Part 1; The admonition to pastors.
I want to fast forward this article with the question and answer that sparked my anger and frustration to write and warn the people of God. I truly hope after you read the following statement from John Piper that you will scratch your head and question what was said. For example; If I were to say I don’t think so and so preaches a false gospel” I would hope you would question this. Since when do we accept another who we think does not preach another gospel?
John Piper sat on a bar stool next to Mark Driscoll and Matt chandler answering questions, the question was asked;
“Dr Piper, in your defense against the doctrine of N T Wright-have you found Federal Vision theology of Doug Wilson to be another gospel”?
“NO. That’s easy. Doug Wilson doesn’t preach another gospel. OK. I don’t think N.T. Wright preaches a false gospel either. I think N. T. Wright preaches a very confusing gospel…This isn’t about him so I won’t talk about him anymore….Doug Wilson is one of the most careful and bright, uh, reformed, post millennial, objectivist theologians around and he’s got people around him that are dumb. (Laughter) I listened to all three hours of his grilling, go to his website…..He subjected himself voluntarily to be examined by the Presbytery and as I listened I thought brilliant, wrong on numerous cases, but wrong the way you’d expect a Presbyterian to be wrong……its very complicated. Don’t write Doug Wilson off very easily. He’s a very bright guy, I don’t think he is a heretic, I don’t think he’s preaching another gospel”.
You MUST consider what was just said above in Piper’s answer. “I don’t think N.T. Wright preaches a false gospel either?
Doug Wilson….is wrong on numerous cases?
It’s very complicated? I don’t think he is a heretic?
I don’t think he is preaching another gospel”? Is this a biblical position to maintain?
May the Lord help any of us when an outsider or a friend or a member of a congregation says “I don’t think (fill in your name) is a heretic”. He (fill in your name) is wrong on numerous cases”. I don’t think he (fill in your name) is preaching a false gospel”. Does the reader understand that there should be no “I don’t think” attached to a Christian? If you can say “I don’t think he is preaching another gospel” you can also say “I think he is a Christian”.
With that said, let me get back to the beginning. When I initially started this complaint and criticism of John Piper, I probably began the wrong way. That is to say, I jumped in too fast before I laid some ground work of Federal Vision. After speaking to a friend of mine, I thought she had wise words for me to consider. I think now that I will begin (what will turn out to be a small book, I’m sure) with the teachings of Douglas Wilson and maybe also N.T. Wright. And so I shall begin with the players (at least Wilson) before I talk about the connection between Wilson and Piper. In case I forget, I would strongly encourage you to pick up the book called “Fool’s Gold” edited by John MacArthur. Inside, there is a Chapter written by Phil Johnson that deals with N.T. Wright and his denial/distortion of the doctrine of justification by his assault on the doctrine of imputation. I hope you would agree, any attack on the doctrine of justification is an attack on the gospel. If it is shown that Wright and Wilson tamper with the biblical doctrine of justfication in any way, shape or form, then no true Christian would say; “I don’t think they are preaching a false gospel”.
First let me say that this whole article should really be called The “Down Grade” Controversy in the Twenty first Century. When C.H. Spurgeon had to deal with the clash against heretics and heresies of his day he wrote of it. He would go onto say, that these issues he stood against were probably the reason for the stress on his body and the decline of his health. He cared about the purity of the Bride. His notes concerning the decline of the Scriptures are once again relevant today. He, too, had to deal with certain Presbyterians. If you do not own the small book called The “Down Grade” Controversy you should because it gives a preview of the same problems we see today.
I would like to begin with an admonition to the leaders in the Church all around the world. If the shepherds who are watching over the Lord’s sheep do not care, then who will? A handful of men like myself have already kicked and screamed about Douglas Wilson and the Federal Vision movement, but very few really listen to our complaint. We are called divisive and ignored by our brothers in arms. I have witnessed a tolerance within our own camp because Presbyterians are said to have a history of orthodoxy, and who am I to be intolerant toward Presbyterians? I am not intolerant toward Presbyterians. I am intolerant of liberalism and the heresy coming from Presbyterians. I am not intolerant of antiMessiah Morons. I am intolerant of Moronism. (yes, if you believe you can become a god you are a moron!) I am not intolerant of antiMessiah Muslims. I am intolerant of Islam and the founder, a “man” who believed it was ok to drink camel urine and at the same time deny Yeshua is the Son of God.
DEGREES DO NOT QUALIFY A PERSON AS A CHRISTIAN
It is true, I am a little minnow in a sea of “academic/learned” men, and I have a very small voice compared to these “Seminary educated” men and their radio platforms or their writing abilities. But, thank you Lord for your Spirit and the internet where a little voice like mine can be broadcasted!
In the light of creeds and philosophies, I would rather deal with men who are Spirit filled, simple folks, who hold to a child like faith than the men who have letters before and after their names – as if titles like “Dr” “pastor” and/or “PhD” qualify them as God’s children. You will find that this Federal Vision movement was homebrewed inside of Westminster Seminary East, and in time, fine tuned and tweeked by men like Wilson and his rat pack.
