All right, Galatians chapter 2, and this is our second lecture on Doug Wilson. Reformer or heretic? Controversial topic, but a topic that is necessary in our day when families and churches are being divided by a false doctrine that is extremely clever. And I'll read from Galatians 2, 11 and following. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I would stick him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them, which were of the circumcision. And other Jews dissembled likewise with him, inasmuch that Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelst thou the Gentiles to live as the Jews. We who are Jews by nature are not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Now we're going to look at Doug Wilson and justification. And it's a very difficult topic in that they deliberately, at least Wilson does, write in an ambiguous manner using old theological terms of new meanings and switching back and forth between meanings and so forth that makes it more difficult. Wilson and the other federal visionists make three distinct errors related to justification. The first ties justification to water baptism. And we noted in Wilson's magazine, Credenda, Jana Peter-Leithart says, instead of teaching that the sacraments are the means of grace, they themselves are graces, gifts of the gracious God. In other words, they are like channels of grace. Now, you have to keep in mind, The Romanist view of the sacraments is they work ex opere operato, that is, they work automatically, like a magic elixir. And these men emphatically deny that they teach that, but on the one hand, they'll say statements that are in line with that, then they'll make statements that contradict it, so they have plausible deniability, but they teach something similar. In Reformatism Not Enough, Wilson writes this, Another obvious means of grace is baptism. We are saved, not by our own works, but by the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. The result of this is that we are justified by his grace. And then Wilson adds this, now we've got to keep in mind, they believe that baptism, by baptism you are truly united to Jesus Christ, even if you're an infant. And Wilkins is very clear on this, at least Wilkins and Schlissel write very clearly, making their views quite plain. Wilkins says, and I have a quote later of Wilson that says virtually the same thing, Through baptism you are united to Christ and you receive all the benefits of being united to Christ. The Holy Spirit, sanctification, and so forth. Forgiveness of sins and all these things. They're true benefits. But then they'll turn around and deny that by saying something else. Here's what Wilson adds. In other words, the Westminster Confession assumes that grace and salvation are ordinarily an extra water baptism. But for all that, God remains God and can save when, where, and whom he pleases. They are not inseparably annexed. Notice in which direction the exception is made. God can save someone apart from baptism, we grant. But that is not what he usually does. Baptism and salvation are not mechanically or magically linked. He's separating himself from Roman Catholicism there. But in the ordinary course of life, they are linked. And we are to speak of them as though they are. and to do so is not tarsal dodalism. Now note, here's Wilkins, Wilkins who Wilson actively promotes says this, the Bible teaches, teaches us that baptism unites us to Christ and to his body by the power of the Spirit. Now listen to this, union with Christ is a real vital blessed union. Union with Christ is union with the church, his body, we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. If you are not in the body of Christ, you are not united to him, you are lost. There is no salvation outside of Christ. Since the church is his body, apart from the church, apart from the covenantal union with Christ, apart from real union with him, there is no salvation because salvation is rooted and grounded in him. Now note, the federal visionaries are exceptionally careful to deny the Romanist doctrine of ex operata, the idea that the sacraments work automatically. But they do teach something very similar. Romanists are more logical, consistent, and honest in their heresy. It either unites to Christ or it doesn't. To say, well, yeah, it unites to Christ, however there are people who fall away and go to hell, then you have to basically admit that it really doesn't unite to Christ. And, of course, Calvin is the best on this. Calvin does make statements, taken in isolation, that sound sacramental, but then he goes on to qualify them saying, of course, if there's not real faith, if there's not true faith in Jesus Christ, saving faith in Jesus Christ, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are worthless. They accomplish nothing. Baptism either saves or it is a sign and seal of regeneration. Like most of their teaching, the Federal Visionists talk out of both sides of their mouth. It saves or it doesn't save. If it doesn't save in all cases, then stop saying that baptism saves. The Federal Visionist looks at baptism with water as uniting the person baptized to Christ. Wilkins said in a magazine interview, To be a member of the church is to be a member of the body of Christ and biblically speaking that means the baptized are united to Christ. Of course he's using united to Christ in an ambiguous manner here. John Baruch says, you don't need a special dramatic revivalistic conversion to let you know that you are elect. You have the special experience that God gives you. It was called baptism. He's talking about water baptism. That's the special experience that lets you know that you are one of God's chosen people." End of quote. And Wilson and his cohorts have redefined regeneration into more of a corporate sociological event to fit in with their concept of baptismal regeneration. Here's what Richard Lusk writes. These are all federal visionists that are the cohorts, the comrades, the little club of Wilson and his friends. Quote, if I were going to speak of baptismal regeneration, I would define regeneration as the new life situation entered into in baptism. This new life, in this carefully specified sense, is not so much a matter of ontology or subjectivity, Charles Hodge's focus, as it is a matter of new relationships, privileges, and responsibilities. It means one has a new family and a new story, a new citizenship and a new status. Now, I realize this is difficult for people to understand, but he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's trying to make baptism and regeneration a sociological event, but the sociological event does have a new status and a new citizenship and so forth, things that the Bible is quite clear belong only to those who have the Holy Spirit and have truly been regenerated. Now, historically, the Church of Jesus Christ has dealt with these issues by making a distinction between the visible and an invisible church. That is, you can be a member of the visible church, but if you don't have true faith, you do not have the Holy Spirit. As Hebrews 6 says, you've tasted of the Spirit. You do not have true union with Christ. You do not have the benefits of his blood, his shed blood. You have not had your sins forgiven. You have not been saved in any sense of the word. However, you are a member of the invisible church and you do receive certain benefits from hearing the word of God. But they're not saving benefits. Well, they don't believe in the distinction between the visible and invisible church so they have to talk this way where you're saved but you can be not really saved. Now, the absurdity is, just think, what is one of the benefits of union with Christ? Well, you're sealed by the Holy Spirit. And you're given the gift of perseverance or preservation by God. So, if you really have union with Christ, biblically defined, you cannot fall away. The perseverance of the saints. Well, they teach that you can fall away. So, they have to redefine union with Christ. They have to redefine what it means to be truly a member of the Church of Christ and so forth. And these things become extremely difficult because people are used to thinking of these terms in a certain