For years I had heard the quote from Luther to “let our sins be strong” or to simply “sin boldly.”  Luther’s point was that Christ died for real sins and not the sins of our imaginations or the imaginations of others that some would seek to impose on us. The quote is from a letter that Luther wrote to Melanchthon in 1521 concerning the question of whether or not monks should break their vows. I had never read the letter before and only came across it last week in another helpful post from Dr. R. Scott Clark over at his Heidleblog. Interestingly, Luther’s famous saying was mentioned again in a sermon this morning. So, here is the relevant portion of that letter:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

The Auburn Avenue Non-Pastor’s Conference is scheduled for January.

The heretical speakers include…

D.P. Cassidy, make believe Pastor at Redeemer PCA in Austin, TX.

Jeffrey Meyers, phony Pastor at Providence Reformed PCA in St. Louis.

Steve Wilkins, coward, Confederation of Federal Visionistas, former PCA.

Doug Wilson, blowhard and shill, Confederation of Federal Visionistas.

This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Yesterday I came across this note from Tim Keller concerning church officer nominations at Redeemer PCA in NYC:

From: Tim Keller
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 ____ PM
To: (Redeemer’s members)
Subject: November is Officer Nomination Month

November 2, 2009

Dear Redeemer Member:

As you probably know, November is Redeemer’s officer nomination month. Once a year members have the privilege and opportunity to recommend other members for the offices of elder, deacon and deaconess.

As we enter an exciting chapter in our ministry in NYC through the RENEW Campaign, there are more opportunities to serve than ever before. Identifying new leaders within our congregation has always been a priority at Redeemer, and we need your help to find members who have the right gifts and experience to serve on the Session and the Diaconate.

There are 49 men and women currently serving on the Diaconate and 20 men serving on the Session as ruling elders. These men and women have been elected by the congregation and have gone through theological and practical training to master the skills and the information necessary for these positions.

Elders are men who serve on the Session and provide spiritual and administrative leadership to the congregation through oversight of Redeemer ministries, leaders, and members. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9.

The primary work of the Diaconate is practical deeds of mercy. Deacons and deaconesses (deeks) [sic] minister to those in our church family who find themselves in distress, crisis or emergency situations caused by illness, job loss, long-term unemployment, or other immediate physical, material, spiritual or emotional needs. Deeks also assist elders with membership interviews, and deaconesses provide input and support to elders working on complicated shepherding situations. Acts 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

Your faithful giving to the Mercy Fund over the years enables the Diaconate to care for our congregants during this economic recession. In addition to nominating deek candidates, you can help this ministry by encouraging congregants facing hardship to call the Diaconate Helpline – 212-726-1334.

Accepted nominees will begin training in January of 2010. We are looking for men and women who are members of Redeemer and willing to co-labor with us in these ministries. Please read the description and qualifications of the offices of elder, deacon and deaconess on this pdf or online.

Please prayerfully consider your elder, deacon and deaconess nominations and place a nomination form, with your signature, in the offering basket at any service during the month of November or mail/fax to:

Redeemer Presbyterian Church
Jenny Chang, Diaconate Director
1359 Broadway, 4th floor
New York, NY 10018
Fax 646-572-0020

You may also submit a nomination online.

May God give you discernment as you consider those who may be qualified to serve in these vital roles.

Sincerely,

Dr. Timothy J. Keller
Senior Pastor

And, if there were still any doubts that women are being ordained, someone even provided some video on Youtube:

Notice the recitation of the PCA ordination vows.  Of course, the PCA’s completely ignored Book of Church Order (7-1) states concerning the ordination of church officers:

The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders and ruling elders. The elders jointly have the government and spiritual oversight of the Church, including teaching. Only those elders who are specially gifted, called and trained by God to preach may serve as teaching elders. The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service both to the physical and spiritual needs of the people. In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.

One would have been tempted to think there has been no significant exegetical discovery or advancement since PCA BCO 7-2 was drafted.   I guess Scripture must be wrong. Tim Keller certainly can’t be.

It appears that the Siouxlands Presbytery (SLP) of the PCA (the home Presbytery of Greenbaggins’ Lane Keister) is in the process of re-investigating one of their own TEs (teaching elder), Greg Lawrence, who is strongly suspected of advancing the Neolegalism of the Federal Vision. I say “strongly suspected” because an investigative committee appointed by the Presbytery already found “a strong presumption of guilt” in the teachings of Lawrence as it relates to the FV. It should be noted that the original request to investigate Lawrence’s Federal Vision was denied by the Presbytery claiming “insufficient evidence.” Only after a complaint was filed and later sustained by the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) did the Siouxlands Presbytery finally appoint the investigative committee that found Lawrence’s views out of accord with the church’s confessional standards by a 4 to 2 margin. For the record, I contacted Wayne Golly, Stated Clerk of the SLP, requesting a copy of the committee’s report since I was curious to see what the findings of the committee were and what these men were voting on. He told me the committee report “is not available for distribution beyond the members of SLP.” You can bet Siouxlands church members will similarly remain in the dark concerning the committee’s findings. However, not all is darkness. According to the Aquila Report:

Advocates of the committee recommendation were concerned about TE Lawrence’s statements that we are united to Christ and get new life in the water rite of baptism. They also argued that his teaching that in baptism even the non-elect in some sense receive new life, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and union with Christ was contrary to the Standards affirmation that such benefits only accrue to the elect. They believed that he was creating “a parallel soteriological system,” citing the General Assembly’s Federal Vision Report.

OK, so what’s next? At least according to the PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO 31-2) following this investigation and the finding of a “strong presumption of guilt” in the case of Lawrence, “the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case.” Well, not so fast. This is the PCA after all.   Instead of proceeding to trial according to the established rules, the Siouxlands Presbytery completely rejected the committee’s findings and voted instead to exonerate Lawrence.

