Do John Piper and Doug Wilson Obscure Faith Alone? | Theocast
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 03. 2022
- Do John Piper and Doug Wilson Obscure Faith Alone? Here is how we approach this question in today's episode. Every generation has to come to grips with the gospel. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ to sinners--as our whole and only righteousness--has often been under assault in the history of the church. It is in our day in the form of the Federal Vision and the teaching of final justification. Jon and Justin engage with both of these errors today in an effort to clarify and defend the heart of the gospel, which is the righteousness of Christ counted to sinners.
Semper Reformanda: Jon and Justin go into more depth on the Federal Vision and then contend for the importance of confessions of faith, as well as the safety provided by a sound theological framework.
Resources:
Podcasts from Mid-America Reformed Seminary on Federal Vision www.midamerica.edu/podcasts/m...
R. Scott Clark on Federal Vision heidelblog.net/2018/08/resour...
Our episode on final justification (live from CA) theocast.org/live-qa-on-final...
Our episode on how the gospel terrifies Christians theocast.org/why-the-gospel-t...
SUPPORT Theocast:
theocast.org/give/
FACEBOOK:
Theocast: / theocast.org
TWITTER:
Theocast: / theocast_org
Jon Moffitt: / jonmoffitt
INSTAGRAM:
Theocast: http: / theocast_org
#federalvision #finaljustification #romecatholic
You guys are great at lifting the load that so easily creeps onto our backs. Thank you!
You guys are hitting all of the good topics. I feel like this channel was made for me. That recent "Have I repented enough?" was so needed by the soul of this "habitual sinner". Love it. Thank you.
Thanks!!!!
who isn't a habitual sinner? haha
I continue to hear The Gospel anew every time I’m hearing you guys! I’m so encouraged by you Men! Thanks for shedding more clarity on The Gospel!
Sure, if you count misrepresenting another Christian's beliefs and teachings as being "clarity on the Gospel", well, then, there you go.
Someone's christian beliefs dont matter if they are not rightly dividing the word.
Any gospel that changes or adds to the definition of faith is not rightly dividing the word. @@stegokitty
@@MikejHamel I agree wholeheartedly. Now, in what way does Douglas Wilson disqualify himself? That is my point.
Being someone who's just coming out from a more evangelical, speaking in tongues, etc Church and being in limbo trying to find a Reformed Church nearby.. This helped a lot. Not being able to attend Church regularly yet always made me worried about my Salvation. Thank you for this.
Brother, I recommend that even if you have to move to be able to go to a Reformed church, do so. I know it's not easy for I had to do the same thing, but it's been a blessing to share in the ordinary means of grace with the community body of my brothers and sisters. I encourage you to reach out to that church and see if they can help out. I'm only encouraging you friend and may God give you and your family extra grace in Christ during your search. God bless
Totally agree with brother razzendahcuben here. Definitely a blessing for the body of Christ what theocast is doing all the time, pointing the weary sinner to Christ ;) , keep up the great work guys :)
Thanks for the encouragement!
Nice to see you guys defending monergism in sanctification. Keep up the good fight. Speakers like you are rare.
Yes! Just what I need.
I completely understand why there are these little works-based theologies that pop up. We are so fearful that God isn’t able to preserve and maintain his people and are afraid of people “falling away”.
I especially think of my days as a 90s Calvary chapel (Arminian theology) kid. We were taught once saved always saved, no matter how you act afterward. I feel that Federal Vision is just another method to keep people on the straight and narrow and to provide assurance which everyone desires. Sadly, I see this theology as something that repels people from covenant theology. A lot of people believe that’s what covenant theology is.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Interesting how the Law gets softer all the sudden when people are using it to prove their justification.
Thank you for clearly preaching the gospel and courageously identifying the error of the Galatians.
On a recent "Apologetics Live" Andrew Rappaport ( Striving For Eternity) defended John Piper's "Final Justification." Andrew thinks it's just Piper " nuancing" Jonathan Edwards. After all, that's all John Piper was doing with his " Christian Hedonism".....nuancing Edwards. Dr. R. Scott Clark has written about Jonathan Edwards' faulty view of justification by faith alone. What's the blind spot with people such as Rappaport?
Great podcast guys. Doing anything outside the grace through faith message, is putting my Savior back on the cross.
You have to trust Jesus 💯
Thank you for this podcast! You are both so clear and stand on the truth of Scripture while still being gentle and kind. I so appreciate your ministry. :) Jon and Justin -- I would like it if you would tell us how to address folks who oppose what you taught in this podcast using the following statement below. I have personally heard this argument so many times with statements indicating that they haven't heard or read DW or JP say anything false and until I do, I don't believe he/they are teaching false doctrine.
"If you want to know what Doug thinks about federal vision, justification, or continued growth in the Christian life, the Reformed Basics video series is a great place to go, as his blog.
He denies he’s part of the FV movement and puts himself in the Westminsterian camp. For DW specifically, I think it might be good to examine his language a bit more closely in his blog, or in Reformed Basics videos, to see if he’s matching what you’re criticizing - he’s holding both to covenantal objectivity and traditional evangelical distinctions on the offensiveness of being justified by trusting in Jesus’s merits alone. No doubt he’s been confusing sometimes, but I think identifying him with the federal vision movement or in confusing law and gospel, I think is unwarranted."
@Linda, a question for you.........Do you think DW isn't teaching false doctrines because of James White?
@ Carnen...I do think DW teaches a false gospel. I reread my post and see that it is confusing; I apologize for that. I'm not sure how to answer the part about James White.
@@lindabalko7813 Thanks for your reply. I reread it....and now I see what you are saying. I have written the same kind of comment directed to Jon and Justin 🙂
I would also like to know how to answer that argument " I haven't heard DW or JP say anything false." I haven't listened to James White/DW sweater vest dialogues, but Dr. R. Scott Clark has written about them. James White always asks DW about things that are orthodox....but never pushes him on the unorthodox stuff. Have you listened to the latest Presbycast Live? Dr. Clark and Dr. Hart address John Frame and John Murray.....and how John Murray opened the door for Norman Shepherd.
I read the federal vision statement and I understood it to proclaim faith alone, but to emphasize that living faith isn’t alone; meaning, living faith (the only faith that God gives) naturally produces good works. Also, good works (and the desire to do them) comes from God, too.
Why is this controversial?
The JFVP is not orthodox because the authors express themselves with unorthodox terms. “…personally loyal faith…” is one such term. A more recent Theocast episode develops this more. Federal Visionists redefine faith to be faithfulnes (ie, “personally loyal faith”), which was the error the Reformation was fought over.
Agree, Not sure why these brothers can’t understand that concept
Not true though, that implies that if you have faith but no works, you don't have faith and aren't saved, very controversial and not biblical, to the one who works not, but believes, their FAITH is counted for righteousness:
Romans 4:5
King James Version
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Works play 0 role in obtaining or maintaining salvation and faith from God.