classical, Protestant, and Reformed way. They're using terms in a new way. And if you don't know that, you can get fooled very easily. Now, he states that the regeneration referred to in Titus 3.5 is not an inward regeneration, but only a reference to the kingdom of God. Here's what he says. This is Richard Lusk again. A good biblical case can be made for this objective understanding of regeneration. The regeneration of Matthew 19.28 and Titus 3.5, I would suggest, is not an inward spiritual renovation, but the new state of affairs brought about in the kingdom of God. By the way, he gets all this from Peter Lightheart and James Jordan. Continuing, in more recent biblical theology, regeneration has resulted in a full redemptive historical overtones, has regained its full redemptive historical overtones. Texts such as Matthew 19.28 and Titus 3.5 have been read with their pregnant eschatological dimensions in a more objective sense. Reformed writers such as Norman Shepard, Peter Lightheart, Joel Garber, all heretics by the way, have used baptismal regeneration language in this broader context, this broader sense to describe entry into the new creation of the new humanity. End of quote. We see that one heresy leads to another. If you study regeneration in the New Testament, regeneration can refer either to A, the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart, which is monergistic, which is, of course, a result of the redemptive work of Christ, taking that heart dead and trespassing its ends and making it alive, the spiritual rebirth that Jesus talks about in John 3.3. The wind blows where it wishes. It's a work of the Holy Spirit. It's a work of the sovereign God that man has no cooperation in whatsoever. You cannot have saving faith without this aspect of regeneration. That's A. Then B, you do have a few passages, ones of Peter, that talk about the new heart, the regenerated heart, as it comes in contact with the Word and gives birth to conversion. Then you have regeneration used, C, you have regeneration used in the sense of the recreation or the counteracting of the Fall in creation. That's the only place it's used in a broad sense. There is no sociological use of regeneration in the New Testament. And certainly, Titus 3.5 is not using it in that sense. Baptism regenerates and unites to Christ and thus justifies according to their view. But they admit not everyone who is baptized goes to heaven. Now do they admit that they are holding a position that is irrational? No. What do they do? They redefine regeneration, making it sociological, not personal. And I challenge you, go get your concords and look up the word regenerate or the new birth And look at how it's used in the New Testament. It is not used sociologically of people that are sort of united to Christ but not really saved or people who are united to Christ and then fall away. It's not used that way. They redefine regeneration in union with Christ so that it can be actually saved, but it may not actually save. You see what they're doing? Remember, when you are deficient in one doctrine, it affects several other doctrines, especially when we're talking about sociology or the doctrine of salvation. If you're deficient in one area, it makes you deficient in several other areas. This is true of Roman Catholicism, this is true of Arminianism, this is true of Semi-Pelagianism, and it is true of the Federal Vision Heresy. They use theological terms in new ways, and thus they can equivocate and talk out of both sides of their mouth. So, according to Wilson and his cohorts, baptism justifies, sort of, maybe, if one is covenantally faithful. Now if one says that the Federal Visionists do not explicitly teach that one is justified in baptism, you must keep in mind that A, they repeatedly teach that one receives all the benefits of salvation at baptism, which actually they don't because they don't teach you're given perseverance, and B, you know, Think of the absurdity of their doctrine. It's a rejection of the doctrine of the atonement. If Christ died for you, if you received the benefits of his death, all of your sins are forgiven, past, present, and future, so you can't fall away. It's a denial of the doctrine of propitiation. God is no longer angry with you. That means you can't go to hell. God has reconciled with you. Reconciliation is denied. The high priestly work of Jesus Christ is denied because one of the important aspects of being being born again and being a Christian is the fact that now you have Christ interceding for you. Why did Peter, who fell so miserably, become restored? Why did he repent and be restored? Jesus told him that he's going to pray for Peter. And the prayer of Jesus is always effective. And we're told in the book of Hebrews that Christ intercedes for us daily, constantly, and that his prayers are efficacious. So they have to say that you receive the benefits of the death of Christ. However, you don't receive the mediation of Christ. you don't receive the true definition of the atonement. So you have to redefine the atonement, you have to redefine reconciliation, you have to redefine redemption, you have to redefine propitiation, you have to redefine all these doctrines to fit into their heretical, weird view that you're united to Christ and you're saved, but however, you're not really saved. You're only saved in this weird sociological sense. You can see why it's so complicated and why it's so liable to misunderstanding. If theologians have trouble with it, what do you think about people in the pew? So they repeatedly teach that They receive all the benefits of salvation at baptism. And B, they equate union with Christ with justification. Peter Lightheart says that union with Christ renders the doctrine of imputation unnecessary, and I'll have that quote later. The federal vision theology is irrational or self-contradictory at points, which actually makes it very easy for Doug Wilson to affirm a doctrine that is heretical and then turn right around and deny that he is a radical. Remember, we talked about this last week. The tactic of modernists, the tactic of liberals, the tactic of heretics throughout history has always been to equivocate, to use ambiguous language, and to give yourself plausible deniability by using terms in a new, unique way. And what they do is they switch back and forth. This is my definition here. This is the Orthodox definition here. And when you do that, it's extremely difficult to pin somebody down or know exactly what they mean when they say something. Sometimes he wears his Romanesque cap. Sometimes he takes it off. It depends largely on his audience. The second way that Doug Wilson and the Federal Visionists deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone is their unwillingness to adhere to the classical Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification. And this is the great controversy of Protestantism with Rome. Roman Catholics blur the two together in such a way that they're not kept distinct. The Protestant says the man who is justified will be sanctified, however, sanctification and justification are kept separate. Because if you blur them, then you have a process where, yes, you're justified in a sense by baptism, or you're justified in a sense by Christ, by faith, but you're also justified by your works. and that classical Protestant distinction is not upheld by the federal visionist heretics. Here's what Wilson says. When asked about faith only, Wilson responds, not bare-bones faith, not assent. Devils have that. True faith is more than assent. We are being accused of denying sola fide because we deny sola essentis. This is the rub. Since we're all affirming this, Why are we heretics because we say faith cannot be separated from trust and obedience? And because we say saving faith cannot be separated from a life of obedience and trust? Well, this answer is clever and dishonest. No one accuses the federal visionists of heresy because they deny that faith is mere assent. Luther didn't teach that it's mere assent. Calvin did not teach that it's mere assent. None of the Reformers did. None of the Reform creeds or symbols or confessions teach that it's mere assent. No Reformed theologian teaches