One of the two dissenting votes on the investigative committee, TE Joshua Moon, made the motion to dismiss the findings of the committee and his motion carried by a 24-13 margin.  That is a significant majority.  Oddly, the motion to exonerate Lawrence, also in response to another motion made by Moon, only carried by 20-17 with one abstention.  So at least 4 or 5 presbyters (depending how you want to count the abstention) are opposed to exonerating Lawrence, but are also opposed to the committee’s recommendation that Lawrence’s doctrines be tried based on their findings.

It appears that the Siouxlands Presbytery is more than a little schizophrenic in dealing with the Federal Vision and those suspected of advancing this particular false gospel

Well, it looks like the Siouxlands Presbytery may get another shot at figuring out where it stands or fails to stand concerning the advancement of the Federal Vision as it appears they’ve “repented” of their earlier decision to render the findings of investigative committee null and void and have appointed a new committee to investigate Lawrence.

But don’t think for a minute that the schizophrenia stops there.  According to the Aquila Report, this same Joshua Moon said on the floor of the Presbytery, and this time in his own defense,

that he believes that no reprobate person ever gets justification, and that he believes that the baptized reprobate do get forgiveness of sin in some real sense.

Now, read that again.  I certainly hope that those words attributed to Moon are accurate, because if they’re not then the folks at the Aquila Report have some explaining to do.  Of course, if they are correct, then not only is the Siouxlands Presbytery schizophrenic, but TE Moon is insane (I’m not exactly sure why Moon was mentioned by name in the earlier Aquila Report and not in the October, 26 Report when Moon’s defense of Lawrence was cited again with the above addition).

Of course, this same Joshua Moon is reported saying in defense of Lawrence:

In attributing to all the baptized some form of union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is speaking the language of our tradition and of our Scriptures. By refusing to attribute absolute and final union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is directly in line with our standards.

So, it would seem that Moon very much believes those baptized reprobates do have “union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness,” even if only “in some sense” which I can only assume is not in the “final” sense when you would think that union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness really mattered.   Although, who knows?   Why these men are never forced to define the precise sense in which they mean the things the say remains a mystery, because I can think of no sense in which the reprobate are justified,  united to Christ, adopted, or are the recipients of the new life.  The Scriptures and the Confession certainly don’t teach that, but it certainly is another example of a Federal Visionist trying to wiggle around the plain meaning of words like reprobation, election, justification, along with union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness.

And, if that weren’t enough, Moon adds:

The fact is, what TE Lawrence says on baptism is held in various ways and with various nuances by a lot of people in our PCA: from ministers and elders here in this Presbytery, myself included, to professors at our (emphasis in original) theological seminary, and even almost entire Presbyteries. Some are wanting to drive them all out and are asking you to begin that exile.

Sadly, this is very true.  Many in the PCA do share Moon’s contradictory view of baptism and justification.   Moon is also right when he says that his views on baptism and that of Lawrence are “held in various ways and with various nuances by a lot of people in our PCA: from ministers and elders here in this Presbytery …to professors” at the official seminary of the PCA; Covenant Theological Seminary.  This is tragic and merely points to the near complete apostasy of the PCA.  For example, Federal Visionist and fellow PCA Pastor, Jeffrey Myers also believes in the temporary justification of the reprobate and even claims to derive this so-called biblical “truth” from Matthew18:21-35.   Of course, Meyers dishonesty and subterfuge is easy to spot when he writes:

Now, I’m not sure I can make what Jesus teaches here fit into our systematic theological system. I will say this: I’m rather uncomfortable talking about “temporary justification,” given the way “justification” is commonly used by us. And common usage is very important. The common understanding of justification does indeed summarize well what the Bible teaches about our judicial standing before God on the basis of Christ’s finished work received by faith. But we must not, however, allow this truth to eviscerate passages like Matthew 18 or others that are difficult to “fit” into our system. I believe we are much better off allowing for some fuzzy edges and imprecision in our system so that the whole counsel of God is not lost to us because of our rationalistic tendencies.

Notice, Meyers’ exegetical novelty won’t “fit into our systematic theological system,” but he assures us that “we are much better off allowing for some fuzzy edges and imprecision in our system” as we affirm the irrational and pretend it’s biblical.   After all, not to accept and embrace the unthinkable nonsense advanced by dogs like Moon and Meyers who claim the reprobate are justified through the magic waters of baptism would mean losing  “the whole counsel of God . . . because of our rationalist tendencies.”  Oh my, we can’t let that happen.  How can anyone even contemplate such a flagrant evil as believing Christianity is a rational faith in which all the doctrines of Scripture logically and necessarily cohere? Of course, if Meyers is correct and Jesus is teaching a scheme in which “the reprobate can attain a state of justification for a time,” then not only does this not “fit into our systematic theological system,” but rather our systematic theological system (read the Confession) is wrong.

Somewhat surprisingly, if only because of its brazenness, Moon has even flown his FV flag in the official magazine of the PCA, byFaith, where he is quoted saying:

I don’t attach a special value to eternal election over and above any other doctrine of the church. However, Paul emphasizes it to the Ephesians, but not the Corinthians, or the Galatians, or the Philippians. [The prophets of the Old Testament are] by and large silent on the issue of divine (eternal and effective) election: they are more interested in the reality of ‘covenantal’ election, and urging those elected into the people of God by birth and promise to become and live like true people of God. That I take as more central to my task in preaching.

