good about anything we've done. It's a total canard. Total canard. Our good works are accepted in Christ for reward, not as anything contributing to our justification or getting into heaven. God is pleased to reward the good works. Of course we should feel good about that and we make progress in holiness, but we're not relying upon those things in any way, shape, or form to make us right with God or to be part of our final eschatological vindication or justification or however you want to put it. Everything we do, no matter how noble or faithful, is tainted with sin and therefore worthy of condemnation. However true, that is an abstract. It's simply not the way Scripture evaluates things. The Bible repeatedly speaks of believers and their works as good, as worthy, and so forth. This is not a denial of sola fide, says Lusk. Westminster Confession 11.2, faith is the alone instrument. For one thing, when Paul points to faith as the unique receptor of justifying righteousness, he is speaking of initial justification. Okay, stop right there. No, he's not. And neither were the Westminster divines. The Westminster Divines were teaching that justification is what gives us a right to eternal life, because justification is by faith alone, because it is the righteousness of Christ alone that gets us into heaven. Lusk continues. But it is indisputable that the biblical data on final justification brings works into the picture. There is no doctrine of final justification. There's no such thing as final justification. Is there a judgment of works? Yes. For rewards? Yes. Is the thing that we get, eternal life and justification and getting past the judgment of God into heaven? No. Listen to Lusk. Faith is always the sole instrument of justification in that faith alone lays hold of Christ. Works cannot lay hold of anything. But faith's unique role in justification does not exclude other instruments functioning in other senses. Yeah, it does. Yes it does, because God is holy and we are not. Because God can't compromise his moral integrity to let us into heaven by some softer fatherly judgment. Christ has to come into the world to achieve it all for us. That's what Galatians 2.21 means. If righteousness could be achieved by law keeping, if righteousness comes through law, Christ died for nothing. Okay. Quote Lusk, similarly, in some sense, baptism is an instrument of justification since in the sacraments, Christ is applied to the believer and the believer is not justified until that application takes place. Okay, we're gonna get into the whole sacramental stuff later, but that's also a denial of justification. If you teach that we're justified by baptism, clearly you're not holding to the idea of justification by faith alone as it has been historically understood and as we would maintain it's taught in scripture. Otis, John Otis says in response to this, I am sorry, but where is initial justification and final justification mentioned in the Westminster Confession 11.2? That's a good question because Lusk is trying to say, I'm not denying anything in the Confession here. Yes, you are, flagrantly, clearly, you are. Okay, Lusk continues here. Third, the law did not require perfect obedience. It was designed for sinners, not unfallen creatures. Thus, the core demand of the law was covenant loyalty and trust, not sinless perfection. This is why numerous sinful but redeemed people are regarded as law keepers in scripture. This is why numerous, or excuse me, stretching back to the pre-Mosaic period all the way forward to the New Testament, and of course, he quotes the passages about Noah, about Job, Joseph, Mary's husband, Zechariah and Elizabeth. Any standard lexicography of the terms will point out there is a forensic use to dikaios, dikaiosune, and dikaiao, and then there is a usage of it that refers to general moral uprightness. It is one of the most common errors of Bible students to assume that everywhere the term is used it must be relevant to the doctrine by its name. That is not the case. You look at the usages of the term in their own context. All those terms are referring to theirs. Noah was a very godly man. Jacob was a godly man. Job was a godly man. Joseph was a godly man. Zacharias and Elizabeth were godly people, were blameless in God's sight, walking in all of his commandments. Does that have anything to do with how they got into heaven? Does it have anything to do with the legal grounds of their acceptance of God? Not at all. Okay. He continues, fifth, the law was a pre-Christian revelation of the gospel. You hear that? There is no acknowledgement of the law gospel distinction in the federal vision. Okay, even in the joint federal vision PDF document that used to be on the internet, which was deleted by somebody, but thankfully the internet does not forget and that's still all over the place. You can find it. It's pretty easy to find. They don't acknowledge the law-gospel distinction. Now, as a hermeneutic for reading the whole Bible, yeah, I don't think that's necessarily the most helpful thing. However, when it comes to the doctrine of justification before God, if you don't acknowledge the law-gospel distinction, you're not a Christian. If you do not understand the distinction