that faith is mere assent, that I'm aware of. No Reformed Protestant says that faith is mere assent, or only a historical belief. The word belief also means trust. And no Reformed theologian would say that saving faith does not result in the fruit of faith, which is obedience. The problem is that the Federal Visionists rejects the classical Protestant distinction between faith as the sole instrument which lays hold of Christ. You remember that. Faith is the sole instrument which lays hold of Christ and works which are separate from faith and are fruits of it. That's a super important distinction. It's a distinction that's been upheld by Protestants since Luther and is rejected by the Federal Visionists. Now listen to this. Here's an interview. Question. Has confessionalism replaced an active living faith in Reformed churches? If so, what is the solution? Doug Wilson, here's his answer. Yes, in many cases it has. In many other cases, non-confessionalism has replaced an active living faith. In all cases, the problem is sin, not the confessions. When we make idols, we often do so out of innocent materials. The solution is to preach the word like the house was burning down, sing the Psalms like we believe them, learn how to incorporate wine and chocolate into the Sabbath, come to the sacraments in humble reliance on the Holy Spirit, and pray for a tsunami reformation. We are in line with the Torah, the law, and the Talmud, the interpretation of the Westminster Confession. But we have run afoul of the Midrash, the oral tradition of American Presbyterianism and what these phrases mean. No. Wilson compares the Westminster Confession to the blasphemous traditions of the Jews called the Talmud. Then what modern Presbyterians believe, and I'm assuming he's talking about conservative denominations like the OPC and the PCA, they follow the midrash of the oral tradition. And by the way, in other places, they talk about how the issue here is between us, this is in the introduction to Wilson's Reform is Not Enough. Wilson says that the big controversy is between us, who holds to the truly Reformed position, and those who hold to the Reformed position to the Enlightenment thinking. You see, rationalism, I'm assuming. Now, while I have plenty of problems with the OPC and PCI and the regular principle in worship, before Shepard, Wilson, Schlissel, and Jordan, they held to an orthodox understanding of justification. I don't know any Reformed church that teaches you can be justified and not be sanctified. I don't know any Reformed church that would teach that you can be justified by a mere assent You believe a few historical propositions, you can go out and sin all you please. I've never heard anything even remotely close to that, except when I was an Arminian dispensationalist, I used to hear it all the time. Oh yeah, except Jesus is your Savior. If you want to continue in getting drunk and fornicating and smoking weed and snorting cocaine, that's fine. If you get serious later on, you can make him as your Lord. That's dispensationalism. The Reformed faith has nothing to do with that. I've never heard anything remotely similar to that. They're building a straw man. I do not know of any conservative Presbyterian pastor who teaches we are justified by a mere mental ascent and then we can go out and sin. This reveals the arrogance and dishonesty of the federal visionists. And I challenge Doug Wilson or Steve Slissler or any of these men to produce a book by one conservative pastor or elder that's Presbyterian who teaches a dispensational variety of easy-believism. They're acting as though there's this terrible problem in Reformed circles today, easy-believism, and we have the answer of the objectivity of the covenant. No. It's a straw man. They set up a straw man to argue that our own works are part of the matrix of justification. And then number two. Although Wilson speaks in non-theological terms, and many Christians would not see a problem in his answers, It actually totally contradicts Reformed theology and the standards. Let's just have a brief comparison. Roman Catholicism and the Federal Visionists teach you have your initial justification in baptism, or you could have your initial justification by exercising your faith, But it also comes at the end of a very long process on the Day of Judgment. For Romanists, God accepts man after they become personally holy, and in most cases after they are further purified and purgatory. For the Federal Visionists, as well as Norman Shepard, and the New Perspective writers, justification comes after a period of covenantal faithfulness. Now note, both systems require personal obedience for justification. That is law-keeping. But what's the biblical view? Justification occurs in a moment of time, the moment you believe in Christ, if you have true faith. The moment you lay hold of Christ by faith. It is an instantaneous act of God. It is whole, never repeated, eternal and perfect, not piecemeal or gradual. Jesus said in John, those who believe in me have passed from death into life. And the verb have past indicates that it occurred at a point in time in the past. When you believe in Christ you now are in possession of eternal life. Now I'm not denying there's an eschatological element where eternal life is spoken of also as glorification when Christ returns and you're resurrected and receive a glorified body. There is an eschatological element there. But that's talking about glorification. The moment you believe in Jesus Christ, you possess eternal life. It's instantaneous. Also, Roman Catholicism and the Federal Visionists, faith and works are the basis for justification. Now Romanists teach that men are saved by faith and the good works that flow from faith. They define faith as faith working by love. Faith and obedience go together. The Auburn Avenue or the Federal Visionists teach that men are ultimately justified by faith and faithfulness to the covenant. by belief and personal obedience, by trust and perseverance and personal righteousness. They teach this. On the Day of Judgment, if God's going to evaluate your works and if they're good enough, you're in. You're justified. They teach this. Well, what is the biblical view? What do Protestants historically teach? Well, faith in Christ alone, apart from anything we do, is the basis for justification. Ephesians 2, 8-9. Now, Roman Catholics and the Federal Visionists ultimately teach that you're saved by faith and a cooperative effort. Man contributes. Romanists teach That church members must cooperate with the inward grace until justification is achieved. That's classic Romanism. The Roman Catholics teach that God infuses you with grace and then you cooperate with grace and if you get good enough, you're in. Protestants always held to imputation. Your sins, your guilt, your liability, your punishment is imputed or reckoned to Christ on the cross. and Christ's perfect righteousness is then imputed or reckoned to your account. That's Protestantism. They reject that. They reject imputation. Protestants view sinners are saved solely because of what God has done in Christ, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Romans 3.24. And then one more. The ground of justification for Roman Catholics and Auburn Avenue heretics is the death of Christ and good works. Romanists combine the merits of Christ with inward holiness or justification and sanctification, a process of justification and sanctification for justification. Now, they're very upfront about it. They're very honest about it. You can read and tell what they say. They're a little bit vague because they do say things like, well, yeah, we're really saved by grace because the good works that we do, the Holy Spirit enables us to do them, so we believe in salvation by grace alone. A Roman Catholic would say that, by the way. by the grace of God alone. They say that, but they don't mean it, because they redefine it. The Federal Visionist theologians combine the death of Christ, which brings the pardon for sins, with the covenant faithfulness of church members. This covenant faithfulness will bring final justification on the final day. God's going to evaluate your works, and if you're good enough, you're let