Of course the prophets of the Old Testament are not “by and large silent on the issue of divine election” at all.  God’s sovereign, eternal, and completely effective election is taught throughout the Old Testament.   But, notice, in opposition to “eternal and effective” election, according to Moon there is another type of election that is clearly neither eternal or effective and that is “covenantal election” in which people supposedly enter into by birth and not by faith.    Notice too that maintaining this so-called “covenantal election” is premised on living like the “true people of God”  and this is the “central task” of Moon’s preaching.  Clearly the Gospel is not one of Moon’s central tasks. Besides sounding like the typical FV scheme of works righteousness,  Moon is just regurgitating the old Jewish and Pharisaic belief that they had some special entitlement or claim to the Kingdom by virtue of their birth, something Paul refutes in Romans 4.  As John Robbins observes in Not Reformed At All:

Physical circumcision, to which the Jews looked for assurance [or baptism to which Federal Visionists look for assurance-SG] of their favor with God, had no part to play in Abraham’s salvation — and it has no part to play in the salvation of his children either. “For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law [and no one does], but if you are a breaker of the law [and everyone is] your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”  Further, “this blessedness” (Romans 4:6, 9) that is, salvation apart from works, comes on all who believe, whether they are physically circumcised or not. Paul further explained the reasons:

“For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all [Romans 4:13-16].”

The first reason for justification by faith alone that Paul presents is that the promise was not made to Abraham or his seed through the law, that is through their law-keeping, as the Jews misunderstood the Covenant, but through the righteousness received by faith alone. Paul says that if those who are of the law — those who bear the marks of the covenant and keep their noses clean, those whom Calvin called “saintlings” — are heirs of the promise, then the promise is made of no effect, for they are not saved, but objects of wrath.  Notice Paul’s argument here: The Jewish misinterpretation of the Covenant makes the promise of the Covenant ineffective (“of no effect”), for the circumcised [or Moon's baptized reprobates who all supposedly enter the Covenant by virtue of their birth and baptism- SG] are not saved, but are objects of wrath, just as he had proved in chapter 2. This is the same Jewish misinterpretation of the Covenant that infected medieval churches, Reformed churches in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and American Presbyterian and Reformed churches in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In the place of an effective, efficacious Covenant of Grace, in which God writes his laws in the minds of all the members of the Covenant, these churches substitute an ineffective, objective covenant in which reprobate (children of the flesh) and elect (children of the promise) alike receive the promises of God in baptism. In opposition to this counterfeit covenant, Paul teaches a Covenant of Grace in which “the promise might be sure to all the seed.”

Moon clearly maintains two classes or types of election; one effective and eternal and the other, well, not so much.  Moon’s doctrine of election by virtue of birth and his belief that the baptized reprobate are “in some sense” justified, even if only for a time,  stands in direct opposition to at least 5 of the 9 concluding declarations found in the PCA’s FV/NPP report:

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

While Moon has certainly demonstrated that his views are openly hostile to at least some of the conclusions of the PCA’s FV/NPP report,  Moon is certainly correct when he says; “Some are wanting to drive them all out [i.e., all those who share his anti-Christian parallel soteriological system and contradictory notion of baptism and justification] and are asking you [i.e., any remaining Christians in the Siouxlands Presbytery] to begin that exile.”  Of course, if the Siouxland Presbytery is any example, and despite all of his self-righteous carping, men like Moon have nothing to fear.   At the rate things are going it will be those remaining Christians in the PCA, those who still believe and love the Gospel, and who still adhere to the plain meaning of Confession, that will be driven out and sent into exile.

Let’s face it, when Moon asserts that the reprobate both get and do not get justification he’s in good company in the PCA.  Admittedly, if A were A and not non-A then it would follow that if no reprobate “gets justification,” then no reprobate is ever justified.  Of course, and as readers of this blog already know, the laws of logic don’t apply to the Federal Vision and their fellow travelers.  Common theological words like “reprobation,” “election,” and “justification” are completely malleable and can take on entirely different and even contradictory meanings that are supposed to be read “charitably” by Federal Vision opponents as they are systematically tied up in knots.

In the Federal Vision one might be reprobate one day, justified the next, and reprobate on the day after.  The only seeming difference in Moon’s confused mind is that the “baptized reprobate do get forgiveness of sin in some real sense.” Therefore it would seem that the water of baptism and the mumblings of some PCA priestling has the power to confer the forgiveness of sins thereby justifying at least one class of reprobates.  This obvious sacerdotalism aside, if the “baptized reprobate do get forgiveness of sin in some real sense” then why call them reprobate at all?   If they are reprobate all they received in baptism is a damp head as they perhaps repeat some words they don’t believe emanating like so much wind from the mouth of some pastor.  Again, if this Aquila Report account is true, and I have no reason to think that it isn’t, then not only should TE Lawrence be tried, but they should find a nice padded cell for TE Moon.

Thankfully, the Session of Foothills Community Church in Sturgis, S.D. made an overture requesting that the Presbytery do just that.  The Foothills’ Session asked the Presbytery to conduct a similar judicial investigation of the views of Joshua Moon. Unfortunately, it appears that despite the efforts of the Foothills Session, debate that included direct questioning of Moon was evidently quickly cutoff and the motion was called finding “no strong presumption of guilt” in the case of Moon.   Not only has another seeming Federal Visionist been exonerated by the Siouxlands Presbytery, but they have also effectively sanctioned the insane contradictory teachings of a lunatic.

It would seem that the next question is why does anyone need the findings of an investigative committee to file charges against either Moon or Lawrence?  In the case of Lawrence, they already have one set of findings from one committee, why not simply file charges based on those?  So what if the majority rejects the committee’s findings?   I would think there still has to be some recourse for those in the minority against this FV controlled majority even in the PCA?   Besides, PCA BCO 31-2 states:

If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case.