@@btodd777Because works play 0 role in obtaining or maintaining salvation, if someone never worked, but believes, they're FAITH is sufficient:
Romans 4:5
King James Version
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
@@Jesusbloodissufficient9434 work plays no role in salvation, but you know a person has faith by his works. What’s hard about this?
Somewhat off topic... I keep hearing about Thomism. Can you guys do a show on that? What is the payoff? What is the problem (if any) they believe Aquinas solves for us? In other words, what do they think we've been missing out on? I don't quite get it.
Great
✅ good video
I am seeking to truly understand this...but I am always running into this: what is being represented is not what I am explicitly and clearly hearing. I have not yet heard from Doug, any where, and I've been trying to find it, believe me, for example: that works have any salvific implication, or that baptism also has that power apart from Regeneration initiated, driven and empowered by God thru faith alone. They talk about the visible vs invisible church differentiation as a parallel to Abraham ( who believed) and his descendants ( who not all believed) but still enjoyed promisses of the covenant to Israel, which were different than salvation itself (invisible church). And than the question on the "living faith" wording...but even than how it is always explained is as a fact that all Faith given by GOD is alive and is followed by works as its natural outworking, not as the reason for salvation or even for "being kept". I have not, ever, in all my search found a comment about works as one "arm" of the faith works salvation system. I am appreciative of the effort but still.. I also have not seeing it manifest into practice or off the cuff commentary as you expect to see of people who HIDE their real intent and belief, I just have not seen it, at least in Doug's work, which is the one I've been "testing"... Blessings.
Could you guys please talk about something that's often missing from the foundations of explaining sola anything. To me it often seems like the the red herring in the room, when it should be front and centre....
Union with Christ 😁
Particularly the dual "in" of "in Christ", that is, I in Christ, Christ in me.
I think there's issues to be had when only one of the two is believed.
Blessings
Are you guys referring to John Piper's Ask Pastor John podcast episode # 1166 "Will We Be Finally 'Saved' by Faith Alone" specifically? If not, may I suggest you read/listen to it carefully and see if you still think Piper is obscuring sola fide.
Thank you for the encouragement, we have heard and read everything he has presented old and new and have come to our conclusion as have many other reformed, he is holding to a position that is inline with his teacher Andrew Fuller. Piper is confusing the law and gospel bringing the law back into play in our salvation.
I am an ex Roman Catholic this is so sad to me to see alleged reformed. people go off the rails like this.
It is sacerdotal, it is back to Rome. Piper does not surprise me because I consider him a gnostic and a mystic and having extra biblical revelation through speaking in tongues.
What surprises me is Doug Wilson very sad.. Back to the 5 solas please?
//What surprises me is Doug Wilson very sad.. Back to the 5 solas please?//
Douglas Wilson in now way, shape, nor form, has abandoned the 5 solas.
Candice Owen's went to Rome so no I will too.
There’s a flattening going on in this conversation as well. Specifically of “baptism.” And I suspect the Federal Vision guys are in one sense seeking to be more faithful to historic protestantism. The confessional protestant view is that water baptism causes or initiates, in some unknown mysterious way, God to do a work of grace, i.e. baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the one baptized in water. Faith in this instance is in the doing of the sacrament and/or in what it supposedly initiates. There is a works/grace consequential relationship happening in the flattening of baptism into a “sacrament”. As such the Federal Vision guys are simply being consistent.
He has completed the work, positionally, in Christ.
Please pray for me I don’t understand much I fear I’ve fallen from Grace I suffer from self condemnation
Have you read our assurance book or free ebook on Rest? Theocast.org/primer
We are so sorry to hear about this struggle. Lord give mercy in times in doubt
You don't fall from his grace as long as you're still alive, once you're saved by grace through faith, you're forever saved, there's no losing your salvation, as long as you trusted in him alone, his death, bloodshed and resurrection as enough for your sins, you are sufficiently saved FOREVER 😊!
This is so good. Now I know why I always weary of reformed bc john McArthur, John piper and the like kept saying one thing and then when you boil it down, it really seemed catholic to me. Initial justification by faith and final by works. Meaning you are not SAVED.. but being saved or hope to be saved.
The reason is simple, protestantism believed the same thing Catholics do, but they just don't realize it due to cognitive dissonance.
10:17 FV main features
I wonder how much the Federal Vision and Neo-Nomianists in the Protestant camp are being influenced by Eastern Orthodox Christianity and not just Rome. I say that because much of these different ways of smuggling in works alongside faith or making works essential for Justification sound very Eastern, esp. the idea of "Final Justification."
Maybe we are wrong on justification and the Orthdoxy are right.
Why can’t you guys and cross politics link up and debate … welcome Doug into the conversation as well ? Both have big platforms … would be a great debate / discussion.
Did Paul hang out with the Judiazers for some lively debate, or did Paul call out their heresy and warned the church to mark and avoid them? We don’t entertain heretics; we mark and avoid them.
No reason to give those who hold to heresy unmerited legitimacy by debating them.
@@ExaminingMoscow true
Since covenants can be between equals or unequals as in the case of man and woman in marriage or man and God. Since Adam was a creature, it was a covenant of unequals, how can the covenant between Adam and God not be a covenant of Grace from the beginning. Covenants between equals give both advantages to both parties and also require responsibilities. In the covenant with Adam there was no advantage for God. It is purely a covenant of grace. I know the WC calls it a covenant of works, but it doesn’t make sense.
I really support your views in this video. Thank you!
28:22 How is faith not counted as righteousness? Our obedience is not righteousness? Faith is the demand, the Law of Faith, and when we "obey" that "Law", when we "believe", it is "counted as righteousness", we are "abiding in Christ", and the proof is He has given us His Spirit (eg, Galatians 3:1-3). "Faith is counted as righteousness" is actually explicitly taught. Yes, it is given by God, so it is "God Is Our Righteousness".
29:23 Does God see us as "sinless"? How does God address the Churches' sins (Revelation 2,3), then? How does God deliver people up to satan (1 Co 5) or strike unworthy partakers of the communion with sickness and/or death (1 Co 11)? How does He ever "rebuke" anyone in the Church? It seems as though He does see our sins. "I have not found your works perfect before My God."
Final justification is a straight false gospel. It's an accursed message. Saying that you are initially saved by faith, but finally saved by works, is nothing but a deceptive, dishonest, deceitful way of pushing works salvation. If you are finally saved by works, you are saved by works, period. What good is it to be initially saved by faith, if you are finally saved by works? That is not flirting with Rome. That is the literal soteriology of the Roman Catholic Church. That is a Christless, crossless, bloodless, "gospel", which is not another gospel. It is an accursed message. Galatians 1.
