Turn to Galatians chapter one, our topic, Reformed is Not Enough, a Biblical Critique, part four. And I'm gonna do two on this today because I didn't want to separate these because we're looking at his first chapter and he doesn't really get to his central view as kind of his punchline of what he's trying to tell us until the later part of the chapter and I didn't want to divide this up. So we're gonna consider both today. I'm going to read 7 and 8. I'll start reading at 6. 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 for there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we are an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which 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 that which we have received, let him be accursed. Now last week we finished looking at Doug Wilson's Forward, and it really took a lot of time on that, and I brought in some different tangential topics. And we interacted with Wilson's overview of the Federal Vision published in the Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision from August 2003. From what we have seen thus far, we can only conclude that Doug Wilson does not really understand Reformed theology, or Wilson is deliberately misrepresenting the Reformed faith. It's either or. One thing is clear. The federal visionists have adopted a different faith from the Reformed symbols. All the Reformed creates confessions and catechisms, Heidelberg, Belgic, Westminster Standards, first and second Helvetic, and on and on. What they're teaching is different. It's very different. And the more we study it, the more different we'll note that it is. They have departed from the Reformed faith. They have done so in a very deceptive, clever, equivocal manner. The clearer they are in their teaching, and I would say that probably Steve Wilkins is the best presenter of their theology as far as clarity. as far as theology. The clearer they are in what they say, the more obvious it is that they're heretical. Wilson, of all these men, is the cleverest in how he presents it. So there's plausible deniability that they're introducing something unique and heretical. So in a sense, Wilson's the most dangerous. Their views on justification are outside the historic Protestant faith. but they are presented in such an illogical, contradictory, and equivocal manner. They are protected by many churchmen within the OPC and the PCA. Even the authors of the Orthodox side of the colloquium from Knox Seminary were unwilling to imitate our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul and warn the flock that their views are dangerous and heretical. Now they say things like, this is contrary to Westminster standards, or this is different than the reformed faith, but they didn't do the logical thing, which would have been these men are heretics, they need to be defrocked. They won't do that because we live in an age of loose subscriptionism, and nobody wants to be seen as mean and unloving today. So they're patting these heretics on the back, essentially. The Reformed and Protestant view is that faith in Christ justifies. Faith alone justifies. The person justified is also sanctified and lives a life of good works or faithful obedience. Works are a fruit of true faith and evidence of true faith but have absolutely nothing to do with justification. Nothing. It's all of Christ. The federal vision view, and we say faith is purely instrumental. The federal vision view is that Christian water baptism unites to Christ, regenerates, and justifies. And that justification can only be maintained or achieved by faith and faithfulness or faithful obedience. And they tend to merge faith with faithful obedience instead of making a clear demarcation. Faith produces faithful obedience, but faith and faithful obedience are two different things because faith is a pure instrument. The federal vision view differs radically and fundamentally from Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, the Westminster Standards, and all the reform creeds of all time. So I believe our critique is necessary. And they've made head roads into the OPC, the PCA, the Reformed Episcopal Church, and all over the place, which shows me how a lot of ministers today are nitwits. Today, we begin to look at chapter one, Judas was a Christian, question mark. This is chapter one, Judas was a Christian. This chapter begins with statements as to why Wilson wrote his book. On page 13, he writes, The church today is in dire need of reformation. This is not said with any denominational exclusivity. The reformed teachers today need reformation as much as anyone else. I say this as one who embraces the richness of the reformed faith, as will become apparent enough later. But at the same time, because of this reformational commitment, it is still necessary to say that we, that to be, it is necessary to say, to be reformed is not enough. We must certainly live up to what we've already attained, but together with this, we must not be allowed to assume that the last significant attainment was in the middle of the 17th century. Semper reformanda, which means always reforming. Semper reformanda is not something we should all chant together right up until someone actually tries it. So the implication is that they're the new reformers. One of the great reformational needs in the church today is the need for us to understand the objectivity of the covenant. And so that is the thrust of this book. Because this covenant is our life, we are called to understand it, embody it, and love the members of it. Not surprisingly, in order to do this, we will have to clear away a good bit of theological debris, which is what I am seeking to do here. As we undertake the task, one caution should be mentioned at the outset. It is important for us to grasp all the issues that will be raised, and this means waiting patiently for some assembly of them later. On the subject of this complexity, the last thing we need is to rush to judgment, which can only result in misunderstanding and confusion. Considerable confusion has already occurred in some quarters, and we need to study the Bible, the theological issues, and our own hearts carefully so that we do not fall into this trap That's actually pages 13 to 14 in his book, Reform Is Not Enough. Well, there are a number of things to note about Wilson's statements here. Number one, we agree that the church is in need of reformation. But the problem is not a lack of belief in the federal vision's