Nowhere does it mentioned that the findings of the committee have to be approved by the majority before the court is required to institute process.    The only thing required is that if an investigation, “however originating, should result in a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process….”  Well, at least one investigation was held and there was found a “strong presumption of guilt.”  In the case of Moon, the finding of no presumption of guilt based on whatever limited floor debate and questioning should be immediately challenged at the GA level.  I would imagine that if charges were filed in either case and the Presbytery ruled that there is insufficient grounds to bring charges or some other technicality, their decision could be appealed to the the General Assembly.  Frankly, if the GA isn’t forced to get more involved in rooting out Federal Visionists it won’t be long before the GA is run by Federal Visionists and their many enablers.

Regardless of what happens next, the decision to completely exonerate Moon also brings into question the Presbytery’s sincerity in their seeming “repentance” for hastily dismissing the findings of the first investigative committee and exonerating Lawrence.  It would appear that Moon and Lawrence share many of the same views, Moon said they do, so how can they “repent” of their actions in the Lawrence case while simultaneously exonerating Moon?   Is this some sort of Federal Vision shell game?  I think so.  On the other hand, I may have spoken too soon when I said that the Presbytery repented of hastily dismissing the findings of the investigative committee and exonerating Lawrence.  Given their track record, perhaps they were repenting of not receiving a report that found a strong presumption of guilt for a man they’ve already cleared of any presumption of guilt.   Now that would be par for the course.

James said “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” It would seem the same is true for entire Presbyteries along with the denominations they belong to. But, then, maybe the Presbytery isn’t so “double minded” after all and was only repenting of appointing an investigative committee that found 4-2 against Lawrence? I mean, 24-13 to dismiss the findings of the first committee is pretty convincing and there are plenty to choose from in order to ensure that this new committee comes to the same conclusion as the majority in the case of Moon and Lawrence before him. I guess the question is which side of the column were the new committee members drawn?

Add to this the fact that many of even the best and most able FV opponents already accept the idea that logic must be curbed and that two sides of any seeming contradiction not only may be, but in many cases, must be true, and the deadly nonsensical doublespeak of the Federal Vision will again be affirmed as an act of Christian charity. And, if what I argue is true of many of the most able FV opponents, then what can anyone expect from those amiable marshmallows in the middle who would rather bury all of this silly and divisive FV stuff, let bygones be bygones, and continue on as one big happy PCA family? Instead of binding these slimy eels to the Word of God and the laws of reason, many of those rightly opposed to the FV help tie the noose by which another Presbytery is hung. And, while the Siouxlands Presbytery may seem to be a rather small and inconsequential presbytery, it is just one more battlefield that is about to fall as the FV continues its march toward complete control the entire denomination.  Don’t think it can happen?  Then you don’t know your Presbyterian history.

“I believe that concentrating too much on on the Fed “conspiracy,” one that works hand in hand with Congress, gives the system more credit or blame than it deserves and distracts from the more important issue of bad ideology.”  -Ron Paul, End the Fed,121

The irony is that the conspiracy mongers (and you know who you are), as well intentioned as they may be, or as seemingly plausible their loosely “connect-the-dots” theories may be, greatly help to perpetuate the Fed and keep its actual freedom destroying function from ever entering into the public consciousness.  That’s because those who are always looking to tie everything to some conspiracy make the whole thing so much easier to dismiss as just another product of the fevered minds of wackos.

It is gratifying when on occasion others have drawn the same conclusion that you have even when so many others seem perpetually oblivious to the painfully obvious.  For a number of years I have been saying, or rather yelling, that there is no such thing as justification by faith alone in the Federal Vision.  For that reason I have called men like Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Steve Schlissel, Peter Leithart, Mark Horne, Jeffery Meyers, Norman Shepherd, John Kinnaird, and a host of others heretics.  Feel free to include N.T. Wright and the followers of the so-called New Perspectives on Paul in that list, but for my purposes here I just want to pick on Federal Visionists and not the other dogs that travel in their pack.  Identifying such men as heretics  would seem to be a biblical imperative like the one found in Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”  Some like R. S. Clark are uneasy about calling these notable false teachers heretics, and even refuses to do it, even though he admits, “The FV is a profound corruption of the gospel masquerading as the Reformed faith.” You’d think if Clark really believed that he’d be right there following the Apostle Paul’s lead sounding the alarm that these men are indeed accursed to hell (Galatians 1:8).  And, it’s for this reason men like Clark refuse to identify these FV teachers as heretics, because, he says, he’s “not anxious to see folk in hell.”  Well, neither am I, but I am quite confident that neither R. S. Clark or I  have that kind of juice.  I would rather that all of the above mentioned self-styled Christian teachers would repent of their identified and deadly doctrines.  Yet, even with all the official statements and studies condemning their doctrines, these men remain entrenched, solidly committed to their corrupt gospel “masquerading as the Reformed faith.”

What seems to leave more than a few TEs and REs (teaching and ruling elders) bewildered, and hesitant to mark these men as they should and instead call them “brothers,”  is that some of the FV’s leading advocates and defenders will from time to time claim to believe in justification by faith alone.  The question is, why does anyone believe them?  Even the current Antichrist in Rome recently told a general audience that “Luther’s phrase: ‘faith alone’ is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” Should we just assume that Razinger (aka Benedict XVI) has abandoned Romanism and is now a Protestant; a Christian?  Why is it “charitable” to believe the profession of ersatz-Reformed pastor with a Roman soteriology and not when the same is said by Roman bishop with a funny hat?  Shouldn’t we assume because the pope said “faith alone is true” that the divide that has separated Protestants and Catholics for centuries is nothing more than an ancient artifact from a time when everyone wore funny hates?   Of course, what may seem to be an issue of semantics to some is a matter of life and death to others.  For example, concerning the above mentioned papal affirmation of Luther’s phrase, “faith alone” R. S. Clark points out,  that the whole question comes down to that little conditional “if”:

That conditional, that “if,” makes all the difference in the world. That one little conditional is the difference between Rome and Wittenberg. Why? After all, Protestants affirm that faith alone is not opposed to charity (love) or sanctification. That’s certainly true, but the question here is whether the Benedict means by “faith” what we mean by it and whether we’re talking about the same justification and the same role of faith? For us Protestants, charity is the fruit and evidence of justification. Is it so for Benedict? If so, he’s abandoned his own catechism and magisterial Roman dogma since 1547. That would be remarkable indeed!