Doug Wilson makes clear that we’re covenant keepers by faith ie our obedience to the covenantal obligations of the covenant of Grace is something that happens by faith alone. In other words, our sanctification is by faith alone which no orthodox Christian would disagree with.
What Christian would deny that there are covenantal obligations as covenant members. We aren’t justified by faith alone only to live how ever we’dlike. God is working in us both to will and to do for his good pleasure (Ephesians 2:10).
The point of the objectivity of the covenant is that we are able to address all baptized Christians as those who are elect just like the writers of the NT did without trying to know if someone is regenerate or not since that is something only God can know.
Also, there is a distinction to be made in regards to union with Christ. The church is called the body of Christ and the Bible teaches that we are united to the body of Christ in baptism. There is also a union with Christ via the Holy Spirit after regeneration. When FV guys talk about baptism uniting someone to Christ (Romans 6) they’re talking about covenantal union to the body of Christ ie the church.
This is how they make sense of passages like John 15, Romans 11, and 1 Corinthians 10 that talk about being cut off after having been united to Christ because of unbelief.
There is also not a monolithic system from FV guys. Wilson makes the distinction between FV Dark and FV amber ale. Wilson would be an amber ale FV guy and so would I.
Also, Wilson believes in Covenant of Works but prefers to call it the Covenant of Life or the Covenant of Creation because of the tendency for CofW term being misunderstood by some
How many people do you read that appose Wilson’s view?
Justin and John, do you have a video with your thoughts on free grace theology?
I see no differences.
Maybe I need a pre-introductory video.
Many times one can read a statement of belief and not really get the the consequential intricacies. I’m not sure why but I can’t understand how what is presented here is Calvinism.
There’s nothing I find that I disagree with here.
Piper teaches there are 2 salvations. One where you get right with God and one where you get to go to heaven. He says it is not the same thing.
First time hearing the name Doug Wilson.
By "obedience" do you mean that coming from a heart changed by Christ?
Final justification by works is terrible news not good news
Christ be with you
St Paul said its the way.
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Rom 2:13)
It is because our faith, not being alone, but upholding the law ti can justify us.
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.(Rom 3:31)
come to Christ
@@MrKev1664 But in the context of Romans 2, and really the first 3 chapters of the letter, Paul is driving home the perfect requirements of the law and our inability to meet them. One verse before 2:13 illustrates this well: "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." All mankind has sinned either without the law (the Gentiles), or under the law (the Jews). He is not saying that the Christian will be justified by keeping the law.
@@TheLordismyportion
Christ be with you
No, it is impossible to keep the Law.
St Paul is speaking in Hyperbole.
We are given examples of people who have kept it.
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari′ah, of the division of Abi′jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luke 1:5-6)
He is definitely saying those who keep the Law will be justified. (rom 2:13)
The problem is never about us not being able to keep the Law but us choosing not to.
Rom 2:1-4 is telling us that works of the Law , circumcision animal sacrifice etc will not justify they will not make us right with God,
But he is also telling us in the faith we must live by we must uphold the Law. (Rom 3:31)
He tells us this again In Gal 6:1-10
Come to Christ and Live
It's bad news for those of us who won't obey God.
39:46 "Whenever you redefine the terms of salvation, and you start to redefine faith, and you start to redefine this thing to include faithfulness and obedience, assurance is now impossible, and we are at least flirting with giving away the Good News, because we are introducing a 'Jesus... plus' kind of theology."
I would like to disagree with this, based only on the text, but, in my own experience, if I step away from "Christ saved me", I have satanic visitors God sends to torment me to remind me I had better get back in line--and as soon as I trust in "Christ saved me--it's Christ, nothing to do with me" they disappear.
There is not a problem with affirming the second tablet of the Law of Faith, but there is a wrong way to approach it, it seems--and I am praying that God will bring me in line with the Scripture, so I will keep the second tablet of the Law of Faith without breaking the first ("believe on the Name of the Son of God").
40:11 "...as far as I understand it... is what the letter of Galatians is all about."
Well, I will copy and paste my reply from another video of yours:
This seems inaccurate: Paul's argument against the "under Law" (Gal 4:21) for "perfection/maturation" (Gal 3:1-3) false Gospel (Gal 1:6-9) is not "just believe in Christ," it is, "through love, serve one another" by "faith which works by love". This is why the believer who does not walk by faith, but doubts what he does, has "sinned" and is "condemned" (his "justification" has been compromised--this also preempts an interpretation of "Who is the one who condemns? It is God Who justifies!" as meaning "You can never be condemned") in Ro 14:5,23.
Paul's issue with being "under Law" is its "weakness" with respect to producing righteousness and acquiring the eternal life/Holy Spirit promised to the righteous: it is "a righteousness of my own", which relies on "sinful flesh" (Ro 8:3; Gal 3:3), not "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6), which relies on God's working goodness.
If we begin by the Spirit, hearing with faith, we also serve/become perfected/mature by the same way of believing (eg, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus Christ that nothing is unclean in itself")--that's Paul's argument.
Being "under Law" versus "under Grace" is an issue of who you are beholding: the Law guides your attention to the sinful flesh, thus it is weakened by that reliance, but Grace guides your attention to God, through Christ, and Christ and God are not weak but rich with all the goodness needed for the task of making us righteous and qualifying us for eternal life/the Spirit.
To turn to Christ is to be "crucified to the world", the death of the flesh (Ro 6:6, 7:1-6), and the Law that pertains to the Jew in the flesh (Ro 7:1, 5, 8:3, 9; Gal 2:19, 3:3), and, by the same token, turning to the Law is, of necessity, turning back to the flesh, egged on by a demon ("doctrines of demons" that make people walk after the flesh instead of by the spirit mortifying the deeds of the flesh), and is to be severed from Christ (Gal 5:4): again, it's an issue of what you're beholding, or where you're pointing your "straw" to gather strength/righteousness/virtue from.
This is merely the second tablet of the Law of Faith: the first tablet of the Law of Faith is "believe on the Name of the Son of God" (receiving God's love), and the second tablet of the Law of Faith is "love one another" (reflecting God's love you received by obeying the first tablet). How do you "love others as I have loved you"?
You act on Holy Spirit-inspired convictions you received from the Lord. This is, again, why Galatians says "faith which works by love", never "Christ alone"--you're keeping the entire Law ("love fulfills the entire law") if you walk by faith, but you are sinning and condemned when you do not (Ro 14:5,23). This is the language of "the footsteps of the faith of Abraham" (Ro 4).
Again, nowhere is it stated "just believe in Christ" in Galatians; it merely offers them the correct way of serving/maturing/becoming perfect.
Consequently, when you're not doing what you believe, you're not beholding the Lord/living as unto the Lord, which can actually constitute a denial of the faith itself ("is worse than an unbeliever and has denied the faith").