between the law and the gospel when it comes to how a person is made right with God, you're not a Christian, and you're under God's wrath. What does Romans 4.15 say? Because the law brings about wrath. The law cannot help you. The law gives no enabling power and the law is not your friend when it comes to being right with God. For those who are right with God by faith alone in Christ alone, on the basis of his shed blood and his righteousness alone, not because they're working or covenantally faithful or loyal or anything like that, can they look to the law as a way of expressing gratitude to God? Yes, of course, of course. But when it comes to being justified, if you don't acknowledge the law of gospel distinction, you're not a Christian, period. And you're fatally wrong on the gospel. Okay, there's a couple more quotations here. I think you get the point here. If you can't see how clearly Lusk denies- oh wait, there's one more, one more I gotta read here. This is Rich Lusk, okay, a man who has spoken and sat on panels with Doug Wilson, spoken at conferences with Wilson, is a friend of Wilson, I'm assuming, and they've done this stuff together for years and years. Lusk says, quote, Justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify righteousness into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books. Rather, because I am in the righteous one and the vindicated one, I am righteous and vindicated. My in-Christ-ness makes imputation redundant. I do not need the moral content of his life of righteousness transferred to me. What I need is a share in the forensic verdict passed over him at the resurrection." End quote. Doug Wilson says, I'm not aware of anybody that denies justification by faith alone. Now, of course, where is Lusk getting this? That because I'm in Christ, in union with Christ, makes imputation redundant? That is taken word for word from the theology of Richard Gaffen. In his dissertation that was originally the centrality of the Resurrection, it was later republished as Resurrection and Redemption, Gaffen is one of the fathers of the heretical false gospel theology that's been emanating from Westminster Seminary up there for a very long time. all the way back with Norman Shepard. In fact, I've been doing some reading on Shepard. The more I read Norman Shepard, the more I can hear his subtleties of speech and his errors and his beliefs about baptism and justification. It is dripping all over everything these guys say. Everything they say. Okay, so there's Rich Lusk, a man that Wilson would say believes in justification by faith alone, and does not deny it. Now, Schlissel is another one. You heard Arnson ask Wilson, so you would say that my friend Steve Schlissel believes in justification by faith alone, and Wilson said, yeah. Okay, let's listen to some more quotations from Schlissel here. Now, to help people move from where they are and asking the scriptures certain questions to go to hearing what the scripture would have us ask is a very difficult task and I don't know how to do it. I tried to do it up in Ontario recently and I almost got killed. Not to mention that they had to put metal detectors at the doors, but the response afterward was very discouraging. people, one professor of a prominent Reformed seminary wrote in reaction to this speech, when it comes to the question upon what basis and for what reason am I right with God and an heir of eternal life, Reformed believers have insisted as rigorously as Luther that the law is quite repugnant. And he says he is quoting Calvin here. Well, you can quote Calvin to make him say anything you want, and that is the problem with guys who write a lot. Well, of course, he said that, but wasn't it qualified? You know what Luther said? Well, he may have said that, but how was it qualified? How does the Bible speak, and how does the Bible qualify itself? Is the law repugnant to how we are made right with God? How we stay right with God? Is the law truly repugnant? This law-gospel dichotomy is a false one. It is unbiblical. Now Paul says in Romans 4.15, the law brings about wrath. When it comes to justification, the law can't help you. All my listeners, don't look to the law to help you be right with God. For by the law is the knowledge of sin, Romans 3.20. Therefore, by the deeds of the law, by trying to obey and keep the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. Rather, through the law, we become conscious of sin. But here, Steve Schlissel says, quote, Is the law truly repugnant? This law-gospel dichotomy is a false one. It is unbiblical." Well, that's pretty clear. When it comes to justification before God, Schlissel says, the law-gospel distinction is totally false. It's unbiblical. And Wilson says, he doesn't deny justification by faith alone. Okay, listen to some more from Schlissel. The question has always been, what does the Lord require? We've changed the question since Luther's day, perhaps imperceptibly to some, but quite drastically if you look at it. The question is commonly, what must I do to be saved? But that's the wrong question. They stop on the quotation there. You know, the Philippian jailer asked that question in Acts chapter 16. He came trembling and fell down at Paul