in. Now keep in mind, Paul gives the most lengthy exposition of what occurs when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and Paul makes it crystal clear that even if your works are so lame that they get burned up, he's talking about the things you do for Christ, that they're so mixed with human invention and they're so messed up that they all get burned up like chaff and hay and stubble, you're still in because of what Christ has done. He makes it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with your works. If you read Paul's description of judgment according to works, But the Federal Visionists teach something very different, that God's going to evaluate your works, and if you're good enough, you get in. Well, what does the Bible teach? Well, the ground of justification is the sacrificial death of Christ and his perfect righteousness. Now, keep in mind, the Federal Visionists would say, we don't believe the ground of justification is our good works. We don't believe the ground of justification is our obedience. But they do teach, quite openly, that the instrument of justification is your works. And that's heretical, too, because we just noted that faith is the sole instrument, and faith is not works. Faith is simple. It does not include your works. They want to say faith and works are the same thing, and therefore faith and works is instrumental in your salvation. Once again, the Bible, the ground of justification, the sacrificial death of Christ, and his perfect righteousness. Christ's merits, or perfect works, are imputed to the believing sinner, his obedience to the law. Romans 4, 3-6. 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. Could the Bible be any clearer than that? I want to hear how an Auburn Avenue person, a federal visionist, will deal with that passage. That's one of the problems. They ignore the passages that contradict their system. But anyway, that's rough. Here's another one. Here's a question for Doug Wilson. This is an interview he did. Doug, when you cite the continuing in goodness in Romans 11 in your 2002 lecture, is that the cause of our salvation or the fruit of it? Now, keep in mind, This is an interview that took place with, you've got Steve Schlissel there, you've got John Baruch there, and you've got Steve Wilkins there. They were interviewed after the conference. Doug Wilson, yes, and then laughter all around. In other words, all four of these guys are laughing at this question. Look, in Colossians Paul says that you received Christ so walk in him. This is Doug Wilson. So the way we become Christians is the way we stay Christians, the way we finish as Christians, by faith from first to last. So we continue in God's goodness by trust. We stand by faith. They fail, but you stand. Doing that to the end is how you come to your salvation. It's the gift of God, lest anyone boast. I believe we are saved by faith from first to last, which is why I've been accused of denying Sola Fide. Wisdom is vindicated by your children." End of quote. Note, and keep in mind, a lot of these answers that Wilson says are so ambiguous that if you read them in the most positive light, some of them are not that bad, but you've got to understand what they're saying. Wilson and his cohorts laugh at the Protestant doctrine that good works and obedience to God's moral law are a fruit of saving faith. They deny that distinction and they laugh at it. That's a very, very important distinction. That's the distinction between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Protestantism. Good works are only the fruit of saving faith. Good works do not have anything to do instrumentally with justification on the final day. They don't. They're evidential. Whenever you read passages like Matthew 25 or Matthew 7 or Revelation, which talk about evaluating works and saying, well, you loved me and you gave me food and drink, visited me in prison, therefore you're going to heaven. Those passages are talking evidentially. They're not talking about instrumentally. This point is crucial to maintaining the Orthodox doctrine of justification, that the subjective work of the Holy Spirit in us is not a contributing force to our justification. If we talk about salvation in the broad sense of the term, we do say that holiness and sanctification is necessary. In other words, when you talk about the Ordo Salutis, the order of salvation, you've got justification, sanctification, glorification. That's salvation in the broadest context, including all the different facets of our redemption. The federal visionists go beyond this and speak of covenant faithfulness and an evaluation of our law-keeping as necessary or contributing to final justification. And that is heresy. That is heresy. Once again, Paul, repeatedly, in Romans and Galatians and other places, Ephesians, not by works, not by works that we have done, not by the law, not by anything that we have done, not by the law. And then in Philippians, he talks about his own righteousness as filthy rags before God, as a filthy stinking pile of trash before God. That does not fit into the paradigm of the Auburn Avenue theologians. The Federal Visionists denied the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Now keep in mind, Doug Wilson says he holds to it. We'll deal with that in a moment. He does it inconsistently. They say they deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness and they replace it with covenant faithfulness. Wilson argues that he agrees with the imputation of Christ's righteousness but logically denies it with his neo-Nomian concept of final justification. If you believe in the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, we don't need covenant faithfulness on top of faith or as an aspect of faith. You don't need it. It is there as a fruit of justification. It is something produced by the Holy Spirit as a basis of union with Christ, but it has nothing to do with your evaluation and getting led into heaven. Here's what Charles Hodge says, "...to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards and treats as righteous, although he is not in himself righteous." The meaning of this clause cannot be mistaken. To impute sin is to lay sin to the charge of anyone, and to treat him accordingly, as is universally admitted, 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, and to which they have in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the Apostle's definition of the term, to justify. I'm quoting this because this is the classical Protestant definition and it explicitly, in the plainest of terms, it contradicts the Auburn Avenue or Federal Visionist teaching. Here's Hodge some more. It is not making men inherently righteous or morally pure, but it is regarding 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, as is dealing with men, not according to merit, but in a gracious manner, and is precisely the point. Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and those whose sins are covered, and blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. That is, blessed be the man who, although a sinner, is regarded and treated as righteous." that Hodges is 100% in line with the Apostle Paul there. And the federal vision is deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Doug Wilson says he believes in the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, yet all his comrades reject it, emphatically reject it, and he says not one word against them. And then here's John Otis. And this is from his great book, Danger in the Camp, a book that every pastor and elder ought to read, says this. He's referring to Schlissel. Schlissel is one of the four of the Auburn Avenue teachers. If one remembers Schlissel's former quote, Schlissel says that there is no disobedience yet saving faith. It is not faith plus obedience, but the obedience of faith. Notice Wilson says the same thing. He does not even mention that faith and obedience need to be separated from man's justification. Wilson's answer is a blending of justification and sanctification. The federal vision says that it believes in justification by faith alone, but it redefines by faith alone. The federal vision speaks of faith as the obedience of