sacramentalism. or heretical doctrine of the church, or heretical doctrine of justification, and they're serious errors, the problem has been serious declension away from the Reformed symbols. Now, if we're gonna progress and be sanctified as a body even more than what happened in the 1600s, the 15 and the 1600s, then we at least have to get back what was lost, and a lot has been lost. For example, The regular principle of worship, which is very crucial, if you study the differences between the Lutheran Church and the Reformed Church, there were two central, two main issues that kept them apart. One, of course, was the view of the sacraments. The Lutherans have a, they believe in consubstantiation, which is absurd. It's kind of a compromise with Romanism. They're transubstantiation. Christ's flesh and blood is literally in with and under the elements. It's kind of mixed in, which is a denial of the true humanity of Christ in a sense. And of course, the other main issue is worship. The Lutherans do whatever you want in worship as long as you don't find something explicitly condemning it in Scripture. The Reformed, you can't do anything in worship unless you can prove that it is authorized by Scripture. Which comes, by the way, that rule comes directly out of Scripture. And I have a couple books on it, but it comes directly out of Scripture. Don't add to my word, don't detract from it. One of the contexts is in the context of all of life, Deuteronomy 4.2, and then the other one is 13.32, Deuteronomy 13.32, which is dealing with the specific context of worship. If you want to keep your worship pure, if you want it to be acceptable to God, you have to stick to what the Bible says. That's the regular principle of worship, or the Puritan principle of worship, or simply solis scriptura, as it applies to worship. But it's not practiced at all today among most what are considered conservative Reformed communions. The regular principle's dead. And of course, Doug Wilson openly rejects the regular principle and has written articles against the regular principle in his magazine. And thus he denies what Calvin called one of the pillars of the Reformation. For Calvin, there were two central pillars of the Protestant Reformation, as he saw the Protestant Reformation. biblical worship, the regular principle of worship, and the biblical doctrine of salvation. Those are the twin pillars of the Reformation, as Calvin saw it. There have been serious departures on creationism, covenant headship, God's law, and a number of topics. Perhaps we could all work on obvious departures in declension before looking at a new, irrational, heretical paradigm that is more in common with Romanism than the Reformed faith. So yeah, we do need reformation. But before we introduce something new that happens to contradict scripture and our standards, let's try to get back to the original standards. Let's not move the ancient landmarks which our fathers have set, number two. Do the Reformed Churches need as much reformation as the Arminian Churches? Because he says they need just as much reformation as the Arminian Churches, or at least he implies that. How about the Charismatic Churches? Do we need as much reformation as Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches? The idea that Conservative Reformed Churches need as much reformation as Arminian Evangelical Churches sounds very humble, sounds very pious, but it's complete nonsense. Evangelical churches which preach hardcore Arminianism, a consistent semi-Pelagianism, are not even preaching the true gospel. Their gospel is not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Their gospel is accept Jesus into your heart by a sovereign act of the will. Number three, we are told that because of our commitment to the Reformed faith, we must say Reformed is not enough. Well, didn't Wilson just tell us that the Federal Visionists are faithful to the confession of faith? And that it is their critics who are guilty of corrupting it because they have imbibed enlightenment principles? The Westminster Standards speak to virtually every doctrine discussed by the Federal Visionists. Everything they discuss is in the Westminster Standards. Therefore, to say reformed is not enough is to acknowledge differences with the reformed symbols. And keep in mind, the symbols from the continent, whether Germany, you know, the Heidelberg Catechism and all these symbols and the second Helvetic and so forth, they're all in agreement. The only difference is, is I believe the Helvetic allows for holy days, for a few holy days, which is unbiblical. Everything else they agree on. Wilson himself contradicts himself often because he is introducing something alien to the Reformed faith while claiming faithfulness to the Reformed symbols. He's either strongly self-deceived or he is dishonest. Or perhaps he could define what Reformed is not enough means. Now if we take it in the context of his book, he's introducing a new view of baptism, a new view of justification, a new view of all sorts of doctrines. For example, he rejects the visible and invisible church distinction in the Westminster Standards, which are common in the reform symbols, for his view of the objectivity of the covenant. So he's contradicting the standards. Number four. Wilson wants his readers to carefully consider the context of his whole book before passing judgment. excuse me, the content. Look at the whole thing, be careful, study it. Search your heart, study it carefully. Then slowly come to a judgment. He tells us that the subject matter is complex and a rusted judgment can only result in misunderstanding and confusion. In fact, considerable confusion has already occurred in some quarters. This is Wilson's take on such things as the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States condemning the federal vision's view as heretical. The RPCUS, in the RPCUS, the ministers and elders who made the decision regarding the federal vision were required to listen to all the lectures from the Auburn Avenue Conference in Monroe, Louisiana. They carefully considered every lecture. They were instructed to carefully study the matter before the presbytery meeting where the decision was made. Now I know this because I was in that presbytery at that time. These men, a number of which have been ministers of the gospel for decades, for example, Joe Moorcraft and, oh, I forgot the guy who's married to the really great reformed singer lady. I forgot his