and Silas' feet and said, sirs, what must I do to be saved? Now did Paul and Silas say to him, huh, that's the wrong question. The real question is, what does the Lord require? Of course not. They said, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. Listen to Schlissel, he continues. The question is, what does the Lord require? If we don't begin to retool our churches to turn around from the, what must I do to be saved, what does the Lord require? We are going to die. Because in answering 1, what must I do to be saved, you move in the idea of sola sola sola, and then you have the sola fide, and if you are only saved by faith apart from any activity or any response to God's word, and then, well, what kind of faith is that? Well, there is the spurious faith, and there is the pretentious faith, and there is a certain quality to this faith, and then the pulpits are devoted to examining your faith, and then you have to bring up your faith, but, and before you know it, everyone thinks that they're not saved. The guy next to me is saved, she might be saved, I'm not saved. How can I be saved? I don't know how you can be saved, but you come here next week and I'll make you feel guilty, by golly, you just get here. And week after week, the people are berated and bullied and tortured in their conscience, make on the presupposition that God is really as niggardly as the preacher believes him to be, and he only saves with the greatest possible reluctance." And just stop from the quotation. What a canard. What a straw man, are you kidding me? Listen to what he goes on to say, quote, and when somebody manages to squeak into the kingdom, he almost snaps his fingers and says, shucks, another one made it, and I was hoping he would be fooled and deceived into thinking that he had real faith when he really didn't have it, end quote. Isn't that amazing? And, oh yeah, he believes! He would affirm sola fide. I mean, Arnson was incredulous. He was like, so would you say that my friend Schlissel believes in justification by faith alone? Yeah, sure. Yeah, he does. Listen to what he goes on to say. So that when we ask only, what must I do to be saved? We end up with Baptistic America. But when we ask, what does the Lord require? We have the possibility of reaching the world. You see, what is Schlissel's gospel? The law. What is the gospel message to the world? Obey the law. This is, I mean, it's Pelagianism to the core. I wonder what does Schlissel say to the person whose conscience is destroyed by the Holy Spirit convicting them of their sin and they know they need a redeemer and a savior? What does he say to them? Well, you better get busy. You better do more works. I mean, talk about people being bullied and tortured in their consciences. That's what false gospels always do. That's what these legalists are doing. They're bringing people into bondage to false systems of works righteousness, all the while claiming that preaching the freeness of grace is what does that. I mean, it's the pot calling the kettle black big time. Listen to what Schlissel goes on to say. The difference is dramatic. The difference can be seen in the illustration of Archimedes' lever. You remember that he said, give me a place to stand and a lever long enough and I could move the entire earth. Luther had one foot on the Bible and used a broken lever and he shook the world. But imagine what he could have done if he had both feet on the Bible. That is the Old and the New Testament together without imagining any antipathy between them and that if he had a lever that was the covenant and not his mere personal salvation. End quote. Total misrepresentation of Luther. Total misrepresentation of the Reformation. Luther taught, as vociferously as anyone, that good works are a necessary fruit and evidence, which Schlissel dismissed immediately with, FORGET EVIDENCE! FORGET FRUIT! Can we obey God or not? Always remember that. Again, I want to emphasize this, this is one of the main things I hope everyone listening to me will come away from. The heretics and the legalists and the false teachers, they have used the fallacy of the false dilemma for centuries. Either you have to believe that faith and works save you and get you into heaven and make you right with God, or you're an antinomian. And the answer is, you're wrong. There's a third option. Justification is by faith alone. We get into heaven by faith alone. You're saying we can just do whatever we want and go to heaven? May Genoita, may it never be. How shall we who died to sin live in it any longer? The law does not have dominion over us. Our sin does not have dominion over us anymore. Romans 6, 18. Having been set free from sin, we became slaves of righteousness. The new birth, the new affections that God puts on our hearts, the war that God starts on our hearts by giving us a hunger and a desire for holiness, that doesn't save us. Our obedience doesn't save us. And to say that it does is fatal to Christianity, fatal to the gospel. A failure to recognize the law of gospel distinction when it comes to the doctrine of justification is also fatal to Christianity and fatal to the gospel. She also continues, if we have faltered, we have to go back to where we made our