The strength of Reformed theology is that it focuses on beholding God; the issue with it would merely be in how it arrives at that point (its arguments sacrifice so much in the way of Scriptural teachings).
At about 22:38, it's is said of apostates that they only tasted, not consumed. Christ tasted death. Christ was truly dead. Are we to give the same word 2 meanings, while in the same context?
Do you believe one can lose their adoption?
@@THEOCAST Thank you for replying.
No. Romans 8:15 combined with Ephesians 1: 13-14, as well as John 10:27-30 have that tied up tighter than tight.
I myself am reformed, but I do think that in general, reformed folks do not take the warnings seriously enough, simply stating that they're directed at unbelievers.
The major problem with (one of) Hebrews 6 is context, Hebrews 5 states that the people being warned are growing dull of hearing. That they yet need milk, and not solid food.
These people have ears to hear. They are babes who need milk. To have ears to hear, they're already alive. A dead person doesn't need milk, they need life, THEN milk.
I hold, #2, to Spurgeon's view, that this is a 100% effective warning. For reference (this came from Thomas Schreiner), I'd refer to the shipwreck in Acts. Paul was told in the absolute that all would survive. It was utterly unconditional. Yet, Paul gave a warning, it was heeded, and all survived. Both can be true. The problem with this view is that there is no IF in verse 6 in the greek.
Given that the above interpertation doesn't totally work, and I can't make it read as a warning to privelegded unbelievers due to the people being regenerate (1 Cor 2:14), I can read it successfully as a parallel passage to 1 Cor 3:15. One point I'll make is that in v.8, the person is near to being cursed. A person near to being cursed is not yet cursed. I'm going to say cursed and condemned are the same thing. John 3:18 states that there are 2 conditions concerning salvation. Those that are condemned already, and those that are not condemned. If a person is only near to being cursed, they are already out of the realm of being 'condemned already'. They cannot return to it. I think Job and his daughters could be a case of this. He was a righteous man (2 Peter 2:8), yet he was living in a city wicked beyond comprehension, and later got (one must assume willingly) drunk. The rest was his daughters doing, and they too were righteous. (we must assume that, as they too escaped the wrath). Or Solomon
How do people know they are United to Christ? Is it because of works as James says or not
People know because of baptism
I do not believe either of them believes faith alone anymore, no matter what words they put around it. If you think a person can lose their salvation by a specific sin, or that a believer who really is still trapped under the weight of sin is no Christian at all, then you do not believe in sola fide. NOW it is possible that they DO believe in sola fide, but are attempting an un-Biblical form of social control and rebuke towards their believing gay nephews or whatever. But Scripture says we are to avoid believers who are deep in sin, and not willing to be corrected, it does not say they are not believers, nor does it say they are lost. People's discomfort with the Gospel goes right back to the first century.
Let's dump Sola fide. I agree with Piper that it is false.
In a day of easy-believism and oversimplifying most things, is it good to abbreviate having unfeigned and true faith in the blood of Christ, in the Person and work of Christ, our only atonement Whom we receive by faith, and trust in Him alone for salvation from sin, and for true holiness, by grace alone, to be His possession for eternity, to only refer to "faith alone", when it needs to be defined with clarity and verity?
We don't need 10 minute sermons, but rather 3 hour sermons explaining every detail, where questions have a box, in which to be answered in a personal manner, not always publicly, so as to keep pride down and meekness up. Also, one textbook such as the KJV Complete Word Study New Testament would keep most believers on the same page, and learning grammar as well as definition of every word, which is vital for clarity, especially these days when people want to re-define words so often.
There are no easy approaches to a true spiritual understanding of first and secondary doctrines, as well as a place for conscience controversies.
This all takes time, and Jesus says there are 12 hours in a day... who is willing to go the second mile to ensure the truth of the gospel is not perverted?
Christ be with you
Faith alone should only be for demons
the faith St Paul preaches upholds the Law,
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (rom 3:31)
Belief in Jesus Christ requires works
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. (John 14:12)
God bless you
I hope I don't seem to be trolling you (I just left a somewhat harsh comment on another video). But I just started following you and I am wondering, in light of the many unfair attacks on Christians like D. Wilson, why would you add to that? Other than him being PM I don't see the difference in theology and it pains me ("pains me" as in, "I'm desperate to make peace/sense of it") to see division among two people who, on paper, hold almost exactly the same doctrine as I do. Wilson is nothing, if not earnest, sincere and seeking truth. Or???
If you want to know what Doug thinks about federal vision, justification, or continued growth in the Christian life, the Reformed Basics video series is a great place to go, as his blog.
He denies he’s part of the FV movement and puts himself in the Westminsterian camp. For DW specifically, I think it might be good to examine his language a bit more closely in his blog, or in Reformed Basics videos, to see if he’s matching what you’re criticizing - he’s holding both to covenantal objectivity and traditional evangelical distinctions on the offensiveness of being justified by trusting in Jesus’s merits alone. No doubt he’s been confusing sometimes, but I think identifying him with the federal vision movement or in confusing law and gospel, I think is unwarranted.
czcams.com/video/DiiOq56HxYw/video.html
People I know who attend his church believe that their children are saved by baptism. They tell me that baptism brings the child into union with Christ. If not elect, the child will later fall away into apostasy which will be seen in their disobedience. Technically, they are not believing that every baptized baby has saving faith, so why do they say they have union with Christ and give them communion based on that? You cannot have union with Christ and fall away from it. I find that not only confusing (because it changes the meaning of union with Christ) but unbiblical. In 2017 he decided to stop identifying with Federal vision. However, he did not change any of his views. That is also confusing. Whether he is FV or not, his theology is bad. Giving very young children communion because their baptism supposedly united them to Christ is not okay.
@@ianandme2 I'm at the church, but I don't doubt there's a diversity of views. I think you could biblically talk about a kind of covenental union to Christ of branch to root, like in Romans 11- the Jews are truly on the same tree that is rooted in Christ, even the ones that have been coventally cut off. They were really united to something, which is why the analogy can hold- that's distinct from the persevering union of the decretally elect in the covenant, the true Israel inside covenental israel, to Christ. Importantly, suggesting that a single person in a congregation holds the view, is distinct from Doug holding the view. Have you watched his Sola Fide video?
How would you understand 1 Peter 3:21? If someone wanting to use biblical language pointed here for a kind of biblical use of the word "salvation" through baptism, would they be justified? If not, why not? Totally grant that the only way they can be saved through baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience- but what does that mean?