name, but they've been ministers for decades. did carefully examine the whole federal vision system. It was carefully examined. They correctly concluded that it contained serious errors and contained, quote, a fundamental denial of the essence of the Christian gospel and the denial of justification by faith alone. End of quote. And that's true. It does. And I can prove it. And we'll see that. I've already touched on it. Now, if this is true, and I think it most certainly is, that they do deny that biblical definition of justification, the confessional and biblical view, then why does the Federal Missionist have defenders in both the OPC and the PCA? And they have lots of defenders. In fact, in the OPC, it's generally the bigwigs. It's the guys, seminary professors and big shots who defend, who defended Kinnar. We have noted that the federal visionaries have done at least four things to justify their new paradigm before traditional Presbyterians. Number one, they explicitly and repeatedly say they are champions of the reformed symbols and are even more faithful to the original intent than modern conservative reformed churchmen. Okay, so hey, don't worry about me. I'm faithful to the Westminster standards or the confession. Number two, they say that if there are differences, they are minor and such differences have always existed in reform circles. And this we have seen is false and contradicts point number one. We looked at that, I believe, last week. Number three, their system contains explicit contradictions where statement A may be heretical and absurd, but statement B sounds orthodox and Wilson is guilty of that more than anyone. Their supporters simply ignore Statement A and focus on Statement B. In other words, you've made Statement A and Statement B, which contradict each other. I'm going to choose to ignore Statement A and focus on Statement B so you can be considered orthodox and come and speak at my conference or whatever. Or they interpret Statement A as if it was B, or at least consistent with B. Well, this is simply bad teaching. And it is not only bad teaching, it's dishonest, either deliberately or due to self-deception. It is a form of self-justification based on equivocations and ambiguous language. Number four. And we'll go into this later, but I mean, they have different definitions of regeneration that are not in the symbols or not in scripture. They have different views of justification. They have different views of election. Number four, they use old established theological terms with new meanings. And they use theological terms in new ways, not yet established or accepted. This alone is bound to cause great confusion. For example, election. When we speak of election, we speak of national election or corporate election and individual election. In national election, for example, Israel, you might have 90% of the people being unbelievers and not being saved and 10% being saved in the days of Elijah. I have 7,000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal. let's say 350,000, there were 7,000 that were faithful. And all of this is bound to cause great confusion. They also set up new categories and definitions in an attempt to smooth out their internal contradictions and the contradictions with traditional reform theology. They say, well, you're regenerated when you're baptized, and you're justified, your sins are forgiven, you're part of the body of Christ. You have union with Christ. But they acknowledge that you can lose that, so then they have to come up with, well, there's election for people who are really going to go to heaven, and there's election for people who go to hell. I mean, they have to make up all these new things that are not in scripture, not in the Reformed creeds and confessions, unless perhaps you're an Arminian. This causes great confusion, for they do not tell their readers that they are doing this. See, in my view, they should just simply be honest and leave the Reformed church, leave the Reformed faith behind, because they're not Reformed anymore. Of course, anyone who doesn't follow the regular principle is not really Reformed. For Wilson to complain that people have not carefully examined their views and thus are confused, are misunderstanding their positions and thus have fallen into a trap, is ridiculous and self-serving. To say that all who receive Christian water baptism receive regeneration, and I can prove every one of these, you'll hear quotes later, they receive regeneration, they receive the Holy Spirit, that is a real internal work on the heart, forgiveness of sins by Jesus shed blood on the cross, justification, adoption, et cetera. But all of these things, really possessed, can actually be lost if faithfulness is not maintained, contradicts the Reformed faith and the Reformed symbols, and has more in common with Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism than the Reformed faith. And they know that, so they equivocate. In chapter one, Wilson asks if Judas was a Christian. He says it is very important to determine what the term Christian means in the New Testament. That's page 14. Defining this word correctly is one of the most important questions a man can ask himself, for it is inherently related, and this is Wilson, quote, related to questions about God, man, sin, salvation, and revelation, page 14, end of quote. Wilson then considers the three places that the word Christian is used in scripture. The first is Acts 11, 26, where the members of the congregation are called, I should have said, I think it was Antioch, I should have wrote it down, are called Christians by unbelievers. The people in the community said, hey, these are Christians. You know, they follow Christ. The second example is from Acts 26, 24 to 29, where King Agrippa tells Paul that he almost convinced him to become a Christian. About this incident, Wilson says, quote, but even here, there is no distinction made between a false profession of Christ and a true profession of Christ. A true profession is assumed, but the contrast is between pagan unbelief and Christian belief, page 15, end of quote. The third example of the use of this word comes from 1 Peter 4, 14 to 17, where Peter describes the great blessing of suffering as a Christian. Even though the apostle uses the term Christian in this passage, Wilson says that the word is used because of pagan persecution, and that's the context here. Peter's saying, hey, you know, he goes on to talk about how it's blessed