Read in its broader context (Roman dogma since 1547) and in its immediate context it becomes clear that he has not capitulated to Luther. The little expression “faith in charity” is a shorthand way of expressing the Roman doctrine that it is “faith formed by love” that justifies, i.e. faith justifies because and to the degree that it sanctifies. The “supreme pontiff” (so much for the theologia crucis) knows what he’s doing. He’s a German theologian.

Let’s let him explain what he means by “justification.

“Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.”

We can see exactly what the pope means by “justification” and why he says “faith alone is true” provided it is definitionally related to charity and the works of love.  According to Razinger, it is through faith that we are “conformed to Christ” and it is this process that ultimately  justifies us before the throne of God.  The problem should be obvious and what Razinger attributes to justification Luther rightly attributes to sanctification.  This is the central issue of the Reformation.  Reformation 101.  Justification is a fiat once-for-all  declaration that occurs the moment someone first believes. We are accounted as righteous not because of anything or any change that occurs within us, or, that we are by any means actually righteous, but are accounted as righteous because of Christ’s righteousness (His active and passive obedience, i.e., His life) imputed to us.  By contrast, sanctification is an ongoing process that occurs throughout a believers  life whereby we are being formed by the work of the Spirit more and more into the likeness of Christ as we mortify the work of the flesh and grow in personal or subjective righteousness.  However, sanctification contributes absolutely nothing to our justification.   While sanctification naturally follows or flows from justification, the two doctrines are necessarily and logically distinct. It’s absurd that anyone would ever think God’s work in us could ever satisfy God’s absolute standard of justice apart from us as long as the stain of sin remains.  Purgatory isn’t going to help anyone either.  The ongoing transformation that occurs as the result of our progressive sanctification is something that is never perfected in this life (Methodists notwithstanding), is wrought with sin even in the seemingly most sanctified sinner (see 1 Tim 1:15, Romans 7), and, again, contributes absolutely nothing to our justification before the bar of God’s justice.  That’s why it should be no surprise that the pope appeals to Galatians 5:6 in support of Rome’s scheme of justification.  It is the faith that works through love and not faith alone that justifies.

That said, have you ever noticed how often Federal Visionists make the exact same arguments whenever they discuss justification even justification by faith alone?  Compare what Razinger writes above concerning faith’s relationship to justification to what Doug Wilson has written in light of his feeble and failed attempt to harmonize the seeming contradictory use of “justification” in  James and Paul:

The solution of the whole problem is provided by Paul himself in a single phrase. In Gal. 5:6, he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.” “Faith working through love” is the key to an understanding both of Paul and James. The faith about which Paul has been speaking is not the idle faith which James condemns, but a faith that works. It works itself out through love. And what love is Paul explains in the whole last division of Galatians. It is no mere emotion, but the actual fulfilling of the whole moral law. “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Gal. 5:14). Paul is fully as severe as James against a faith that permits men to continue in sin. The faith about which he is speaking is a faith that receives the Spirit who gives men power to lead a holy life.

So, when Wilson talks about justification by faith alone it should be clear that what he means is identical to what Ratzinger means.   Ratzinger and Wilson both appeal to Galatians 5:6 as evidence that the faith that saves is that faith that “works through love.” Like Ratzinger, Wilson denies that merely believing the Gospel can justify any man:

So what is meant by faith? According to James faith without works is dead; according to Paul faith is all sufficient for salvation. But what does James mean by faith? The answer is perfectly plain. The faith which James is condemning is a mere intellectual assent which has no effect upon conduct.

Now, what exactly is a mere intellectual assent that has no affect upon conduct?  In reply Wilson makes reference to James 2:19 and the old saw about demonic faith, completely oblivious to the fact that James is discussing monotheism and the demonic belief that God is one.   Yet, even this belief in the unity of the Godhead affects the conduct of demons, for James tells us that they tremble as a result.   How this verse can be marshaled as proof that justification by belief alone is false or somehow insufficient all by itself is a mystery?  Beyond that one failed example, Wilson doesn’t provide any other examples of an intellectual assent that has no affect upon conduct.  If someone assents to the Communist Manifesto or believes that the government has a duty to provide health-care for all of its citizens, will it not have an affect on their conduct or at least on how they vote?  I should think it would. By the same token, if someone assents to the truth of Jesus Christ and the Gospel will it not also affect the way they live; their behavior?  Again, I should think it would and James in fact argues this very point even if Federal Visionists and their big brothers in Rome fail to get it.