On the paedocommunion question, I actually hold that position, and changed there because of men like Luther and Wolfgang Musculus, and arguments from the text that exposed I had wrongly understood the argument of the text in 1 Corinthians 11 as a call to introspection, rather than a call to eating in a non-contentious unified body-aware way. I started out at generally Calvin's position, as a baptist- seeing the Lord's Supper as an opportunity to introspect for personal unworthiness and sin, rather than enjoying the fellowship of forgiven and other-aware brothers at the Lord's Table. I don't think that Calvin's position is what the text teaches, in light of its context, and more importantly, I don't think Paul or the Lord would agree with Calvin. Glad to send you a position paper I wrote on the topic as I study at seminary here- just give me an email address.
It was a minority position among the Reformers, to be sure, but I think it's an inconsistency among presbyterians who fail to acknowledge the argument in 1 Corinthians 11- in the same way baptist brothers do. "The Case for Covenant Communion" by Gregg Strawbridge, or "Feed My Lambs" by Tim Gallant are both great resources. There are also minority position papers by the likes of Robert Rayburn. Here's an excerpt from the report:
"The agreement of Reformed theologians on this issue is described with precise
scholarship in a learned article presented to the committee by Robert S. Rayburn, the
author of a minority report. At the same time, Dr. Rayburn argues that this theological consensus may be more broad than deep. Since the position had already been established in medieval Catholicism and was not effectively challenged in the
Reformed churches, the Reformed divines tended to repeat the same arguments rather uncritically. In the literature assembled and on file with the committee, it is evident that a challenging case can be made for reversing the Reformed practice and for admitting little children to the Supper." - pcahistory.org/pca/digest/studies/2-498.pdf
Doug Wilson does not deny that he is part of the Federal Vision movement. He was actually one of the primary architects from the beginning (in 2002), co-wrote and co-signed the Joint Federal Vision Profession that fleshed out the ideology (in 2007), reaffirmed his adherence to all the tenets of the movement in an article titled “Federal Vision No Mas” (in 2017), and continues to sell materials through his family publishing company Canon Press that teach Federal Vision (2022). His supposed disavowal of Federal Vision is no bueno.
@@ExaminingMoscow yes.
Go ahead and find the exact part of the article "Federal Vision No Mas" that denies forensic justification by faith alone, or the necessity of the new birth, or the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the believer via the instrumentality of faith. Or any Canon Press book.
You will be judged by your deeds .Period.
Do you think God will judge His own gift? 😄
Christ be with you
And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. 45 And he who sees me sees him who sent me.
I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.
*If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.*
*He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.*
For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.
And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me.” (John 12:44-50)
No God will judge us if we do not keep his Son's word, his teaching and commandments.
Gid less you
Sounds to me that you guys are following the doctrinal issues that are being discussed in the controversy between the Protestant Reformed Churches and the Reformed Protestant Churches. The 2nd of these two denominations was formed because of the things you speak about here. But maybe you've not even heard about this controversy.
Piper’s theology is simply Roman Catholicism without the hope of purgatory.
Let's assume Piper was right then since purgatory is true.
@@dman7668 I don’t find it in the Bible. Am I missing something?
@@user-xq2bm3nq8y Yes you are, you are missing 2000yrs of Christian tradition.
@@user-xq2bm3nq8y
In order to understand the Catholic doctrine on Purgatory, you must FIRST☝️understand Christ’s atonement from the Catholic perspective, which IS the biblical perspective.
Christ’s atonement was not a “punishment for sin”, it was a propitiation ONLY:
(1 John 2:2)
“He is the ⭐️propitiation⭐️ for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
We see this atoning sacrifice PREFIGURED in the old sacrificial system:
(Exodus 29:16)
“Slaughter it and take the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar.”
If you notice-simply killing the animal is not enough. You only kill the animal in order to GET THE BLOOD. The animal isn’t being punished. It’s the blood which is actually dealing with the sin-that’s WHY the animal has to die. That’s how you need to understand Christ’s death-it wasn’t a punishment. It was only to get the blood. This blood that is being shed in obedience to The Father curries FAVOR or “grace” which is then being applied to “forgive” us for our sins.
However forgiveness does NOT preclude that there is no longer punishment-there remains a “temporal punishment” for all forgiven sins committed. We see a perfect example of this in the life of King David who, after having been forgiven for his sin, was STILL PUNISHED by God with the loss of his child(2 Samuel 12:14-31).
To frame this properly-we are talking about the consequences for someone who IS ALREADY SAVED. We’re not talking about “consequences” that a person is suffering “in order to be saved”. These consequences, or “temporal punishments” only follow AFTER salvation(i.e; they’re not ‘works’ that are ‘saving you’). It is these “temporary” punishments that Our Lord seemed to be referring to here 👇:
(Matthew 5:26)
“Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
The ‘essence’ of the Catholic dogma of Purgatory is that nothing ‘imperfect’ may enter into Heaven:
(Revelation 21:27)
“Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
A person MUST be purified of all unrighteousness prior to entering the Kingdom. That is what is being talked about here-that fiery purification:
(1 Corinthians 3:15)
“If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved-even though only as one escaping through the 🔥flames🔥.”
St.Augustine, canonized Saint in BOTH the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions, writes:
“Some believers will pass through a kind of purgatorial fire. In proportion as they loved the goods that perish with more or less devotion, they shall be more or less quickly delivered from the flames.”
We also see evidence of this same purifying fire 🔥 in the Old Testament:
(Isaiah 6:6-7)
“6 Then flew one of the seraphims👼 unto me, having a live🔥 coal in his hand🤚 , which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips 👄 ; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin ⭐️PURGED⭐️.”
Purgatory is that process of purification from unforgiven venial sins as well as the application of God’s Divine Justice IF we have not done sufficient penance prior to our death. Our Lord seems to be alluding to certain sins against “the Son of Man”(aka: venial sins) being forgiven in the after life when we says:
““31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age ⭐️OR⭐️in the age to come.” -Matthew 12:31 NIV
We as Catholics pray that our loved ones may be loosed from their temporary punishment by offering meritorious supplications(aka: ‘Good Works’, see Ephesians 2:10) on their behalf:
(2 Maccabees 12:46)
“Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.”
…and praying for their souls after they have died, which was Paul’s apostolic tradition:
(2 Timothy 2:18)
“ May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.”
We Catholics pray for our dead because that is what we have received from the Apostles-it is perfectly biblical to do this, so we must not fear to do so. It is a righteous thing. We Catholics call ALL “True Christians” to do penance for their sins so as to avoid Purgatory ENTIRELY-thereby entering immediately into eternal beatitude.
⭐️EDIT⭐️:An additional “proof” that Christ’s atonement was NOT a ‘punishment’ is in that it did not immediately wipe out the punishment’s God levied against Adam and Eve for the Original Sin:
(Gen 3:16-17)
“To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.”
Let’s all think critically about that. If Christ’s atonement was “paying” for the “punishment” due for ALL SIN-then it would be UNJUST or “double jeopardy” to continue to punish humanity for Adam’s Sin now that it has been “paid” in full by Christ. This means that these “temporary” punishments are not being remitted by the atonement. Ergo, there is a VERY good reason why the Catholic view of the atonement differs from the Protestant understanding.