to suffer for Christ's sake. And he concludes, quote, in all three places, the word is used by pagans. And this means we have no distinctly Christian handling of the word Christian, end of quote. Oh, no, there's more here. Let me read this quote. This means we have no distinctly Christian handling of the word Christian. We have no direct teaching on what to make of the statements like, I grew up in the church, but I became a Christian when I prayed a prayer or something like this. Here, becoming a Christian means passing from one spiritual state to another, from darkness to light. It refers to conversion as an eternal reality. But the Bible does not apply the word Christian to this or describe the process as that of becoming a Christian. This, of course, does not mean that the subject is closed or that there's no such thing as a genuine heart conversion, but it does mean that the remainder of the discussion, if it is to go beyond these three passages, is a matter of systematic and biblical theology and not a question of exegesis. Fortunately, we can still learn a great deal, but we have to be very careful as we undertake the task. The phrase becoming a Christian is strongly entrenched in our evangelical traditions and is an essential part of evangelical systematics. Invariably it is used to refer to the moment of regeneration. Now such a moment is important to the teaching of scripture as a whole and for each person it is crucially all to answer the question of individual regeneration. The reason we have to address this is that in our culture many have grown up in the church. They were baptized in infancy. And when they were 10 in a Baptist church, they sang in a choir and went through catechism class, and they are not Buddhists. They have been Christians their whole lives, but like Nicodemus, they are not born again. What must they become? Does it make sense for them to become a Christian? There is something which they must become, spiritually alive. That's pages 17 to 18. There's some important things to note about the statement before we look at Wilson's concluding thoughts in this matter, because he's going to get to his general punchline later in the chapter. First, Wilson's statement, if it is to go beyond these three passages, it's a matter of systematic theology and biblical theology, and it is not a question of exegesis, is ignorant and misleading. All exegesis of scripture involves theology. All exegesis of Scripture involves theology, for everything in Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of Scripture. And all the Reformers emphasize this, and this is, if you go to a Reformed seminary, you're gonna be taught the analogy of Scripture in hermeneutics, or the study of biblical interpretation. In exegesis, there are rules of interpretation that are rooted in theology, and the overall picture of Scripture as a whole. For example, one rule is that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. It can't contradict itself. So you must not interpret in such a manner that leads to contradictions. And this rule is violated quite a bit by the Federal Vision Theology. Another rule involves the kind of literature we are studying. History, poetry, or song, proverb, epistle, apocalyptic, prophecy, et cetera. The fact that Luke tells us that unbelieving pagans came up with the name Christian is interesting. It's a very important, interesting historical detail. But this fact is not telling us how or how not to use the term because pagans do not possess the Holy Spirit or possess any authority in the body. Judas went out and hung himself. That's a historical fact. It actually happened. The rope broke and he hit a big rock or something and his bowels all gushed out. That's not a statement on what we ought to be doing, it's a historical detail. It's not one of those indicatives that tells us how to act, where we imitate the apostles or we imitate Christ or whatever. So this fact is not really telling us how not to use the term. Pagans don't possess the Holy Spirit. They have no authority. The fact that Peter, a holy apostle, picks up the term and uses it to describe believers in his first epistle certainly does make it a legitimate label for Christians to describe other Christians. Peter's an apostle. He has authority. He has special inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What he writes is the very word of God, and he uses the term. So we can use the term. Nothing wrong with that. How the term is defined, however, must be left to other passages which are more clear. This is another principle of exegesis, or interpretation. The clear, more detailed, or focused passages on a topic must be used to interpret the less clear. So this idea, oh, look, pagans use the term. All three examples are by pagans. So we better not use that to describe people who are converted to Christ. or made a profession of faith, we can't do that. That's pretty weird and it's a very strange application. Remember, all theology is based on the exegesis of Scripture. And all exegesis of Scripture involve systematic theology. The analogy of Scripture. You know who deals with this really good is J. Adams many, many years ago wrote a book on preaching. I think it's called Preaching with Purpose. It's a great book, just a little paperback. And he talks about when you interpret a passage, you have to look at the narrow context, and he has a diagram. The narrow context, the broader context, you've got to look at what he's talking about before and right after. And then he has another I think he calls it the telos of the passage. Then he has another diagram, and then of course you have to interpret it within the whole context of Scripture. And that involves theology. To argue otherwise, or to go beyond Scripture without thinking as an Orthodox theologian, is against the analogy of Scripture and is a very poor way of exegeting Scripture. What we do not want to do is to impose a meaning or theology on scripture which is not really there. We must let scripture speak for itself and not ignore what it says even if it contradicts our preconceived notions. Wilson and the Federal Visionists appeal to exegesis over simply accepting theology as if Reformed theology was somewhat arbitrary. But read theology, read good theology, read Burkoff. Robert Raymond has a newer one and it's full of exegesis. Hodge. It's based on exegesis. It's not guys just simply making stuff up. The reformed symbols and the long line of good reformed