It should be crystal clear by now in Wilson’s Federal Vision, or in Ratzinger’s Romanism,  that without the concomitant conduct no man can be justified.  Faith alone or mere intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel cannot justify anyone, therefore it follows that Christ’s work alone that a sinner receives and rests on for their justification  is insufficient to make any man right before God.  Our conduct is required because without works done through faith faith alone is “dead.”   So says Razinger.  So says Wilson.  Of course, Jesus disagrees with these two brazen religious heretics.  In  John 5:24 Jesus said;  “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”  Oddly, Jesus doesn’t seem at all concerned with the affect this belief will have upon conduct and as it relates to justification, rather the one who believes has already passed from death to life and is already justified.  The will not “come into judgment” at any time. Belief alone and nothing else is required, much less “faith working through love,” in order to be justified.  Jesus says in the next chapter of John’s Gospel; “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”  Notice, the flesh, what we do or what is wrought in us, profits nothing, but the very words or doctrines Jesus spoke are “spirit and are life.” Again, belief alone will suffice.  And, if that still wasn’t enough, add to that what Jesus says  in Chapter 8  to believing Jews: “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;  and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”   If we abide or believe in Jesus’ word, his doctrines, we shall know the truth and be set free from the curse and penalty of sin (John 8:34).  By mere belief alone we are  truly His disciples.  Notably absent again from Jesus’ words is the need for any concomitant works, even works done in love and through faith.   That’s not to say that our assent to the truths of the Gospel won’t affect our conduct, but rather our conduct should not be confused or conflated with an assent to the truth resulting in justification.  A man is saved by mere or simple belief or faith alone and not through some Roman or Federal Vision fusion of faith and works no matter how cleverly disguised.   Believing is believing and doing is doing.   Not so in Romanism or in the Federal Vision. This also is why Federal Visionists will often attempt do differentiate belief from faith when in fact these words mean the exact same thing in Scripture and are translations derived from the exact same Greek word pistis.

Which brings us back to how gratifying it is when others seem to draw the same conclusion that you have.  Recently on Darryl Hart’s blog, Old Life, Reformed Faith and Practice, a small band of Federal Visionists were busy defending Norm Shepherd as a perfectly good Christian man and teacher, a saint really, who fully affirms the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.  At one point one contributor, Nicholas Batzig,  taking exception to the claims of at least one of Shepherd’s defenders, wrote:

… Shepherd has developed the doctrine of justification in a way that those who hold to the Reformed doctrine of justification do not understand. It is precisely because he has ADDED an eschatological element to the biblical doctrine that we believe he has taken away from it. I think you might have misunderstood the point of my previous comment. Do you think that obedience is a part of fidei? Shepherd and the Federal Vision think so. Doug Wilson says as much in his article “A Pauline Take on the New Perspective. (Credenda/Agenda vol. 15, issue 5)” Expounding the nature of the three-fold definition of faith Wilson says, “It is the essential nature of fiducia to trust gladly in everything that God has spoken in His Word—whether law or gospel, Old or New Testaments, poems or prose, odd-numbered pages or even. This means that fides salvifica is related to ongoing fidelity, trust or obedience in the same way that a body is related to breathing. Without a body, there is nothing to breathe with. Without breathing, there is something that needs to be buried.” Wilson, as is true of Shepherd, lodges obedience or faithfulness in the third part of the essence of faith, namely, fiducia or trust. This is not what the Reformers and Puritans meant by fiducia. They meant what is expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith’s definition of faith–”receiving and resting on Christ alone as He is offered to us in the Gospel.” That is a largely passive act. It is not what we do, it is what Christ has done and our appropriation of it by faith.

Batzig point is exceptional and not only because it’s the same one I have made and in reference to the exact same 2003 Credenda article.  No one anywhere that I know of has leveled the same criticism against Wilson based on the same source.  Frankly, most just don’t seem to get it.  Yet,  Batzig exposes Wilson, and by extension Shepherd, by showing that Wilson includes obedience as the third or fiducial element of saving belief.

As the readers of this blog or the many publications of the Trinity Foundation already know, Gordon Clark demonstrated years ago that the traditional tri-fold definition of saving belief consisting of  a combination of understanding (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia) is tautological nonsense.  To define belief as trust is to define the word by itself.  To trust someone is to believe what they say and to believe someone is to trust what they say.  Consequently, and as Clark demonstrates, the history of how Reformed men have understood saving faith (which is of critical importance since it is intimately  and ultimately related to justification) is a morass of pious sounding psychological nonsense and confusion.  However, whereas most holding to the tautological and self-referencing tri-fold definition do not end up denying the Gospel, there are many out there who do. Wilson provides a powerful case in point.  Perhaps at one time  Clark’s critical analysis could be dismissed as a curiosity or the obscurant observations of some aging professor of philosophy.  Not any more.  FVist like Wilson, Shepherd, and others have been able to avoid the tautology charge by successfully adding trust in the sense of obedience as the central element that makes faith the sole instrument of justification. Salvation by faith and works through redefinition

This is precisely why James Jordan (who some call the Godfather of the Federal Vision) said :

A baby’s trust in his mother’s arms becomes the primary analogy for faith, as Jesus taught. As we grow, our understanding matures, and we expect mature faith to have lots of notitia and assensus; but fiducia is the foundation. It’s the Clark controversy with feet on it.

On justification, during the Shepherd controversy at WTS, it was shown time and again that Calvin and Bucer and various Scottish Seceders (part of Shepherd’s background, with the Covenanters) and Dutch theologians had all said exactly the same thing. The faculty and the OPC both examined and exonerated Shepherd. There’s no doubt but that Shepherd’s doctrine of justification is the Reformed traditional doctrine. But it is not the American evangelical doctrine, and that’s why the more broadly evangelical (largely Southern) bloc in the presbyterian churches could not fathom it.

… I think excitement about being Reformed is grossly sectarian. Jesus did not die to make me Reformed, and going around tooting a Reformed horn compromises the gospel, in my opinion. My theological understanding is thoroughly Reformed; within that broad stream. But I’m not of Paul, Apollos, or Reformed. And if that’s part of what’s offensive about the FV, so be it.