mistakes. One of the falterings, one of the errors has been in our antipathy to the law, imagining that the Bible really says about it what Luther said about it. But the Lord told us in Micah, will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body, for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. Is that works religion? Is that legalism? Okay, break from the quotation here. If you teach that that's how sinners are made right with God and get into heaven, yes. If you teach, however, that that is the fruit and the evidence and the result of being made right with God by faith alone in Christ alone, then it's not legalism and Phariseeism and works religion. She also continues, that's what God told us that he wants from us. You see, the Roman Catholics, all Pharisees and legalists and Judaizers and heretics, they all do the same thing. Every affirmation in scripture where God tells us to do good works, that must mean you're saved by him. So if God says to do justice, that he has shown you, oh man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you, to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God, that must mean you're saved by doing it. That must mean you get into heaven by doing it. But what does the New Testament teach us? By the observance of law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. So, do we then, as Steve Schlissel accuses, you guys were making void the law. Luther was making void the law. What does Romans 3, 31 say? Do we then make void the law through faith? On the contrary. We uphold the law. We establish the law. We love the law. We long to be obedient. We hunger and thirst for righteousness. See, but in the minds of the unregenerate, in the minds of heretics, legalists, and false teachers, If you're not motivated to keep the law by trying to save your own skin, then that's not real obedience, then, is it? To them, it's not. They don't even understand how gratitude motivates real holiness. And that's why they use the false dilemma. Either you teach that every imperative in scripture is how you're made right with God and how you get to heaven, or you're an antinomian. And we say, no, the law was given because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, Galatians 3 says. Therefore, the law was our pedagogos to lead us to Christ. So, no, we don't look to the law to make us right with God. Luther was correct. The law cannot help you be right with God. The law is our pedagogos. It is our schoolmaster, our teacher to drive us to Christ. It shows us our sin so that we seek salvation in Christ alone. And then in response to that, in gratitude to that, grace that brings thanksgiving, 2 Corinthians 4.15, grace causes thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God. Are we making void the law by faith? On the contrary, we uphold the law, we establish the law. We don't look to it for our justification. We don't look to it to make us right with God because the law brings about wrath, Romans 4.15 says. Amazing. It's pretty amazing to listen to people argue in exactly the same way Paul's enemies argue. They don't even realize they're doing it, apparently. Listen, she also says, but this is the state of affairs because of our concern with our own personal salvation based upon a view that God really doesn't want to save anyone and that he's playing games and that if it is not by works which we have done then it's by a kind of faith which we can't identify. And we are always looking, you know you see this, no offense, but this is especially prevalent in Southern Presbyterians for some reason, who are essentially Baptists who don't refrain from sprinkling their babies. They think like Baptists. They address their children as Baptists. They don't believe their children are saved by the grace of God. They believe they are waiting for a decision, some sort of cogent, confessible experience of personal regeneration and transition from death to life because they believe their children are born in death. They have bought into the Baptistic way of thinking and it is just an abomination." That's just a pack of lies. That's not true of Presbyterians. That's not what we're like at all. Do we believe that we should evangelize our children? Do we believe that we should do that? Yeah, we do. Because that's what God told Abraham to do. Now listen to it, Genesis 18, 19. Genesis 18, verse 19. For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him, to keep the way of the Lord." Oh! Abraham's a Baptist! He's a Baptist! He thinks that- he doesn't think his children are saved by the grace of God, but he's gotta- he's gotta command them? He's gotta evangelize them? To keep the way of the Lord and do righteousness and justice? I mean, it's just absurd. This whole string of reasoning here and rhetoric is just nonsense. He goes on, this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel says, reform your ways and your actions and I will let you live. Don't trust in deceptive words. The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord. Celestial continues. Can I say something? Don't trust in deceptive words. We are reformed. We are reformed. Don't trust in deceptive words. What's Mr. Confession? What's Mr. Confession? You have to have the whole word of God and the fear of God in your hearts and in your home. That's what God wants. If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you don't oppress the alien, the fatherless, or the widow, and you don't shed innocent blood, if you don't follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live. It's just as easy for God to say today, I hate, I despise your confessions of faith. Take them out. I am disgusted by your solas. Why? Because they are not true? Of course they are true. In a proper context. But they're not substitutes for the fear of the Lord. They are not substitutes for the wholehearted biblical covenantal religion. Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, and do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility. Perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord's anger. Another long list of canards. These people really do believe. Legalists, heretics, Pharisees, Judaizers, Federal Visionists. They really do think that the way to get people to be obedient is to tell them you're saved and you're made right with God by being obedient. which ironically, ironically produces an utterly, completely self-centered piety. My neighbor, no longer do I do what I do out of love for God and gratitude to God for my salvation, now my neighbor becomes an object through which I gain non-meritorious merit for myself by my good works. Absurd. He goes on, he says, Jesus Christ said that the commandments of God can be summarized, that they can be summarized in love to God and love to neighbor. He didn't say, I'm going to trick you by telling you a command that is going to put in the same bind that Luther found himself in. And then when you finally despair of any hope, maybe you'll come out the other side and you'll be saved by grace. That is amazing to me. All Luther did. was live out, in his own experience, the convicting power of the Spirit of God, showing him you can't be justified by law-keeping. The law was not given to justify us or to make us right with God, it exposes our sin. Through the law we become conscious of sin, Romans 3.20. The law is our schoolmaster, to drive us to Christ, to lead us to Christ. He's almost quoting it. When you despair of any hope, yeah, the law's our schoolmaster to cause us to despair of any hope in ourselves, that we might look for justification in Christ alone, by grace alone. What does Romans 4.15 say? Therefore, justification is by faith, not by works, not by obedience, by faith so that it would be by grace, so that the promise would be sure, would be guaranteed to all the seed. We get into heaven, we're made right with God, by belief alone, so that salvation can be by grace. Because if salvation is by our obedience, by our fruits, by the good works that we do, it's not grace anymore. It's not grace anymore. It's something else. It's not Christ plus, Jesus and, faith plus. And the heretics, legalists, and false teachers have never understood, and they never will, barring them being born again, they'll never understand. They'll never understand how the freeness of God's grace is what gives rise to godliness. It gives rise to doing what the Lord requires of us. It makes us love the law of God. Amazing. Schlossel continues, quote, it makes the transaction into something preposterous and fraudulent. Jesus looked at him and loved him. He loves the story of the rich young ruler, where he was, what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life? He says, keep the commandments. And Schlossel said, see, that's how you do it. You get eternal life by keeping God's commandments. Of course, what was Jesus' point there? What was the point? This guy said, oh, I've done all that since I was young. And then Jesus tells him what it really means. Oh, really? Really? You've loved God and your neighbor with all your heart? Okay, go sell everything you have and give it to the poor. And then come follow me and you'll have treasure in heaven. And it says he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Jesus used the law exactly the way that Paul used it. To the self-righteous, Jesus gave them the law with both barrels. To the repentant prostitute, who wept her repentant tears upon his feet. Jesus didn't say to her, well, you want to be right with God? Go stop sinning. What'd he say? Your faith has saved you. And then he says, go and sin no more. In light of the fact that you've been saved by faith, not by your obedience, but by faith alone, belief alone. Now go and sin no more. Schlissel continues, "...it demands that the law conform to what we want from it, and if it doesn't do that, then we will have none of it. But the law itself is to be our life. This is your life, God said. In the law, I have given you atonement. In the law, I have given you promises of forgiveness. In the law, I have given you a way to live." Category error. Total category error. When Paul speaks of the law in Romans and Galatians when he's addressing justification, he's talking about people trying to earn eternal life by their good works of obedience to it. He's not talking about, yes, the law contains provisions for atonement. So these guys mix categories and are as confusing as they could be because they're not trying to be understood. They're not trying to be understood. Okay, one more. One of Doug Wilson's right-hand men, Peter Lightheart. And a person that I know Wilson thinks very highly of and has taught at his New St. Andrews College. I don't know what he's doing now. He's at some Theopolis Institute or something like that. But anyway, Lightheart wrote an essay. It's in the Federal Vision book. And I've read it a long time ago, but let me just read you a couple quotations from here. And again, remember, Wilson, he doesn't know of anybody in the Federal Vision that denies justification by faith alone. Quote, Lightheart. The Protestant doctrine has been too rigid in separating justification and sanctification. 