systematic theologies are all based on the accumulated exegesis of those who went before. and their own exegesis. There may be differences on peripheral matters, but in all those areas where the federal visionists are offering something new, Orthodox Reformed theology rejects their views, and what these Orthodox theologies have taught and continues to be taught is easily defended using the exegesis of scripture. This is a very clever way of getting people, oh, you know, forget about your theology for a moment, because what they're gonna do, I'm gonna give you some new theology, so don't discount me because of what you've learned in theology, because I'm gonna give you something new. It's a tactic. And Wilson doesn't actually carefully exegete passages when he sets forth his new theology, as we'll see in a moment. We'll see this afternoon. Keep in mind that Wilson and the Federal Visionists attempt at setting Reformed theology onto the side or on the back burner so that we can have a new more biblical view by carefully following the exegesis of scripture is simply a tactic to introduce a new different deviant theology. And I remember I read about the trial, I think it was either Pelagius or it was Arius. He does the same thing. He does almost the exact same thing. Every true and orthodox Reformed theologian bases every thought, every point, every conclusion on the exegesis of scripture. If he does not, then he is not really conducting theology. Theology is not simply human philosophy. Theology is based on what the scripture says. Now they want to organize it, they want to systematize it, make it easier to study and understand, but it's basically all based on exegesis. Second, Wilson attempts to muddy the waters and confuses readers by saying we have no distinctly Christian handling of the word Christian. Page 17. Well, the New Testament may not have a an explicit statement defining the term Christian, but it does tell us how to define what a Christian is. It tells us the following things that can be used to define what a Christian actually is. Number one, what does the Bible say? To become a Christian, one must believe in Christ according to the scriptures. That's what Paul says. when the Philippian jailer fell down trembling before Paul and Solace and brought them out and asked, what must I do to be saved? Acts 16.30. They said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. That's verse 31. To believe in Christ for one's salvation is found in the New Testament in one form or another over 200 times. In John 3, 14 to 16 we read, even so the son of man must be lifted up that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes on him should not perish but have everlasting life. And we could read dozens of passages. How does one become a disciple of Christ? How does one become saved? How does one become justified? You have to believe in Christ. Number two, one becomes a Christian by faith alone apart from works or evangelical obedience or anything we do. Although all two Christians are united to Christ in his life, death, and resurrection, and thus are sanctified by him and become holy, progressively more holy over time, our law-keeping, our covenant faithfulness, our good works have nothing to do with our justification before God. As Romans 9, 30 to 32, and 10, three to five makes clear, let me read this. What shall we say then that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith? But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at the stumbling stone. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For if Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, To everyone who believes, if you have Christ, you don't need the law to achieve justification because you can never be good enough. You can never perfectly obey the law because you're a sinner. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law. The man who does these things shall live by them. Here's what John Stott writes. I know that Shepard and the Federal Visionists pervert that passage. They interpret it as though Paul's contradicting himself from sentence to sentence. We have to, the only righteousness that can save you, that can justify you is the righteousness of Christ. You can't contribute anything of your own. And then they interpret this one about the man of Islam shall live by them. They interpret that as, oh, and by the way, you have to be covenantally faithful to achieve justification. Nonsense. Here's what John Stott writes. All human beings who know that God is righteous and they are not, since there is no one righteous, not even one, Romans 3.10, naturally look around for a righteousness which might fit them to stand in God's presence. There are only two possible options before us. The first is to attempt to build or establish our own righteousness by our good works and religious assurances. That's Islam, that's Judaism, that's Roman Catholicism. but this is doomed to failure. Since in God's sight, and he's quoting from Paul, from Philippians 3, all our righteous acts are like filthy rags. The other way is to submit to God's righteousness by receiving it from him as a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ. In verses five to six, Paul calls the first righteousness that is by the law, calls the first the righteousness that is by the law, the second the righteousness that is by faith. End of quote. Now, am I wrong in saying that if you want to become a Christian, you need to believe in Christ, you need to have faith in him, and you can't contribute anything of your own, you have to regard all your good works as filthy rags? No, I'm not wrong in that. Here's another passage, Romans 4, 3 to 6. This is another one that explicitly contradicts the federal vision. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace, but as debt. But to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. God imputes righteousness apart from works. Here's what Charles Hodge is really good on this, let me quote him. He writes, quote, to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards and treats as righteous, although he in himself, he is not in himself righteous. The meaning of this clause cannot be mistaken. To impute sin is to lay charge to, sin to the charge of anyone. And to treat him accordingly, as is universally admitted, so as to impute righteousness is to set righteousness to one's account. To treat him accordingly. This righteousness does not, of course, belong antecedently, that is, going before in time, to those to whom it is imputed, for they are ungodly and destitute of works. Here, then, is an imputation to men of what does not belong to them. The Luther called it an alien righteousness. And to which they have in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the apostles' definition of the term to justify. It is not making men inherently righteous or morally pure, but it is regarding them and treating them as just. This is done not on the ground of personal character or works, but on the ground of the righteousness of Christ. And this is dealing with men, not according to merit, but in a gracious manner. The passage cited, Psalm 32, one and two, is precisely in point. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man, doomed the Lord will not impute sin. that is blessed is the man who, although a sinner, is regarded and treated as righteous." End of quote. Now, could we be any more clear than that? Yes, we have to be sanctified. Yes, the person who is justified will also be sanctified because he's regenerated, he gets the Holy Spirit, the power of sin is broken in his life, he's a new creature in Christ. All things have become new. All things are done away. But his sanctification, his growth in godliness, his faithfulness, his good works, his obedience to the law has nothing to do with his justification. Contrary to Shepard and the federal visionists. Number three. There are many passages which speaks of personal godliness and the fruits of faith as evidence of true faith. They answer the question, how do I know that my faith and profession is genuine? So what are the things that we must look for? Number one, repentance from sin and walking in obedience to God. In other words, how do I know that my faith is real? How do I know that I have true faith? How do I know that my faith is just not self-deception? Well, repentance from sin and walking in obedience to God. Number two, public confession of Christ. Jesus said, if you're not willing to confess me publicly before men, I'm not gonna confess you before the Father. Romans 10.9, if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Number three, from 1 John, you have to have a love for the brethren. John says, if you hate the brethren, you're obviously not regenerated. Number four, a lifestyle that does not habitually follow sin, but habitually follows God's moral law. And that's also from 1 John 1. If you say you're a Christian and you're out getting drunk every night and picking up whores and fornicating and stuff and hanging out with pagans, you obviously don't have a real faith. Number five. doing good works, especially for other brothers in Christ. Number six, perseverance in the faith throughout one's whole life, even during trials and tribulations. And that goes back to the parable of the sower. There's four different kinds of soil. Only the one that grows and prospers and is not choked out by thorns or dried up by the sun, only that has Only that person has true faith. These are never presented as contributing factors for justification, but are always presented as evidences of real faith. They answer the question, how do I know that I am really a Christian? In our scripture reading this morning from James chapter two. Does faith without work save? He's not saying that you need faith plus works to be saved. He's saying, does that kind of faith, the kind of faith that doesn't help your brethren, the kind of faith that lives lawlessly, does that kind of faith save? He's not contrasting faith plus the works of love with faith like a Roman Catholic. He's saying that that's not true faith at all. Well, the Bible recognizes that there are members of the visible church that do not have true faith and that apostatize from their profession The focus is on faith in Christ and knowing that that faith is real. And that's not that confusing. It's not confusing like the federal vision. It's pretty straightforward. By looking at scripture, comparing scripture with scripture, and exegeting passages carefully, it is not hard to come up with a biblical definition of the term Christian. Does this involve theology? Yes. But this theology flows directly from the interpretation of scripture. It's a theology that flows from exegesis. Well, how do you handle all those people? There's many people in Israel that weren't true Jews. And we'll look at that this afternoon. And there are many people who are Christians. Probably the majority of people who are professing Christians aren't real Christians. How do you handle that? Well, the Bible talks about professing Christians who are on the visible church. who are not really saved, and it talks about people who have true faith. Wilson wants us to be very careful about this term Christian. He implies that we should not be influenced by our evangelical traditions or evangelical systematics, page 17. He notes that it is used to refer to the moment of regeneration, which is somewhat inaccurate theologically. The more accurate, broader term is conversion, which, of course, regeneration leads to immediately. You have regeneration, inward call, faith and repentance, and so on. But I understand why regeneration is mentioned, for it is normally coterminous or inwardly prior to these other things, or logically prior to these other things. Excuse me, logically prior. Third, Wilson seeks to support his argumentation about the use of the word Christian by theological reflection. on the fact that within Israel, the covenant people of God, there were true Jews who really were converted, and there were Israelites whose hearts were far from Jehovah. And we're gonna see this afternoon, this is kind of ironic because this is, Romans 2 and Romans 3 completely shatters the federal vision paradigm. And we're gonna look at it in more detail. He doesn't really exegete, he skims over it. Wilson looks at the Old Testament and concludes there are three types of people. One, pagans who worship idols. Two, Jews who did not really serve God. Their hearts were far from Him. Three, true Israelites in whom there is no guile. That's from page 18. And that's pretty, that's correct. I can agree with that. To support his contention, he appeals to Romans 2.28-29 where Paul distinguishes between outward Jews in the flesh and inward Jews who have actually been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Wilson acknowledges that, quote, one is not a Christian who only has the externals. For example, the only circumcision of the physical