faith. Hence, obedience is the very essence of saving faith. So when asked, do you believe in being justified by faith alone, they will say, of course. This is not the historic Orthodox Reformed faith. The Reformed faith makes a clear distinction between works and faith in terms of justification. Wilson also makes it a point to say that no credit should be taken for our faith, but then he has in parenthesis, as though it were a work of its own. The federal vision never refers to its insistence on works for justification as meritorious because they define it to mean works of our own. This is a clever way of introducing a work's salvation into justification while maintaining these works are non-meritorious. Stop for a moment. In Richard Lusk, in his article, he says, well, we don't believe in merit, but we do believe that works have value. And then if you look up the word merit in the dictionary, one of its synonyms is value. But anyway, continuing, works done by the Spirit in conformity with God's law in order to cause our justification is totally acceptable in their way of thinking. That's absolutely true. This is why Schlissel and Lusk can call God's law a gracious gift. I beg to differ. The Reformed faith maintains that the Spirit uses the law of God as a means to sanctify us, but the law is not a gracious gift in order for us to gain justification." End of quote. And then, of course, Lusk will go on in his article in Pros and Cons on the Auburn Avenue. Lusk goes on to say, yeah, God's law is easy to keep. Switzel says the same thing. God's law is easy to keep. which is exactly what the Pharisees did. They dumbed down the law, they redefined it to make it easy to keep. If you understand the law, if you understand Paul's use of the law, Jesus' use of the law, the Puritan use of the law, we can't keep the law for one hour because it applies to the thought, it applies to the heart, it applies to every motive, it applies to every inner thought. Now, I want to make a few things clear, very clear in the matter of justification with regard to Doug Wilson. I can go to his articles and his books and I can give you a number of quotes by Doug Wilson on justification that are totally orthodox. In addition, he insists that he accepts the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which the other federal visionaries reject. They totally reject it. He says he accepts it. He has interacted with a number of conservative orthodox scholars and he's convinced them that he is orthodox on this doctrine. He had interaction with James White. He had interaction with others. For those who do not want to accept the... What's his name? Piper? I forgot his name. There's one famous guy who said he's fine. For those who do not want to accept the fact that Wilson is a dangerous false teacher, all of this serves as adequate evidence that Wilson indeed is orthodox. And here's a few statements to the effect that he is orthodox from conservative orthodox pastors. Here's one. Lane Keister wrote this. My problem with Wilson lies in this. Although Wilson says many things that are reformed in a positive sense, he is not willing to reject the errors of the other federal visionist proponents. Personally, I'm willing to believe that Wilson holds the justification by faith alone, although he is too ambiguous on the aliveness of faith and its place in justification. He does hold to imputation, but he will not distance himself from any area of the Federal Visionists. No matter how egregious that his wife, Wilson, were to apply for admission into the Presbytery, which I am a part, I could not vote to approve his transfer of credentials. What I have sought to show is that it is not enough to affirm the truth, one must also reject the errors. This is equally important to affirming the truth. I think Wilson holds a justification by faith alone, even if some of his language is ambiguous. The trouble we are having here is precisely that. Some of us wish to say that Doug Wilson's ambiguity means he doesn't hold a justification by faith alone at all. Others of us think that he does, even if it is not as clear as it should be." Another example of this, here's a quote by Richard Phillips and his representative of the Orthodox Party in the Auburn Avenue Theology. the book Pros and Cons that came out from a seminary in Florida. And listen to what he says here. He also says that we should regard Wilson as orthodox. Quote, Wilson posits that this debate should be conceived of as an intramural contest within the orthodox reform tradition. We should be willing to critique one another, but we must acknowledge that all these views fall within the reform pale. So far as this particular paper is concerned, I find myself in some agreement. The key to this matter is that Wilson affirms that saving grace is received through faith alone. I find that he uses language that muddies the clarity of this affirmation. But a charitable reading finds comfort in a support of sola fide." Now, for those who support Doug Wilson, these kind of statements are common. And these kind of statements are common in the OPC and the PCA. These are the kind of statements that are appealed to by people who want to have him come and speak in their church and say he's a wonderful guy. He just needs to be more clear in what he says, in other words. He just needs to be a little more clear. He's ambiguous. He muddies the water. It's hard to figure out what he's saying and so on. Ah, but he's nice. He's a Christian brother. His teachings are orthodox. But the problem with these kind of statements are threefold. First, ambiguity or equivocation has always been a tactic of false teachers throughout history, who know they are introducing a new theological paradigm. Now these guys say, yeah, we're introducing a new theological paradigm. They're very contradictory. They say, oh, we're upholding the proper understanding of the Westerner standards. You guys are upholding the rationalistic view or the Enlightenment view. But then they turn around and say, yeah, but it's a new theological paradigm. Wilson's system as a whole is contrary to the Westminster Standards and historic Protestantism, but he is accepted because he is willing to say he believes that saving grace is received through faith alone and that he accepts the imputation of Christ's righteousness. A man who is ambiguous on such crucial doctrines as justification has no business in the pulpit or writing books to the Christian masses. We must also keep in mind that ambiguity gives a person plausible deniability if they're called to account. Now, if you study the Aryan controversy, if you study the Arminian controversy, if you study how modernism came in, ambiguity was a deliberate tactic for plausible deniability. Oh, I didn't really mean that, I meant this. Wilson is an expert at using a cute illustration or a metaphor that could be taken in different ways depending on how the metaphor is interpreted. When he says that justification is not wrapped up in a nice bow before we move on to sanctification, what exactly does he mean by that? Does he mean that our sanctification could not exist without justification? Or does he mean that the sharp Protestant distinction between the two is contrary to Scripture? Now the fact that they laughed at the traditional Protestant view makes me think it's the latter, not the former. One can read into the metaphor a number of different views. Second, if one reads Wilson's articles in his books on the federal vision, he is not simply ambiguous, but repeatedly self-contradictory. On the one hand, Wilson says he stands for the historic reformed as opposed to the enlightenment reformed. But he says this in a book called Reformed Is Not Enough. A book which purports to give us a new paradigm. You can't say you're upholding the standards when you're saying they're not good enough and we need to change them or we need to add this. On the one hand, he says that he is in line with the confession of faith, but he also says that he and his comrades are introducing a new paradigm of theology. On the one hand, baptism regenerates and truly unites the Christ, but on the other hand, there are many instances when this is not the case. where it does not