James White is Lordship Salvation.
What do you mean by “lordship salvation”?
What is non lordship salvation?
8:13 FV
When we surrender our lives to Jesus, we are born again. That is, born from on high. It is a gift from God. Paul teaches us in Col. 2 and Galatians that salvation is a work of God, in which all the righteous requirements of God are fulfilled in Christ. The good works that we do are a work of the Lord, through us. We are only vessels, sent to carry the gospel message to a lost and dying world. All the good that I do, it is the Lord doing it through me. Eph. 2:8-10 clearly outlines this truth. Vs. 8 shows us his grace, through faith. Vs. 9 tells us that we have nothing to boast about; but vs. 10 shows the source of any good work, and that is God alone! Philip. 2:13 seals it for me. It is God who is at work within us. Both the deed and the desire come from him!!!
What is it with all this confessionalism and federalism? Just give me the scriptures. I will show you Jesus, and the finished work of the cross. I don't need or desire a man made document to tell me how to live. We have the eternal words of the living God, written for our guidance, and the Holy Ghost to enlighten us.
Stop following the dictates of man and follow the Lord. All we need is the Bible, and faithful shepherds to guide us in the way we should go. You keep the creeds and confessions. I will follow Jesus.
Christ be with you
Here is the scripture
saying, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”
And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it. (Luke 9:22-24)
finished work-- I am going to believe God and so to go after him into the resurrection I will pick up my cross and follow him
at far as eph 2:8-9 goes this is what scripture says
We are saved by God's Grace, the forgiveness of our sins by Jesus Christ.
He washes the Garments of righteousness white with his blood. (Eph 1:7)
We receive this Grace though Faith.
Faith in Jesus Christ is trusting that the Son of God will keep his promise to give the Gift of eternal life made possible by his death burial and resurrection, to those who repent and obey him. (acts 26:15-20, rom 6:15-23)
It is nothing we do that saves us.
Our obedience does not make our Garment any whiter.
Our Obedience rather keeps us from defiling our Garment and forfeiting our salvation (Rev 3:1-6)
even simply doing nothing is a sin.
Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. (James 4:17)
He will give this gift of eternal life to those who obey him
Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (Heb 5:8-9)
While we are saved by God Grace thinking you have been saved without Obeying Christ's Law walking in the Spirit and doing Good works, mock God for faith is not alone.
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart. (Gal 6:7-9)
Faith upholds the Law
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Rom 3:31)
Come to Christ
Almost every heresy begins as a REACTION to another false teaching.
I would disagree that Adam was under a works covenant pre-fall. I don't think the Bible teaches that. The only command given to Adam was not to eat from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. What does the Bible call the knowledge of sin? The law. By eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they became aware of sin. What is the knowledge of sin folks? The law. Where there is no law, there is no transgression.
So, until Adam ate from that tree, there was no sin. He was innocent like an animal is innocent. When they received the knowledge of sin, they lost their innocence, they became aware of sin, they became ashamed, and sin became part of the equation. What is the wage of sin? Death. And therefore, "If you eat from that tree you shall surely die". I would argue it was AFTER the fall, not before, that a works covenant became part of the equation.
It was THAT moment that Jesus had to undo with his death and resurrection. This is why Jesus says we must become like little children to enter the Kingdom. We must be born again. We need to be like Adam and Eve pre-fall. Innocent little children, fully dependent on DADDY, and not our own efforts - AKA - The knowledge of good and evil. God spent the entire Old Testament showing Israel their inability to live up to the "knowledge of good and evil" and the consequences of choosing to attempt to "be like God" by their own efforts. Just my thoughts.
Medic, God made a covenant of works with Adam , which was finally fulfilled by Christ, the Last Adam ( 1 Cor. 15:45).
Medic........when a fallen sinner is regenerated by the Holy Spirit they are not declared " innocent." Scripture uses legal language. In a courtroom, a defendant is declared " not guilty." Justification is legal language.....declared righteous, not " made" righteous. Made righteous ......is Roman Catholic theology.
@@carmensiekierke3579 Yes. I agree that a covenant of works was made with Adam. But it seems clear in scripture that this took place after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was that moment that they came under the power of sin. It was that moment that they became aware of their nakedness and shame. Not before. And thank you. I am aware that it is an IMPUTED, foreign righteousness. God bless.
@@medic4christ777 No, you are confusing the covenant of works with the covenant of grace. After Adam rebelled against God.....instead of wiping Adam out ( which would have been justice) God gave Adam the gospel. The gospel is the covenant of grace.
@@carmensiekierke3579 I don't think I am confusing it. The covenant of grace came through Jesus Christ. Adam fell when he ate from the tree of the law. He became aware of sin in that moment. Prior to that, there was no sin, because where there is no law, there is no transgression. Adam did not become guilty of sin until he ate from the tree and became aware of sin. It was then that sin entered into the world. Not before. It was the eating from the tree that made mankind sinful. And it was this that Christ fixed with his blood, and is alluded to in Roman's 5. To claim that Adam was under a covenant of works BEFORE the fall, doesnt add up with the scripture. Adam didn't have the knowledge of sin (the law) until eating from the tree. That was the moment of the fall. Not before.
@@medic4christ777 If Adam had not rebelled against God ( and Adam was given the ability to not sin and the ability to sin) he would have earned eternal life.
@Medic, eternal life MUST be earned by keeping the Law. This is why Jesus Christ was " born under the Law."
Christ be with you
the Gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with faith alone
then Gospel is that God through his Love and Mercy sent his son to die for our sins and he will save those who repent and Obey him. (John3:16-21)
For those who obey have believed in him and loved him by following his teaching and Commandments and Jesus and the Father will abide in them. (John 14:12, 21-24)
no mention of faith alone at all
Come to Christ
You should interact with us more because you’re not representing our position properly.
Repentance is continual. Salvation is continual. Faith is continual. If faith is "alone," lacking it's partner "works" it is dead. Yes, He "imputes" righteousness (though the scripture actually never uses this word with respect to righteousness, but rather to sin). But He also gives us the Holy Spirit, which is our empowerment over sin. Why do you Calvinists obsess over the forensics of the faith, like "women ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth."
If one finds himself in bondage to habitual sin, it's probably because he's under the law, "the strength of sin."
This is what the NT says. The Westminster says differently.
Christ be with you
the lack of understanding is in how Christ righteousness in inputed to us.
It is through the cleansing of our righteousness in his blood.
but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, *and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.* (1 john 1:7)
I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; *they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.* (rev 7:14)
we are told if we defile our Garment of Righteousness further with sin we will be blotted out of the book of Life.
“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.
“‘I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead.
Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God.
Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.
*Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy.*
*He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.*
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ (Rev 3:1-6)
God bless you
@@MrKev1664 Thanks for that reply, Mr. Kev. There is a problem with using Revelation in that the Spirit of Christ speaks here to "the churches," not the individual, toward which we find the invitation:
"Behold I stand at the door and knock..."
Therefore, the spot of sin found in these Churches (none of which today are extant, as they all were located in what is now the Muslim state of Turkey!) seems to be false doctrine. Many have tried and in my opinion failed to clearly connect the 7 churches to seven church "ages," or traditions, though there is some truth to both ideas.
And as you noted, we have the exhortations to the overcomer, and the promises granted to them. Who these overcomes are is not made perfectly clear, but the takeaway is--be an overcomer!
That the blood cleanses us from sin is true and sound, but this cleansing is figurative, not that the blood is not actual, but that our experience of it is not actual (unless one holds to transubstantiation). It's important to note the obvious-- we didn't really die, but He did. Imputation is therefore the application of one person's qualities to another, or in the case of sin, that legal holding of a charge of guilt against the sinner. This is said to be impossible if not for the law.
For this reason, I focus as Paul does, on the idea of law. When the law is taken out of the ways, so is sin, as "without law, sin (is) dead."
Jesus then fulfills the law by His complete obedience unto death; it is taken out of the way (Ephesians 2:15), and we are allowed to be wed to another (Romans 5).
This seems to be Paul's legal grounds for the imputation of righteousness. The Lawgiver himself has died in Christ. The sinner too has died in Christ, Paul argues in Romans, building on the idea of transference of human guilt to the sacrifice of the Messiah, as it was prophesied in Isaiah:
"Surely He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows...The chastisement for our peace (reconciliation with God) was upon Him... for all of us, like sheep, have gone astray, but He has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all."
Perhaps the most shocking thing is not that our sins are forgiven, as God could do that without the death of His Son, and Jesus could do that while He yet lived:
"So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..."
but that God, in a sense, divorces Israel (finally, for her infidelity) and is thereby free to be wed to another, the Gentile nations. Again this is hinted at in Romans 5 though Paul doesn't lay it out there in a complete argument.
To go back under the law, then, would be tantamount to wedding a divorced woman:
"He who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" Jesus taught, though the law never made this clear.
In light of this, Judaizing, trying and teaching others to be justified by one's own righteousness of a legalistic kind is the danger:
"Beware the leaven of the Pharisees."
"I declare to you that if a man seeks to be circumcised, he is a debtor to the whole law."
@@duncescotus2342
*You say*
Thanks for that reply, Mr. Kev. There is a problem with using Revelation in that the Spirit of Christ speaks here to "the churches," not the individual, toward which we find the invitation:
"Behold I stand at the door and knock..."
Therefore, the spot of sin found in these Churches (none of which today are extant, as they all were located in what is now the Muslim state of Turkey!) seems to be false doctrine. Many have tried and in my opinion failed to clearly connect the 7 churches to seven church "ages," or traditions, though there is some truth to both ideas.
*Response*
Sorry this just seems to be a defection
Jesus is clearly speaking to a Church those who have received his word
Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent.
*You say*
And as you noted, we have the exhortations to the overcomer, and the promises granted to them. Who these overcomes are is not made perfectly clear, but the takeaway is--be an overcomer!
*response*
It is St John who rights these words and if we go back to one of his pervious letters we can see what an overcomer is.
Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child.
*By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.*
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
*For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.*
Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
Over comers ar thos who have kept the commandment and love God.
*You say*
That the blood cleanses us from sin is true and sound, but this cleansing is figurative, not that the blood is not actual, but that our experience of it is not actual (unless one holds to transubstantiation). It's important to note the obvious-- we didn't really die, but He did. Imputation is therefore the application of one person's qualities to another, or in the case of sin, that legal holding of a charge of guilt against the sinner.
*Response*
The blood refers to Christ being our sacrifice.
In the reference of the blood of the Lamb we see that John the Baptist called Jesus the ““Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
The washing away of our sin is his forgiveness
*you say*
This is said to be impossible if not for the law.
For this reason, I focus as Paul does, on the idea of law. When the law is taken out of the ways, so is sin, as "without law, sin (is) dead."
*Response*
The Law is not taken away only its consequence if we seek Christ forgiveness.
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Rom 3:31)
*You say*
Jesus then fulfills the law by His complete obedience unto death;
*Response*
Jesus fulfils the Law because it is Love and obedience is how we love God
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. (John 15:10)
*You say*
it is taken out of the way (Ephesians 2:15), and we are allowed to be wed to another (Romans 5).
*response*
Yes He abolished the old Law but replaced it with the New (Heb. 7:11-12)
St Paul called it the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21) (Gal 6:2)
He told us how this Law was fulfilled (Rom 13:8-10)
St Paul is clear even under grace we must live in righteousness and not return to obeying sin or we will die. (rom 6:15-16)
*You say*
This seems to be Paul's legal grounds for the imputation of righteousness. The Lawgiver himself has died in Christ.
*Response*
No the Father give the old law Christ gives the new
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. (John 15:10)
*You say*
The sinner too has died in Christ, Paul argues in Romans, building on the idea of transference of human guilt to the sacrifice of the Messiah, as it was prophesied in Isaiah:
"Surely He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows...The chastisement for our peace (reconciliation with God) was upon Him... for all of us, like sheep, have gone astray, but He has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all."
Response
Sorry all that seems to be suggesting is that Christ died for our sins
St Paul talks of more than a Legal Justification in Romans but a change in the inward man
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).
As does Isaiah
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:10-11).
*You say*
Perhaps the most shocking thing is not that our sins are forgiven, as God could do that without the death of His Son, and Jesus could do that while He yet lived:
"So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..."
but that God, in a sense, divorces Israel (finally, for her infidelity) and is thereby free to be wed to another, the Gentile nations. Again this is hinted at in Romans 5 though Paul doesn't lay it out there in a complete argument.
*Response*
Sorry that is not true Gentiles are grafted onto the vine that is Israel (rom 11)
You say
To go back under the law, then, would be tantamount to wedding a divorced woman:
"He who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" Jesus taught, though the law never made this clear.
In light of this, Judaizing, trying and teaching others to be justified by one's own righteousness of a legalistic kind is the danger:
"Beware the leaven of the Pharisees."
"I declare to you that if a man seeks to be circumcised, he is a debtor to the whole law."
*Response*
St Paul was never without the Law of Christ
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law-though not being myself under the law-that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law- *not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ* -that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor 9:19-23)
God bless you
@@MrKev1664 You got me, bro. We're under the law and we need to heed all seven spirit revelations to all seven churches. Do I need to go to Turkey or am I good?