flesh are only water baptism. Page 18, of course he just used the word Christian in a way that he earlier said we shouldn't do. He is correct in his assessment, but what he says on 18 contradicts what he says about union with Christ in the Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium. After describing what is meant by union with Christ, Wilson says on page five of this colloquium, quote, In stating all this, we do not draw distinctions between the church of Jesus Christ and the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ and the covenant. Thus, listen to this, when someone is considered to be a member of the body, he is a member of the church, he is a member of Christ. So talk about confusing. You can be unsaved and be a member of Christ. In Reformed Is Not Enough, on pages 92 to 93, he writes, another obvious means of grace is baptism. We were saved, not by our own works, but by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, Titus 3, 4 to 6. The result of this is that we are justified by his grace, verse 7, end of quote. Well, Titus 4-6 is not talking about water baptism. It's talking about spirit baptism, but anyway. Wilson's comrades in air are especially clear on this matter, that Trinitarian water baptism is accompanied by, and we'll look at some quotes later, regeneration, faith, cleansing, I got all these, all these come directly out of the writings, the Holy Spirit, justification, salvation, and so on. There are other things, one says, adoption. Apparently, by dispensing with systematic theology and logic, one can come up with a new paradigm, which is simply a new erroneous theology. Remember, when we looked at this last week, Wilson says, that what is true on one level of discourse, and this would be water baptism regenerates and unites to Christ, is not true on another level of discourse. For example, the external sign was not sufficient to guarantee a genuine spiritual reality. That's a quote from Wilson, page 18. Now let's look at some quotes here to show you the irrationality and why people are so confused. If you think I'm exaggerating, listen carefully to the following quotes. These are all quotes from leaders of the federal vision movement. These are people that Wilson goes on lectures with. He'll go to a conference and lecture with them. These are people that publish stuff with Wilson and so on. Here's John Baruch, Covenant History, tape three. The Bible doesn't know about a distinction between being internally in the covenant and really in the covenant, and being only externally in the covenant, just being in the sphere of the covenant. The Bible speaks about reality, the efficacy of baptism, end of quote. Here's another quote by Baruch. This is Covenant in Election, tape six. How could you know you are on Him? God gave you the sign and seal of baptism. He gave you that right that brought you into Christ. And you can look and you can trust that God's promises are objective. Now, Wilson at the conference appeared right after Baruch. And I want you to know, this is what Doug Wilson says about John Baruch's lecture. This is from Doug Wilson, The Curses of the New Covenant, tape seven. Theologically, I think I want to amen everything that John said in his talk about election and the covenant and the reality of it, how that works, end of quote. So Wilson's very careful about what he says in his book. His comrades in heresy are not so careful. Here's Wilson from Reformers Not Enough, page 103. Raise your right hand if you knew the Westminster Confession taught baptismal regeneration. Baptism means that the one baptized has a sign and seal of covenant of grace. The one baptized has been grafted into Christ. He has the sign and seal of regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and the obligation to walk in newness of life. End of quote. Here's a couple of lengthy statements from the summary statement of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church's position on the covenant, baptism, and salvation. This is Steve Wilkins Church, and this is where Richard Lusk is, I think, associate pastor or elder, one of the two. The Bible teaches us that baptism unites us. Okay, he believes it's efficacious to everyone baptized to Christ and by his body, the power of the spirit, and to his body, the power of the spirit. By one spirit, we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks or the slaves are free, we've all been made to drink of one spirit. Paul says that at baptism you are clothed with Christ Jesus, for as many of you are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Union with Christ is a vital, it is a real vital blessed union. The clothes make the man. With our union with Christ, we have all spiritual blessings. Union with Christ is union with the church, his body. He makes no exceptions. And then he adds this. Because he's teaching sacramentalism, so he's gotta try to say, well, You can try to qualify it. Some persons not destined for final salvation will be drawn to Christ and his people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy all real blessings, listen to this, purchased for them by Christ's cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through word and sacrament. Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other men who persevered in the faith received, but he did not receive the gift of perseverance. In one sense, all those in the covenant are saved. They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the gracious new creation of Christ, but not all will persevere in that salvation." End of quote. Okay, that's totally contrary to Westminster standards in the Bible. Here's another one from Wilkins. This is a halfway covenant, tape 11. Traditionally, the reformed have said, we have to view our children as presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate and therefore Christian. If you are willing to take the scriptures at face value, there is no presumption necessary. Just take the Bible. And this is true, of course, because by the baptism, by the baptism, the spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the church is the elect people, and we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him," end of quote. He making no qualifications for hypocrites or false professors. Now, Wilson may be more careful and equivocal in his presentation of his theology. But as I noted, he speaks at the conferences with these men. They write chapters and books together on the Federal