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, not merely twin effects of the single event of union with Christ. Rather, they are the same act. God's declaration that we are justified takes the form of deliverance from sin, death, and Satan. God declares us righteous by delivering us from all our enemies. Okay, now, historic Reformed theology, following the Apostle Paul, following the very simple, plain, clear teachings of the New Testament and the Old Testament, is that justification is solely forensic. It is solely legal. Jesus Christ is, in the fullness of times, Galatians 4, 4 and 5, born of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we would receive the adoption of sons. The law that God gave, we can't keep it. It's of no help to us. Paul says in Romans 4, 15, the law brings about wrath. We don't look to the law to help us be right with God. Jesus comes into the world because righteousness, justification, cannot be by law-keeping. And if it could be by law-keeping, Christ died in vain, Galatians 2.21 says. The righteous requirements of the law have to be met. The legal requirements of the law have to be met. The righteous requirements, Romans 8.4, have to be met, has to be fulfilled by someone. And the penal sanction... the sanctions of the law must be met as well. Justification, our legal status being changed from condemned before the law to righteous before the law is solely, completely, and only forensic. It is forensic alone. It is a change in our legal status alone. And if you say justification is forensic plus Transformational. Forensic plus deliverance from sin, death, and Satan. You have denied justification by faith alone. If you say it's forensic and something, then you're denying Sola Fide. You're denying the gospel, the biblical gospel. Lightheart continues, quote, for Paul as well as David, to justify is not merely to issue a statement that so-and-so is righteous. Okay, stop right there. Yes it is. For God to justify is to issue a statement that so-and-so is righteous, that their legal status before the law is now righteous as opposed to condemned. By virtue of the shed blood of Christ at the cross that fully pays for all their sins, original and actual, and the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to their account, what Paul calls the gift of righteousness in Romans 5.17, that is legally put upon us, justify does merely mean a change in status. And that's the great glory of the gospel. Lightheart continues, God declares his verdict of not guilty by delivering the righteous one from oppression and from enemies. As Richard Gaffin has argued, the resurrection of Jesus is the ground of our justification, because it is first of all the vindication of Jesus. The resurrection is not the result of a prior verdict from the father. The resurrection is instead the public declaration of the verdict. By raising Jesus, the father proclaimed that his son, condemned by Roman and Jewish alike, by Roman and Jew alike, was in fact the righteous one and was righteous precisely in his obedience to death on a cross. Obviously, the resurrection did more than change Jesus' legal status. Deliverance from death was the verdict. Jesus's resurrection is the paradigmatic case of justification. We are justified because we are joined to the one who has been justified by being raised from the dead. Since Jesus's justification is the pattern of our justification, our justification must likewise involve deliverance from the power of death and from the threat of enemies, including the enemies of sin and Satan." Okay, stop from the quotation. Wrong. Justification is only forensic. Justification is only forensic. And if you say it's forensic and Subjective deliverance. Subjective this. Deliverance from oppression. Deliverance from sin. Deliverance from Satan. You've denied the gospel. You have fatally compromised the gospel. Lightheart continues. In this sense, justification and definitive sanctification are two ways of describing the same act. God renders a verdict in our favor by cutting off our enemies and by delivering us from their power. End quote. And he's talking about the power of sin in our lives. There's no way of getting around it. This is a flagrant denial of the biblical gospel. Justification is only a change. It is merely a change in our forensic status, our legal status before the law of God, and that's all it is. And he finishes by saying, this is still a forensic act, but it is forensic in the full biblical sense, end quote. No, this is a