I have sat under godly men, kept my nose in books, kept my ears tuned to teaching tapes and audited many, many seminary courses for almost 25 years, At the same time I have also, purposely, distanced myself from Christian education in general. Why would I want to pursue a degree that included classes which could be harmful to my faith? Discipleship DOES NOT have to include a required semester(s) of garbage. Discipleship is finding a godly person to teach you while you sit at their feet. I do not push this position onto others, however, I believe it is modeled in the Tanakh and the writings of the New Testament. Personally, I believe discipleship is safer when it involves only one or two persons. Too many men at seminaries have personal agendas and they make every effort to take advantage of a well meaning student. Many students go in with good motives and leave with degrees in stupidity because they accepted and embraced all that the “Professors” taught them as if it were gospel truth.
The gods who run the seminaries have decided that students leave with a fairly significant (and I would say required) influence of philosophy. Not for the purpose of opposing heretics and opposing humanism, but to use it to advance all that they have learned. I believe it is philosophy/human reasoning which has caused or is causing men to go astray. But, since it is done in a “Christian/academic” seminary, it is OK. We just accept that these “Professors and their disciples, these “learned” men, would never betray us – we just accept that these “learned” men are Christians and could not possibly be deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of the Messiah. “Oh that outdated Bible! False apostles were back then. We don’t have to worry about deceivers in today’s Presbyterian or Baptist congregations”. Do I really have to hear such a stupid statement from a pastor today? Is it possible that these men I am speaking of are masquerading as servants of righteousness?
2 Corinthians 11:12-15; But I will go on doing what I’m doing in order to deny an opportunity to those people who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in the work they are boasting about. Such people are false apostles, dishonest workers who are masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not surprising if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their doom will match their deeds!
I wanted to put my personal assessment into this article because, when I look around and see what men are teaching in book form or behind a pulpit, I see that a majority of men are leading others astray by pushing or promoting what I would call, a philosophical Christianity. If not a philosophical Christianity than a creedal Christianity. You will find that many of these men and followers of the Federal Vision doctrine are what I call, “creedal commited characters”. If I don’t mention it later on, you can read the following statement for yourself where it says the following hogwash; (click on the confessions tab and look at paragraph 2)
We hold to the ancient creeds as defining the faith once delivered to the saints, and we hold that no one rejecting the truths proclaimed in these creeds can be right with God. http://www.christkirk.com
I hope you paid attention to this garbage. One cannot reject these creeds and be right with God? Let me get this straight-what did those people do before the creeds came along? That statement is asinine, and It would be the type of theology you would expect to read from Beavis and Butthead.
Wilson and his pit crew all have the fancy titles after their names. But, I would rather deal with men who are Spirit filled, simple folks, who hold to a child like faith than the men who have the titles before or after their names as if these titles like “Dr” and “PhD” qualify them as God’s children.
I do not want to get off track, but I wanted to put this personal assessment into this article because, when I look around and see what men are teaching in book form or behind a pulpit, I see that a majority of men are leading others astray by pushing or promoting what I would call, a philosophical Christianity. I believe it is in opposition to a Christian or biblical philosophy. A majority of men writing books are taking Aristotle and dressing him up with “Christian” clothing. They are taking arguments from Rome, via Aquinas, using their material and simply calling it “Christian apologetics”. Next time you pick up a book by R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, et al, look in the back of the book and see how often they quote from pagan Greek philosophers. The score is; Jesus 3, Aristotle 30!
Wake up pastors! C.H. Spurgeon wrote in the down grade controversy; “the Presbyterians were the first to get on the down line. They paid more attention to classical attainments and other branches of learning in their ministry than the Independents, while the Baptists had no academical institution of any kind. It would be an easy step in the wrong direction to pay increased attention to academical attainments in their ministers, and less to spiritual qualifications; and to set a higher value on scholarship and oratory, than on evangelical zeal and ability to rightly divide the word of truth”.
Am I critical of discipleship within a learned institution? Of course not! I am critical of an institution that blends the philosophies of men with biblical instruction and the courses are required to graduate. I am critical of anyone who goes to the ungodly or their ungodly resources. How can we be blessed by the Lord when we go outside of His truth for information? And if and when we do, a little leaven is all it takes to hurt the faith of some or cause a person to lead others astray.
The people I am writing about are so-called “leaders” inside the Church. They have a message they want you to embrace. They are called “Professor or Dr or even pastor. As I will try to show in this article, they align themselves with the men who have commonality. You know the old saying…birds of a feather, right? It is doubtful you will find John MacArthur having his weekly latte and a doughnut with Paul Crouch, Benny Hinn, or a number of so-called pastor’s and pastorette’s while they talk about church growth and share ministry stories. This is the point I want to stress. After you gain some understanding of the Federal Vision heresy and what I call the “covenant corruption” you will, you should, you MUST ask yourself, why John Piper is telling the world that Douglas Wilson and N.T. Wright do not have a false gospel
IS ANYBODY LISTENING?
