00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
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.
Reformed is Not Enough: A Biblical Critique, Part 4
Series Reformed Not Enough Critique
Pastor Schwertley continues discussing Federal Vision theology in Doug Wilson's book "Reformed is Not Enough" by focusing on the use of the term "Christian" in the New Testament as well as baptismal regeneration.
| Sermon ID | 510201840367606 |
| Duration | 1:03:43 |
| Date | |
| Category | Sunday Service |
| Bible Text | Galatians 1:6-8 |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.