denial. that is forensic and is a denial of forensic. Forensic means legal. Justification is a change in our legal status before the law of God, and that's all it is. Now, those individuals are also made new creatures in Christ, and the process of sanctification begins, and they are adopted into the family of God, and God begins the process of chipping away at the old Adam and conforming them to the image of Christ, which is what they were predestined to, Romans 8, 29 and following. But that's not justification. As soon as you start smudging the line between justification and sanctification, you have a false gospel that is no gospel at all. Now, Guy Watters has a good response to this. I want to read this and then I want to close out of the program here. We're running long here. Guy Watters said this, and by the way, I had Dr. Watters as a professor when I was at RTS in Jackson. What a privilege that was. Guy Waters is a brilliant man. And before I moved back to Cincinnati, after I was done with seminary down there in Jackson, Mississippi, I took Dr. Waters to lunch and I had written down 56 questions about the Federal Vision. I kept him there for about three hours and just pounded him with questions because I knew this was going to be a problem at my first pastoral call, which it was, sadly. But anyway, here's what Waters says in his book, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, quote, It is fair to say that Lightheart's doctrine of justification represents a marked shift from the Reformed confessional doctrine, which conceives justification to be strictly forensic grace. A strictly forensic grace. The believer's righteousness? When we speak of the believer's righteousness and justification, are we also speaking in terms of covenantal faithfulness? Lightheart addresses the believer's righteousness. He says, justification, too, is intimately connected with the covenant. In Greek, the word justifies related to the word normally translated into English as righteous. And throughout scripture, righteousness and related words are referred to correct behavior within some kind of covenant relationship. Righteousness is conformity to the demands of a covenant. The gospel of Christ is a revelation. God's righteousness because in Christ God has fulfilled all the promises made and sworn to Abraham and thereby has shown that he does What what he is obligated to do by his covenant within Israel in this context Galatians 2 11 to 21 to justify someone is to count him as righteous that is as a covenant keeper Okay, now that's just not the case When God pronounces a person to be justified, he's not saying they are a covenant keeper in and of themselves. He's saying that because they are united to Christ, their legal status, and only their legal status, has changed in the sight of God. Justification does not change the sinner in any kind of subjective way whatsoever. It is forensic and legal, period. Dr. Waters gives these four criticisms of this. says Waters, it should be clear that Lightheart's discussion of justification does far more than supplement the reform doctrine. We have departures from the doctrine, not least of which is a rejection of justification as a strictly forensic doctrine, end quote. Bingo, exactly right. Forensic plus is not forensic at all. Forensic and subjective transformational, being justification altogether, is to deny forensic justification. Number two, says Waters, Lightheart advances his position in a hermeneutically objectionable way. The doctrine of justification, he appears to argue, should consist of the sum total of biblical uses of the term justify. Okay, stop from the quotations. I remember reading Lightheart's essay. And he actually quotes, I think it's 2 Kings 8.32 where Solomon is praying at the dedication of the temple and he prays, give to every man according to his righteousness. And Lightheart actually says, see, we have to revise the chapter on justification because he's praying that God would give to each person according to his righteousness. He's talking about in a civil sense there, in the governance of his country. That's all he's saying. He's not saying, let people in heaven because they're legally righteous. Are you kidding me? I remember reading that essay like 10 years ago and going, how could someone seriously think that Solomon's use of the Hebrew term tzedakah, righteous there, is actually forensic in the sense of an individual sinner being justified before God? That's the word-concept fallacy, saying that, well, the doctrine has to be made up of the sum total of the usages of the term that the doctrine's named after. No, you look at each individual use of the term according to its context. Tells you how it's being used. It's just, I just found that amazing. Listen, says Waters, and I agree with Waters completely, he says, But systematic theologians do not argue that our theological terms should be defined in that way. Lightheart appears to read the Bible as a systematic theological textbook, but it is not. That is why systematic theological usage of certain terms may legitimately differ from their biblical counterparts." And what could be more obvious? It's one of the most common errors of beginning Bible students, to