Jordan recognizes, better than most, that Clark’s analysis of saving faith strikes at the heart of the entire Federal Vision, which perhaps explains why the “faculty [of Westminster Seminary] and the OPC both examined and exonerated Shepherd.”    That’s because Clark’s clear, logical, and biblical analysis strips away the Reformed veneer from the Federal Vision’s Romanish doctrine of justification which is nothing more than a scheme of salvation by faith and works.  That is why Jordan calls the fight over the Federal Vision “the Clark controversy with feet on it.”  Like Wilson, Jordan sees the relationship of fiducia to saving faith as the linchpin on which this entire controversy hangs.  And,  so there can be no doubt, Jordan howled on another blog:

Some men remain in the PCA because God has told them they have a duty to help the 7000 who have not yet bowed the knee to antichrist. They hatred of the Kingship of Jesus, which characterizes so much of the PCA, is with fighting. The Reformed faith is that faith includes fiducia, and this is still worth fighting for, regardless of how many antinominian blogs hate it.

As the writer of what must be in  Jordan’s fevered mind an “antinomian blog,” I confess he is right for admittedly all the wrong reasons.   The Reformed faith is that faith that includes fiducia.  This is a something Gordon Clark sought to correct.  The Federal Vision defines fiducia or trust in the sense of obedience.  To their credit, their understanding of the fiducial element of saving faith completely avoids Clark’s charge that the tri-fold definition of faith is tautological nonsense.  In this sense the Federal Vision’s understanding of faith is superior to the traditional Reformed understanding of faith.  Therefore, if Jordan is correct and his understanding of fiducia is allowed to stand, the Reformed faith differs in no substantial way from the Roman Catholic faith when it comes to the question of faith’s role in justification and the schism is over.  Worse, if Jordan is right, the Reformed are the schismatics.

The rise of the Federal Vision and the NPP is the reason why John Robbins reissued Clark’s Faith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos in one volume, simply, What is Saving Faith? This book, more than any other, is the antidote to the Federal Vision’s superhighway to Rome.  And, while I have no doubt that Clark’s analysis is correct, correctly identifying the Federal Vision’s incorporation of obedience as the necessary and definitional component that makes ordinary faith saving does not require that one agrees with Clark — although it certainly helps.  If someone wants to continue to think of faith in nonsensical terms while patting themselves on the back for maintaining a meaningless and unscriptural tradition that they called “Reformed,” who am I to stop them?  The question is; why are so many schooled in the traditional seminary infused tri-fold definition of saving faith so completely unable to correctly draw out from Wilson and the other Federal Visionists their transparent Romanish deception (Mr. Batzig excepted)?  Could it be that these adherents to this well-worn traditional definition are simply blinded due to their own fiducial cup that remains forever empty and can’t see it being filled by clever con-men like Doug Wilson?  It would seem so, and, sadly, the joke is on them.

With the release of Clark And His Critics, Volume 7 in the Clark Signature Series, that includes the long out of print and hard to find even used, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark:  A Festschrift, edited by Ronald Nash, I thought I would offer up the following Clark Quick Quote that remains the core of the Trinity Foundation’s mission.

In addition to urging folks to support the Foundation’s ongoing work, right now TF is offering a great deal — 40% off retail — on all 8 volumes of the Clark Signature Series published so far.  That’s only $99 for the trade paperback or $149 for the hardback (plus S&H).  Clark’s work, all of it, is a must for any thinking Christian’s library and is something you’re unlikely to find in any pablum pushing anemic Christian bookstore.  Besides, the Signature Series will look great on your bookshelf — and even better in your hands!

Now, onto Clark:

There have been times in the history of God’s people, for example, in the days of Jeremiah, when refreshing grace and widespread revival were not to be expected: The time was one of chastisement. If this twentieth century is of a similar nature, individual Christians here and there can find comfort and strength in a study of God’s Word. But if God has decreed happier days for us and if we may expect a world-shaking and genuine spiritual awakening, then it is the author’s belief that a zeal for souls, however necessary, is not the sufficient condition. Have there not been devout saints in every age, numerous enough to carry on a revival? Twelve such persons are plenty. What distinguishes the arid ages from the period of the Reformation, when nations were moved as they had not been since Paul preached in Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, is the latter’s fullness of knowledge of God’s Word. To echo an early Reformation thought, when the plough man and the garage attendant know the Bible as well as the theologian does, and know it better than some contemporary theologians, then the desired awakening shall have already occurred.

Get it here.  Or, read a review here.

As one can see from the above YouTube video, a rather thoughtful Australian atheist, Kelly Jones, has provided a short critique of the Scripturalism of John Robbins. I say “rather thoughtful” because her critique of Robbins is just silly. You’ll notice she does not object to Dr. Robbins defining the word Logos in Scripture as logic, but complains that he refers to the Logos of Scripture as something that exists.  Well, of course it… or better He…exists. To put it another way, Ms. Jones doesn’t deny that logic exists because she experiences it when she thinks.  In her YouTube profile she even says that reason is her “sole friend.”  However, and in the very passage Dr. Robbins explicates, the Apostle John explains why Ms. Jones experiences what she does.  That’s because John 1:9 tells us that  the Logos, the divine Second Person of the Trinity, “enlightens every man” (John 1:9).  The Bible, and not the atheistic positivism Ms. Jones presupposes, provides the account for logic in man.

Therefore, ironically and more than a bit tragically, what Ms. Jones is experiencing when she recognizes and affirms the architecture of her own mind, is God.  After all, besides the Scriptures teaching that man is the very image of God (2 Cor. 4:4) who is Logic, Paul explains in Romans 1 that unbelievers like Ms. Jones will, in spite of the clear testimony of Scripture and the truth of God revealed within her, suppress the truth. Ms. Jones has provided a classic example of the suppression of the truth even as she simultaneously recognizes and affirms it.  As Paul explains:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Notice, the truth of God is evident within Ms. Jones, to the point where she even refers to reason — the very Logos of God enlightening her mind – as her “sole friend.”  Yet, she suppresses the truth and merely asserts that the Logos of Scripture that lights her mind does not exist because, she claims, this is something she cannot experience. How foolish is that?