Vision Theology. It was published by Wilkins Church. They all appeared together and defended their views at the colloquium down in Knox Seminary in 2003. You know, the other men are obviously more clearly heretical in their writings and not as careful. He writes chapters in Pro-Federalism books with these men and he defended their positions at the Knox Seminary. Therefore he is responsible for helping spread their errors and heresies. Regarding these quotes, I want you to note the following. Number one, if there is no distinction between being an external member of the covenant and being truly or really a member of the covenant, then Paul in Romans 2.28-29 is an error and Wilson should not appeal to this passage. And what's weird is Wilson's gonna appeal to the passage and he's gonna use it in a way that contradicts these statements we just read. Number two, these heretics need to stop making categorical statements about water baptism that obviously cannot be supported by scripture, history, or reality. Most people, you know, if you're including Trinitarian baptism, Trinitarian baptism, the vast majority of people baptized were never regenerated or never had true faith in Christ. because I'm including Roman Catholics and I'm including liberal Protestant churches and so forth. Number three, the federal business often interpret passages speaking about spirit baptism as if they were talking about water baptism. And we'll look at that later on. Number four, Wilkins concept of our election in Christ has far more in common with Karl Barth than the reform symbols. Number five, by asserting that water baptism unites to Christ, justifies, saves, causes spirit baptism, et cetera. The federal visionists must deny perseverance and the true saving efficacy of Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection. This is where, this is why I say they're heretics, because they're denying the efficacy of Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus says in John, I forget, I should've looked it up. He says, look, if you believe in me, you will be regenerated. And if you believe in me, I'm gonna raise you up on the last day. In other words, if you believe in me, you're going to receive the resurrection unto life and glorification. The Bible teaches the perseverance of the saints, and they're denying that. They posit Jesus dying for the non-elect and trying to save the non-elect by his spirit, that our Lord and all his powerful spirit cannot get the job done. In order to exalt water baptism, they deny Christ's power and posit an Arminian, weak savior, who fails to save all those for whom he died. John chapter 17. Read the Gospel of John. Read Romans 9. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated before they were even born. They were both circumcised. Esau never believed. He went out and became a pagan and he stopped being the line of the godly. Number six, by asserting that those forgiven by Jesus' blood and united to Christ can really fall away and go to hell, they deny that Jesus is sovereign over salvation and they ultimately make the will of man in practicing sanctification the crucial determiner of justification. All of their heretical nonsense can be avoided by maintaining the biblical confessional view. And I found a really good quote by William G.T. Shedd. He gives us the reformed position on the sacraments. He writes, these are means of grace dependent like the other means upon the accompanying operation of the Holy Spirit and consequent faith in the soul to the recipient. Says Calvin, Institutes 4.14.9, quote, all the energy of operation belongs to the Spirit. and the sacraments are mere instruments which without his agency are vain and useless, but with it are fraught with surprising efficacy. Here's the Westminster Confession of Faith, 27.3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments is not conferred by any power in them. Neither the efficacy of the sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 3.11, I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12.13, by one spirit we're all baptized into one body. Romans 2.28, let a man examine himself and so let him eat. Excuse me, that's 1 Corinthians 11, 28. Romans 2, 28, and the other is that circumcision which is outward. 1 Peter 3, 21, the antitype thereunto, namely baptism, doth all now save us. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. In other words, it's not by the sprinkling of the water that you're saved. It's by Christ. By the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So. I think we'll stop there and take a break, but this tactic, oh, don't get bogged down or sidetracked by systematic theology. Follow me as I just, we're just gonna exegete scripture, and we're gonna look at his exegesis when we come back, which is pitiful. Don't let your systematics influence. They're introducing a new paradigm, and they don't want you to be influenced by orthodox theology. It's a tactic. Now, do I believe Doug Wilson is deliberately deceiving people and deliberately being a snake? No. But I believe he's so self-deceived, he thinks he's doing the right thing. And he's being a snake anyway. But well, you know, this is really important stuff. But remember, don't ever let anyone compromise. If you look at history, what is the central thing that Satan has always attacked? It's usually three things. The inspiration and authority of scripture. They want to say it's full of mistakes and myths. And the other one is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If you look at all the cults, if you look at Judaism, if you look at Islam, if you look at Roman Catholicism, if you look at the Eastern Orthodox Church, they all teach that you have to do something, some good works to be saved. Only Biblical Protestantism holds to the scriptures. So it's very important. We'll come back and look at this some more. Let's pray. Father, we thank you so much for your gospel. It is precious. We thank you for baptism. Christ commanded it. We have to do it. It is important. It's a sign and seal. But it doesn't automatically regenerate people. Never did. We pray, Lord, that you would subdue this heresy, which is very entrenched in the PCA and is somewhat entrenched in the OPC. It's also entrenched in the Reformed Episcopal Church, which has gone sacramentalist and high church in only one generation. For over 100 years, it had not been that way. Lord, we ask you to protect your sheep from heretics. In Jesus' name, amen.