really regenerate, it does not really unite to Christ. It does not really unite to Christ after all, and of course what they do is they turn around and they redefine regeneration as sociological and they redefine union with Christ. That's disingenuous. If you're going to use old standard theological terms with a new meaning, you need to stop and redefine things. On the one hand, he accepts the imputation of Christ's righteousness. But on the other hand, he denies the covenant of works, which makes the imputation of Christ's righteousness irrelevant or redundant. On the one hand, we are saved by faith alone, but on the other hand, faith is defined as an obedient faith, which is inclusive of our law-keeping. So it's not simply ambiguity, it's irrationality, it's contradiction, it's self-contradiction. Now listen to Wilson admit, in a convoluted, ambiguous way, that working faith and obedient faith, that it is a faith that flows into obedience, is an instrument of our justification. Quote, By obedience, in the phrase obedient faith, I am not referring to any of the doing that proceeds out of this being. I am treating obedient faith and living faith as synonyms. The subsequent actions performed by this obedient faith are genuine and sincere, but they are not perfectly so because of remaining sinfulness. Because they are not perfect, they cannot be the basis of our justification. Our best works would condemn us in the worst way. Neither can the living faith, which gives rise to all these actions, be the ground of our justification." So he says things and you go, okay, well that sounds pretty good, that sounds pretty good, that sounds pretty good, but then listen to this. But, it is obedient in its life and in that living condition, it is the instrument of our justification." End of quote. Now, what is the central doctrine of, what does sola fide mean? What is it that Luther rediscovered and Calvin taught and John Knox taught? Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie and the Westminster Standards and the Helvetic Confession, the Belgian Confession, Heidelberg Catechism. What do they all teach? What are they all in agreement with? Sola Fidei means that faith is the sole instrument which lays hold of Christ and receives what he has achieved. And this faith does not include the works that flow from faith. Wilson has just denied that. So he says, this is a tactic of heretics. You've got to learn this. I'll give you four statements, they're all totally true, then I'll slip in a lie at the end. That's what Doug Wilson repeatedly does in his writings. He'll say something that's true, and then he'll deny it. Or he'll say something that sounds heretical and shocking, and then he'll go back and he'll, well, but I didn't really mean this, but I didn't really mean this. He'll go back and try to redefine it. Like, you know, honk your horn a few didn't, if you knew the Westminster Standard, teach baptismal regeneration. And then he goes back and he redefines it where, well, it really doesn't mean baptismal regeneration, it means this. Now, if Wilson was saying what Orthodox theologians have been saying for the last 400 years, he would simply say that true saving faith, which is the sole instrument which lays hold of Christ, always leads to or always produces the fruit of good works. That's the classical Protestant way of talking about this, and it makes a lot of sense. It maintains the necessity of sanctification, it maintains the necessity of good works, it maintains the necessity of a Christian doing his best to obey the moral law, but it separates it from both being the ground of justification, which is solely the work of Christ, and it separates it from faith as the sole instrument which lays hold of Christ. But they deny that. They deny that. We noted, not long ago, that when Wilson and his cohorts were asked about the traditional theological way of speaking of good works, as a fruit of faith, they all laughed. These guys are arrogant. They're arrogant. They believe that the traditional formula is a cop-out, that it separates justification from sanctification too much. They would likely accuse such a view as being an Enlightenment-influenced idea. If you understand me, they don't believe in harmonizing Scripture or the principle of the analogy of Scripture. You know, if this passage, if James says we're justified by works, yeah, we're justified by works. If Paul says we're justified by faith, yes, we're justified by faith. So they have no coherence to their theology. In fact, they're anti-systematic theology. who would likely accuse such a view as being enlightenment. If Wilson laughs at the original Protestant formula and says that works or obedience or a living faith, that is a faith plus the acts that flow from faith, is an instrument that justifies, then he is far closer to Rome than Wittenberg or Geneva. Remember, all the reform symbols deny, they deny that works are instrumental in our justification. They make a separation between faith and works. I think when men who are teachers speak nonsense or talk irrationally or use very ambiguous terms and statements or redefine long-held theological terms without saying so or use an important theological word in a traditional way and then turn right around and use it in a non-traditional way only a few pages later, they need to be treated as dangerous false teachers. as dangerous false shepherds. And that's what Wilson does. As much as I like his earlier works on the family and so forth. Wilson is particularly dangerous because he has taught so many good things and because he, whether deliberately or not, in my view is the most dishonest man of the whole heretical bunch, the federal visionist bunch. You don't have theologians saying John Baruch or these guys are fine, but they are saying that of Wilson because Wilson has given himself plausible deniability by saying he believes in the imputation of the righteousness of Christ and so forth. I think John Robbins put it very well a number of years ago when he wrote this, quote, Now there is a simple word for Wilson's doctrine, dishonesty. His nonsense about levels of discourse, What is true on one level is false on another. It is a blatant rejection of both God and Scripture. Christ said, let your yes be yes and your no, no. Matthew 5.37. He did not add, of course I am speaking on one level of discourse, but if I speak on two levels, yes may be no and no may be yes. In Wilson's theology, liturgical truth, catechetical truth, and preached truth are one thing and operative on one level of discourse and truth itself is another. Inoperative in preaching, teaching, and worship. Paul wrote, As God is faithful, our word to you was not yes and no, for the Son of God was not yes and no." 2 Corinthians 1, 17 and 19. Paul did not add that our word to you might be yes and no if we talked on different levels of discourse. One reason Christians and churches are held in low esteem by the world is that churchmen like Wilson through the ages have dishonestly played with words and denied the truth. They prattle on about paradoxes, antinomies, tensions, levels of discourse, and other unbiblical ideas, attributing them to Scripture. and imputed both the intelligence and the honesty of God himself." And then third, and this is a point that I am really surprised Doug Wilson has been allowed to get away with for so long, a pastor or theologian must be judged by his fruit. You can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps. In fact, we can often tell more about what a person really believes by looking at his actions what he does. The fruit reveals the tree. The fruit tells us whether the stalk is good or bad. With all this in mind, and I do not think any knowledgeable Christian would disagree with what I've just said, let us ask the question, is Doug Wilson truly orthodox on justification? He has been very successful at muddying the truth of this with his words. But some who have tried to make good sense of what he says say we should give him the benefit of the doubt. And we should assume that he is orthodox until things become more clear. But should we give him the benefit of the doubt when his actions so clearly reveal that he has chosen the