Later in the video Ms. Jones objects that Dr. Robbins does not explain why he accepts the definition of God given in the Scripture and simply assumes that the biblical definitions are true. This objections is also silly.  As opposed to her brand of logical positivism, Dr. Robbins has chosen the axiom of Scripture as his source of knowledge and truth. Her objection comes down to nothing more than Robbins is a Christian who accepts the Bible as true and as the axiomatic starting point of his philosophy and she does not. Big deal.

It has just brought to my attention that John Piper has invited Federal Vision pitchman and apologist Doug Wilson to speak at his Desiring God Conference in September.  Not only has Piper previously stated that the heretical and deadly doctrines of Wilson’s Federal Vision IS NOT another Gospel, now he has given FV spokesman Wilson a platform to further advance his FV heresy on unwitting Baptists.  The Judaizers never had it so good.

While as sinful as it is shameful, it is not surprising.  To anyone who has suffered through Piper’s Future Grace (you can read a review of the book here), Piper agrees with the central tenants of the Federal Vision including a denial of the Covenant of Works and a conditional view of grace and the gospel.

World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky (the same magazine that refused to publish Trinity Foundation’s Reformation Statement signed by R.C. Sproul and others)  will be sharing the stage with Wilson and Piper. I should point out that Olasky is (or at least was) an elder in the PCA.  If that’s the case, it is more evidence that the PCA’s committee report on the Federal Vision should be shredded for toilet paper.

For Piper and DG fans, here is a quick recap of Wilson’s theology taken from his book, Reformed is Not Enough, which he wrote to answer the “call to repentance” and heresy charges leveled against him by the  Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS).

First, for Wilson one doesn’t become a Christian by believing the Gospel, but rather becoming a Christian occurs through the waters of baptism.  Wilson writes, “A Christian… is anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an authorized representative of the Christian church”  Through the magic waters of baptism Wilson tells us that,  “both the true and false son are brought into the same relation” to Christ.

So what is the determining factor that separates the sheep from the goats? Wilson explains that “faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness…. But when we have faith that works its way out in love, which is the only thing that genuine faith can do, *then the condition that God has set for the fulfillment of His promise has been met”* (186-187, emphasis added).  Notice, God’s covenant promise, which of course includes the promise of salvation, is conditional and requires us to meet those conditions before we can receive them.  The conditions Wilson tells us are our own faithfulness and it is a faith that works.  God’s covenant promise is met only through our ongoing covenant faithfulness.  The ones who, through their faithfulness, “meet the condition that God has set for the fulfillment of His promise,” become sheep.

In Wilson’s “objective covenant” in which the sinner meets conditions and fulfills his covenantal obligations, thus qualifying himself for the salvation God has promised,  Wilson confuses works done as the result of sanctification with justification.

In case anyone missed it, or if anyone might be tempted to think that I am mischaracterizing Wilson, he also favorably quotes his fellow FV pastor Rand Booth: “Only faithful covenant membership (i.e., those full of faith in the Savior), receive the covenant blessings, *including the blessings of imputed righteousness” (emphasis added).  The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the result of being a faithful covenant member.  Wilson states “This is fundamental to the central point of this book.”

For Wilson it is the conditions of salvation that God sets at baptism that become the dividing line between salvation and damnation: “Those who obligate themselves under the terms of the covenant law to live by faith but then defiantly refuse to believe are cut away” (134). In Wilson’s scheme, “breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works” (134), and fulfilling the conditions of the covenant occurs by faith and good works.

Wilson rejects the historic Reformed and Biblical view of the Covenant of Grace in which Christ is the Mediator of the covenant and the Savior of his people.  As every Christian should already know, and certainly John Piper ought to know, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not contingent upon our “faithful covenant membership,” but solely upon Christ’s obedience to the will of the Father.

Wilson rejects the law/gospel distinction saying, “law and gospel divisions or grace and works divisions” is “a trap.”   Wilson asserts, contra Scripture, that belief alone in the truths of Scripture and the Gospel saves no one.  “I do not deny the propositional truth the solas refer to, but I do maintain that to limit them to mere propositions is to kill them. Faith without works is dead. The five solas without works are dead too. Propositions without works are dead — even if the propositions are true.”   Of course, Wilson contradict Christ who said “The words that I speak to you are Spirit, and they are life (John 6:63).”  And, contrary to works as a requirement or the one thing needful to make faith saving, Jesus said; “Most assuredly I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has [right now, not after doing some good works] everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has [already] passed from death to life (John 5:24).”  Wilson is a liar.

As John Robbins points out: “Wilson has things backwards: It is the true words, the propositions, that bring forth good works, not the works that make propositions living. The propositions are living and the source of life, and works are a kind of fruit of that life — a result, an effect of the living propositions. “

As we have seen, for Wilson Christians are saved by fulfilling the conditions of the covenant: “In the historic Protestant view, good works are inseparable from biblical salvation. They are not a condiment  to flavor a “raw” justification [i.e., read “fruit” - SG], but rather are definitionally related to justification…like the terms husband and wife.”   In Wilson’s theology, good works and justification are equals and correlatives, like husband and wife. Justification is not prior to, nor the cause or ground of sanctification and good works, but an equal and corresponding aspect of salvation. He adds;   “No one assumes that every husband will automatically have a successful marriage. Nor should we assume that every Christian will go to Heaven.”

In Wilson’s theology some Christians will go to Hell.

To avoid Hell, salvation requires our ongoing covenantal faithfulness in order to receive what Federal Visionists call “final justification” on the last day.  That’s because, and as we’ve seen in this brief summary, no man is saved by belief alone, but by belief plus works.

Wilson is a Christ denying heretic who has been warmly embraced by John Piper.  Now he will be a featured guest speaker at Piper’s next “Desiring God” conference.   Again, the Judaizers never had it so good.