assume that a word means the same thing everywhere it's used. The context tells you how it's used. says Waters, quote, that is why Turretin can quite rightly speak of proper and improper uses of the term justify, end quote. Exactly. Now, number three, says Waters, Lighthouse's definition of justification in terms of what he calls definitive sanctification illegitimately defines the doctrine of justification in non-forensic transformational categories. That's right. That's right, it does. Here, I want to read from the Council of Trent. in its definition of justification. Okay, this is chapter seven of the Council of Trent, under session six of justification. Quote, this disposition or preparation, justification itself follows, which is not merely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man. For Lightheart to define justification as taking the form of deliverance, that's the Roman Catholic concept. They think that justify means to make someone inwardly holy. Biblically, the term is legal, forensic. It is a change in our status. Listen to Waters again. Lightheart's definition of justification in terms of what he calls definitive sanctification, illegitimately defines the doctrine of justification in non-forensic transformational categories, end quote. And I would just add to that, and that destroys the gospel. That destroys the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Now Waters continues. I have my doubts that definitive sanctification is a biblical teaching at all. Its descriptions frequently appear indistinguishable from those of regeneration. But even on Lightheart's own terms, notwithstanding his qualifications, such a teaching still compromises the forensic doctrine of justification. He concedes that, at Romans 6-7, Paul does not have guilt or the courtroom in mind. We have rather the deliverance from sin's hand, from his lordship and mastery. It is difficult to conceive of this deliverance, however, in non-transformational categories. That is, in terms that are removed from or other than the renewal of the sinner in regeneration." You see, and that's the problem. These guys are defining justification as sanctification. They're defining it as deliverance from sins, tyranny, and everything else. And people don't realize that is exactly what Paul is writing against in Galatians. Justification does not subjectively change us at all. And if you start saying when justification takes the form of deliverance from sin or the transformation of our nature or definitive sanctification or however you want to put it, you are denying the very heart of the gospel and the perfection of the work of Christ. Point number four, says Waters, Lightheart's formulation is consistent with the philosophical skepticism that we have earlier observed to surface in his writings, a reluctance to speak of divine righteousness in terms of an imputed something. Rather, the divine righteousness is fundamentally conceived in terms of relationship and activity. And that's part of the problem, is conceived of as relationship and activity. So, Wilson, when pressed, was asked the question, he was asked the question, is any of the federal vision guys, do any of them that you know of, do any of them deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone? And what was Wilson's answer to that? Let's listen to it again. Are you aware of any notable names who are pastors or leaders within the federal vision movement who do, in your opinion, outright deny justification by faith alone or forensic justification? No, I'm not aware of anyone who outright denies it. I find that incredible. He has spoken at conferences with Rich Lusk. with Steve Schlissel, with Lightheart, has taught alongside these guys, sat on panels with them fielding questions from the audience at conferences, and what I just read to you from those three men are, they're not some of the clearest, they are the clearest denials of the biblical gospel I have ever seen in my entire life, including all the time I've spent arguing with Roman Catholics over the years. What are we to make of this? You see, as pastors, as elders, we are accountable to God, not just for what we say and teach, but also for what we don't say. We're accountable for what we tolerate. We're accountable for what we hear, what is said in our presence, and we're quiet about. If these men have said this stuff and have been teaching this stuff, why doesn't Doug Wilson, if he really does believe that your justification is solely and only on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, why doesn't he call these guys out? Why doesn't he call out Schlissel for being a heretic? Why doesn't he call out Lusk for being a heretic? Why doesn't he call Lightheart out for being a heretic in their flagrant, repeated, emphatic, clear denials of the biblical gospel? I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me. And I would say it is extremely ill-advised for those who do know the gospel and love the gospel to have any kind of partnership with Doug Wilson and anyone else that was involved in this movement that has not come out of it and repudiated it for the simple heresy and denial of the biblical gospel that it is. Thank you for watching or for listening.