camp of the unorthodox over the orthodox? He's not hanging out with Joe Morecraft. He's hanging out with heretics. What does he support by his actions, by his money, by who he hires, by who he publishes, by the men he speaks with in conferences? Does he defend men like Joel Morecraft or Peter Lightheart? You see, his writings may be ambiguous. His declarations on Docker may be confusing, but his actions are not confusing at all. He has chosen to be counted among a group of men who are truly and clearly heretical on justification in a number of areas. They generally accept the new perspective on Paul. Doug Wilson says he doesn't believe in it, but these men do. Schlissel certainly does. Lusk certainly does. That is, the idea that Luther and Calvin and the whole Protestant Reformation had it wrong in their analysis of the Jews. The problem was not work salvation, but rather the issue of Jewish identity markers. Schlissel makes very derogatory remarks about Luther. They, with the exception of Wilson, openly reject the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. All of them. They reject it. Now, Mr. Wilson, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is a very important doctrine. And you say you believe in it. Well, if you really believe in it, then why do you keep company with those who work against it and reject it and mock it? What does Paul say? Well, Paul says ministers have an obligation to convict those who contradict. Their job is to refute heretics. That's what ministers are supposed to do. You can read about it in Timothy. Paul says that we are to note those who cause divisions because of error and we reject them. Also, those who teach error after the second admonition are to be excommunicated. If you really believe in justification by faith alone, and if you really believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, then would you not repudiate these men who reject such a crucial and important doctrine? I'm just amazed people let him get away with these ambiguous statements. They let him get away with it, give him the benefit of the doubt. But look at his life. He's the one who hired Peter Lightheart and brought him to Moscow, Idaho. You have to understand, Peter Lightheart The Garbers, Garber, all these guys are just disciples of James Jordan, who's a disciple of Norman Shepard. He's a hack. If you read Doug Wilson's book on worship, if you read the book he published on worship by Jeffrey Myers, it's just all the Romanist garbage coming out of James Jordan. Well, the fact, Doug Wilson, that you do the exact opposite can only mean two things. Either A, you are a liar. and you do not really believe the things that you say you believe in, or B, your faith in these doctrines is merely a mental assent and not a living faith that defends the precious truth of God's Word. After all, we shall know about our faith by our works, isn't that right? Faith without works is dead. It is obvious from the company you keep, the theological group that you hang with, That at best one could say that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is simply not important to you. That's the best spin you could put on it. That you apparently class such a doctrine as a non-essential, that men can freely disagree with, with no need to press the issue, no need to defend the issue, no need to bring up charges, no need to refute these men. How can we come to any other conclusion? Logically, we cannot. And this is why we cannot let Doug Wilson get away with these ambiguous statements. If I say that I'm a big supporter of the Jewish people, and I love Israel, and I work for a Nazi theological journal, and I write articles with Nazis, and I publish Nazi books, and I appear in conferences with Nazis, then you'd have to question, well, maybe this guy's not sincere when he says he loves Israel. Maybe he's just saying that. Now listen to what Peter Lightheart, who Doug Wilson hired and brought to Moscow, Idaho, listen to what he says. Quote, Yes, we do have the same obligation that Adam and Abraham and Moses and David and Jesus had, namely, the obedience of faith. And yes, covenant faithfulness is the way to salvation. For the doers of the law will be justified at the final judgment. That's totally heretical, but listen to how he tries to get around it. Quote, But this is all done in union with Christ, so that our covenant faithfulness is dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit of Christ in us, and our covenant faithfulness is about faith, trusting the Spirit, and willing to do according to His good pleasure." End of quote. That's Roman Catholicism. Now obviously God requires obedience of His people. No one questions that except dispensationalist and antinomians. No Reformed person says we don't have to obey God's word. But the federal vision doctrine that covenant faithfulness will lead to our justification at the final judgment is totally heretical. His interpretation of Paul's statement that the doers of the law will be justified is incorrect and is the opposite of what Paul intended. When Paul talks about those kind of things in Galatians and Romans, he's saying, look, if you guys want to be justified by the law, do you realize you have to keep the whole thing perfectly? Thought we're indeed from the time you're born till the time you die? That if you lust in your heart even once, you're going to hell? That's what Paul's saying. He's not saying, oh yeah, if you want to be justified, keep the law. By the way, in this very same chapter, I'm going to talk about how we're not justified by the law. Paul doesn't contradict himself. Paul said we must regard all of our good works as a pile of stinking trash in order to own Christ. Lightheart says we are justified by Christ and we are justified by our works. His statement that what he says is okay because the Holy Spirit is the one who enables us to obey and therefore we can't take credit for it, that's not different than what the Roman Catholics are teaching. They say the same thing. That's why the Roman Catholic says we're saved by grace alone. Because we're saved by the effusion of grace poured into our hearts by the Spirit and the Spirit enables us to obey and the Spirit enables us to be justified. Therefore, We are not justified by works, we're justified by grace alone, technically. Lightheart writes this, quote, I do believe that all of Christ's benefits are subsumed into the heading of union with Christ. This renders imputation redundant, end of quote. Well, if Wilson really believes in imputation, a doctrine foundational to the Protestant Reformation, then why did he promote Lightheart instead of refuting him and bringing up on charges? Wilson's theology in the main agrees with Lightheart. Here's Wilson. During the time they are branches of the vine, they do receive benefits from Christ through the Spirit and may enjoy real personal and deep communion with Jesus for a time. Can you have communion with Jesus without having your sins forgiven? I asked you that question. Can you have deep communion with Jesus Christ if your sins are not forgiven? Well, obviously not, right? You have to be forgiven. You have to have no sin. So, Wilson's apparently saying, well, these people are saved, but they can lose their salvation. Listen to what he says. He'd been communing with Jesus for a time. Yet the relationship with Christ is not identical to the relationship with the elect. Put it this way. Some are united to Christ as members of the bride that are heading for a divorce. Others are united and headed for consummation. Marriages that end in divorce are not the same as marriages that end happily. End of quote. So, by adopting the federal vision theology, Wilson must argue that there is a form of union with Christ that does not really save. that someone can have a real relationship with Christ that entails, and when we talk about relationship, what does it entail? Reconciliation, justification, redemption, regeneration, adoption. Doesn't it mean that? If we're talking about union with Christ traditionally? But these things can be lost. Thus, ultimately, salvation is a work of man. Man makes the difference. Both are united to Christ, both have the Holy Spirit, both have