@@duncescotus2342
Christ be with you
Yes but not the Law of Moses But the Law of Christ.
you do not need to go to Turkey but you should Join Christ's Holy Catholic Church
God bless you
There is no such thing as final salvation. You are either saved and hence justified or you are not! All of the elect of God whose names are written in the book of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world are justified legally and forensically before God by the work and merit of the Lord Jesus alone. The Lord Jesus came to save sinners not make salvation possible by doing something on his part and waiting for the sinner to do something on their part, namely repent and believe. Jesus fulfilled and met every legal condition necessary in that he thoroughly satisfied the law and justice of God on behalf of or in the place of all those chosen in him to be saved. The perfect righteousness obtained by the holy Son of God in their stead is imputed to all the elect as if it was their own righteousness. In his death and bloodshed Jesus bore the entire weight and guilt of all the sins of his chosen as fallen in Adam for which he was their appointed sin bearer. Isaiah 53.There is no sin that God could ever judge his people for since Jesus by his crosswork paid in full the necessary redemption price as their redeemer. Jesus himself became sin on their behalf. 2 Corinthians 5:21. In and by Jesus the federal head of the elect of God he has obtained salvation and eternal life for all who believe. The faith that a true believer has when we first felt a deep conviction of sin by the office of the Holy Spirit and called upon the Lord through the gospel to be saved and began to experience a life of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus it was revealed to us that this faith was the gift of God and a result of being made alive by the Spirit because of what the Lord Jesus did for us in his person and work and which was now applied to our hearts when we were born from above. Ephesians 1:4,5,11,13; 2:1-8. The fruits of a life which has been restored to us as new born babes in Christ naturally follows and will be distinguished just as the word of God describes those fruits in many passages throughout the new testament. A love and knowledge of truth, an unmistakable love of fellow believers who also walk in truth and obedience, an utter detestation of all known sin from which we repent of as the holy spirit enables us, a desire to die to sin and self, take up the cross and follow the Lord Jesus wherever he leads, a love of our enemies and the desire to see others saved by our personal witness, participation in a true new covenant assembly of Gods elect, obedience to all the commands of our Lord, and a longing for the second comming of the Lord in glory, the new heavens and new earth where pure righteousness dwells and we will be like Jesus himself in a state of glorified sinless existence. 2 Peter 3:8-17; 1 John 3: 1-3. A saved individual however imperfect,however much they struggle in the flesh knows this and is assured that they are a child of God. Romans 8:14-39. 1 John 2:3. One either has the experience of salvation and knows it or they do not. It has been finalized in your faith and obedience to the truth of the evangelical faith and its doctrines. The rest of our experience will be finalized at the second comming and the resurrection of the last day. God is not going to hold a tribunal to see if our faith and works meet the evangelical standard before we are received into glory. That would be the highest insult. Dishonor and denigration of the perfect and final work of the Son of God on behalf of all his redeemed people. Unthinkable! The Father could not so act against his beloved Son! The implications of this perverse view of a final salvation is blasphemous! The Pied Piper is not the first to go the way of Rome or come so blasphemously close. See The Justification Controversy by
O Plamer Robertson. Lets not forget JI Packer and his blasphemous acceptance and ecumenical affliation with Rome. Packer and Stott both sold their souls to the devil and betrayed the Reformation! I am not sure that the Pied Piper and Wilson have gone that far but they are not too far off either.
It is no surprise that the Pied Piper also endorses the heretical and delusional practices of the charismatics. Which means he does not hold to the sufficiency and finality of scripture. Sola Scriptura? Not for the Piper. Packer had the same dilemma for a so called Reformed believer. The Pied Piper has also shared the stage with false teachers like Rick Warren and other false professors and even finds no problem with Christian rap music or holy hip hop. He was a mentor to reprobated false teacher and pseudo youg Calvinist Mark Driscoll who is back in business with the help of Mr. Final Salvation. I seriously doubt when all things are considered that the Piper would be happy to have God examine his deeds to sse if they pass this evangelical test as he has laid it out. I recommend the book The New Calvinists by ES Williams to see a better picture of what the 21st centrury hath wrought. The time has come that Judgment begins in thr house of God.1 Peter 4:17,18. Compare with Matthew 7:13,14,21-23; Luke 13:23-30.
Their may be a whole lot more professing Christians with lamps and no oil then we might think. Matthew 25:1-12.Therein is the challenge and must be settled in the here and now!
2 Peter 1:10. The Almost Christian Discovered. Matthew Mead a Puritan classic. AW Pink Saving Faith another essential read for Christianity in our day. Lets separation the wheat from the chaff by all means. Acts 20:20-32. Vss 26 and 27 particularly. Truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as it is in Jesus is our highest and most holy obligation to our blessed Lord. John 17:17; Jude vs 3.
Uh, yes, there is a final justification by your works as we learn in Romans. Eternal life is merited according to your works, it is not by faith alone. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Let's just agree it's a process, and dump protestantism like a stinky poo.
No, you are not being given the righteous reputation of Christ at any point when God declares you are justified. That’s not how it works. Let us look at that in detail with 1 John 1:9, which says:
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from ALL unrighteousness.”
So, breaking it down step by step…
Step 1. We confess(repent).
Step 2. He cleanses us of “all unrighteousness”.
Step 3. He “imputes” or “credits” us with righteousness.
You see the REASON why step 3 only👈happens AFTER step 2 is because God CANNOT lie. He cannot say you are a righteous person if that is not the truth. He must purify you of your sin FIRST and then he may credit you with righteousness.
Once that is done, you now have the “righteousness of Christ” by which is meant that you are righteous the same WAY Christ is considered righteous, which is in truth.
Now this imputation of righteousness does NOT preclude the possibility of being declared “more righteous” from one day to the next. You can have a declaration that you are righteous one day-and then a declaration that you are “more righteous” the next day on account of your cooperation with the process of Sanctification. It is impossible to become “more-like” Christ without also granting that one is becoming “more righteous” since these are relative terms. THAT is where “semantics” has undone Sola Fide.
Sola Fide says that only faith can increase justification, while the Protestant understanding that Sanctification makes us “more like Christ” as we become more obedient to Him, contradicts that.
THAT ☝️is semantics.
Once you say I have become “more like” Christ on account of my obedience then one is saying that I have become “more righteous” on account of that obedience. Ergo it is not only by faith that we are “made righteous” but also by these acts of obedience(aka: works) which are being done under the inspiration of the Spirit-causing Paul to say:
“But we should always thank God for you, brothers who are loved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning to BE SAVED BY the sanctification of the Spirit ⭐️AND⭐️ by faith in the truth.”(2 Thessalonians 2:13)
We are being saved by sanctification AND by faith. Not by Sola Fide. Not by ‘faith alone’.
@dman7668 Get behind me, Satan .... you're a liar and destined for the lake of fire where all liars end up!