the benefits of Christ's death, but one goes to hell. This sounds virtually identical to Arminianism. That's not Reformed theology. Wilton teaches a form of union with Christ that is non-saving. Such a view is heretical. Now, if you want to say, well, yeah, there are those who belong to the visible church who don't have true saving faith, and they fall away, That's historic Calvinism. But they reject that distinction. Wilson only believes in the eschatological church and the, oh, I forgot what the other term he uses, historical church. That's Arminianism. It's identical. Now, here's Lightheart again. And listen to what he says. Quote, we are righteous before God by faith because we are united to Christ the righteous. No, we are righteous before God because of Christ's righteousness He's not saying we are declared righteous because of the righteousness of Christ. He's saying we're righteous only by virtue of this healing. Remember, he rejects the imputation of Christ's righteousness. James says that we are justified by works. I don't know how precisely to take James, but I believe we must be faithful. In faithfulness to Scripture, affirm that we are justified by works in whatever sense that James means it. The papal church taught that we are saved over time by a work of God in us, an infusion of grace. The Protestant Reformation countered this heresy with the doctrine of double imputation. Your sins are imputed to Jesus Christ on the cross, they're reckoned to his account. And Christ's perfect law-keeping, his perfect righteousness is reckoned to your account, imputed to you. The federal visionists disregard the Protestant Reformation and move very close to a Romanist view. Yet Doug Wilson claims to hold the imputation. If he does hold the imputation, why does he employ Lightheart and publish his theological garbage? You shall know them by their fruits. By the way, when Doug Wilson talks about having a relationship with Christ that is actually non-saving in the end where people don't persevere, what did Jesus say in Matthew chapter 7? on the Day of Judgment to professing Christians. People who said they even prophesied, did miracles in Christ's name. What did he say to them? I never, ever knew you. In other words, I never, ever had a saving relationship with you. What does it say in 1 John? When John is talking about, there were people that were part of the church, they had joined the church and they left. And what does John say? Well, they were in us, they joined a church, but they were never of us. They were never true Christians to begin with. That's the biblical teaching. They reject all that and they teach, well yeah, you're truly united to Christ, you have a relationship with him, however you can fall away, which is in line with Arminianism. Here's another of Wilson's comrades, Richard Lusk. He says this, "...discipleship is not mere morality. It is a matter of what the Apostle Paul calls the obedience of faith, or faith's obedience." He's quoting from Romans. Faith and obedience are not two separate ways of relating to God, as though we had faith for justification and works for sanctification. Rather, faith-filled obedience is the holistic, full-orbed response to God's grace that the gospel calls for and calls forth by God's Spirit. The obedience of faith is nothing less than eschatological life, the life of the new age, the life of the world to come. Now, this statement, any Roman Catholic could agree with what he's saying here. Now note, Lusk unites faith and works into an organic whole that is necessary for achieving salvation. And he totally misrepresents Paul. The Paul line term, the obedience of faith in Romans in Greek, can be interpreted in only two ways grammatically. It can either mean obedience that flows from faith Or it can mean obedience that consists of faith. It cannot mean faithful obedience that does good works, which is the way he defines it. So just to summarize, when you have a theologian or a writer or a popular speaker or a pastor, who says things that explicitly contradict each other, that says things that are deliberately ambiguous where it's super hard to figure out what he's saying, that says things using traditional theological terms with a brand new meaning and then switches back and forth from a historic Protestant meaning to a new meaning that his audience is unaware of to where you're trying to figure out, what is this guy saying? You have to judge them according to their works. And you have to realize that this has always been the pattern of heretics throughout the ages. Doug Wilson, and I like the guy personally. You know, he's a great preacher. I love his early books. When his Angels in the Architecture came out, I could see that he was moving in a Romanist direction right then. I could see that he was under the influence of probably James Jordan already. And then when he hired Peter Lightheart, I realized, oh, this guy's, of course, he's always rejected the regular principle. He's big on Christmas and everything. But, you know, he seems like a nice guy, but he's a dangerous heretic. And if you want to debate about his writings, fine. If you think he's ambiguous enough he may be orthodox, that's fine, but when you compare that to what he does, to his works, he's been weighed in the balance and found wanting. So don't be fooled by such equivocation, by such vagueness, by such clever redefinition of terms. It's been the tactic of the devil for thousands of years. He's an expert at it and Doug Wilson's one of the best persons at doing it that I've ever seen. Beware of false prophets. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we give you thanks for your holy word. We thank you for the achievements of the Reformation. We thank you how they have taken doctrines and compared scripture with scripture and done careful exegesis and they've defined these things very precisely. We thank you for these wonderful achievements of the Reformation and help us to preserve them, to fight against heretics, to warn people against wicked false doctrines. We thank you for your precious word. We thank you for the work of Luther and Calvin and all these men. Gilmore Craft and all these men. In Jesus' name, Amen. Still Waters Revival Books is now located at PuritanDownloads.com. It's your worldwide online Reformation home for the very best in free and discounted classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, mp3s and videos. For much more information on the Puritans and Reformers, including the best free and discounted classic and contemporary books, mp3s, digital downloads and videos, please visit Still Waters Revival Books at PuritanDownloads.com Stillwater's Revival Books also publishes the Puritan Hard Drive, the most powerful and practical Christian study tool ever produced. All thanks and glory be to the mercy, grace, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ for this remarkable and wonderful new Christian study tool. The Puritan hard drive contains over 12,500 of the best Reformation books, MP3s, and videos ever gathered onto one portable Christian study tool. An extraordinary collection of Puritan, Protestant, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenanter, and Reformed Baptist resources. It's fully upgradable and it's small enough to fit in your pocket. The Puritan hard drive combines an embedded database containing many millions of records with the most amazing and extraordinary custom Christian search and research software ever created. The Puritan Hard Drive has been produced to assist you in the fascinating and exhilarating spiritual, intellectual, familial, ecclesiastical, and societal adventure that is living the Christian life. It has been specifically designed so that you might more faithfully know, serve, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to help you to do all you can to bring glory to His great name. If you want to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, then the Puritan Hard Drive is for you. Visit PuritanDownloads.com today for much more information on the Puritan Hard Drive and to take advantage of all the free and discounted Reformation and Puritan books, mp3s, and videos that we offer at Still Waters Revival Books.