It seems, when warnings went out, nobody really seemed to care about the paper exposing Piper’s views. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113
Westminster Seminary East is also part of the problem. Many of these men were graduates from there and so, this false gospel was rooted and fueled in that Seminary, which has had an effect on a multitude of Christian graduates. This is what we are seeing today as the Orthodox Presbyterian church and other Presbyterian churches deteriorate before our very eyes. If you are interested in this Presby problems, I would encourage you to read a book by Paul Elliot called ”Christianity and Neo-Liberalism” I took the following theme off of the Trinity Foundations website who offers this book.
Paul M. Elliott, a former Ruling Elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, carefully traces the origin of the spiritual crisis in the OPC and similar denominations to the pernicious teaching of Westminster Theological Seminary. That teaching is that God is unknowable, that Scripture is contradictory, and that salvation is by faith-plus-works. Elliott provides copious quotations from faculty members, from the Westminster Theological Journal, and from pastors in OPC congregations to document his analysis. This book is must reading for all Presbyterians.
For the Baptists who are reading this, this is no longer a must reading for the Presbyterians only. Because of John Piper’s influence, and his invitation of a controversial man to his Conference, make no mistake; this will become a “Baptist wide” problem as well.
I hope not to give the impression that this is a new problem. It goes back decades. Why is it, clever men always try to sneak “works” through the backdoor of the Church and give it a new name? It is, when all is said and done, the Galatian heresy rearing its ugly head once again, but given a different name. Leaven may take time, but make no mistake that it will do what it is supposed to do.
Galatians 5:9: A little hametz yeast/leaven) spreads through the whole batch of dough.
My convictions are simple. Do not walk with the enemies of God and do not entertain them either. Does anybody care about the command to apostatize from evil men?
Whenever you talk about the “sacred cows” of the Church, (those who are in the limelight or in a leadership role) you will receive ridicule, your name will be slandered, you will be called divisive, etc. You must be prepared to be insulted for your defense of the faith. You will lose friendships. However, I don’t care! I am more concerned about pleasing my Lord then I am concerned about pleasing men. Professors, Pastors and pew sitters are all accountable to the Church. No approachability means there is no accountability. Even the Bereans were eager to hear what Paul had to say. They received the message with all joy. But, they did not go to Creeds and Confessions to judge the words of Paul. They went to the Scriptures. I have already lost friendships with both pastors and missionaries because I was pointing out the heresy of Douglas Wilson. I was not given opportunity to explain. Why? I would say that most Baptists are not familiar with Wilson so he was not a threat to them. However, they are quite familiar with John Piper. It did not matter what heresy Wilson was teaching because, once Piper’s name was brought out, the conversation ended. Instead of “testing all things” and the instruction to “believe not every spirit, but test the spirits” I was the object of immediate rejection. I was the object of immediate rejection. I was tried and found guilty by a jury of my own peers who were more concerned about my criticism than the substance of the complaint.
As you will see, Douglas Wilson has this nasty habit of quoting from secondary sources. Apparently, his arguments from secondary sources are good enough for his followers and are good enough to pass as Scripture. And, they are good enough for John Piper to embrace and consider Wilson as a brother. Now, this audience that Piper provides through this Conference, will in turn, provide Wilson with new customers who will support his agenda. A heretical vision once limited primarily to Presbyterians has become a vision for a Baptist audience.
There must be unity in doctrine among God’s elect and if a man says to me, don’t divide over doctrine, I must say God does not call us to suppress the truth of His word in order to keep a friendship. This is why I wrote the article regarding this essential/non essential attitude within the Church atmosphere. Someone uses the terminology and we accept it and never question it. Like I said in my past article, using the terminology “essentials and non essentials” is an excuse to leave heretics alone with their differences. This mindset must be trashed. Unity at all costs is devilish. We are instructed to remove divisions from within the Church and become likeminded. Likeminded Christians are the result of the same Holy Spirit residing in God’s people. But that does not include heresies which are causing the divisions. We are to remain separated from those who bring any deviation or departure from the Scriptures. We do not offer the right hand to those who bring contrary doctrine.
Now before I get into Wilson’s theology I want to give another example (where the right hand of fellowship has been extended) that has never stopped bothering me and seems to have been forgotten by many. Another so-called Christian joined hands with the enemies of God and worshipped and preached in the den of Satan. Not to rebuke or evangelize, but thinking he would make some kind of impact with the Mormons. See the Deseret News article; http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,595105580,00.html
I took a beating by many so-called Christians and Christian apologists for my position against Ravi Zacharias.
2 Timothy 2:15; Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.
The numerous compromises made by Christian leaders, in the name of “Christian apologetics” and “Christian witnessing opportunities” have gone too far. If Ravi were rightly dividing the word of truth then he would also live by that truth. What you believe is how you live. Apparently the instructions to Christians, to isolate ourselves from idol worshippers, have not been effective with Zacharias, Mouw and Card. We already knew that Card cared less about unholy alliances when he did the duet with the Romanist, John Michael Talbot.
Romans 16:17; I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
That word above “avoid them” is the same word used in 1 Peter 3:11- Ekklino.
1 Peter 3:11; He must turn away from evil and do good. He must seek peace and pursue it.
Thayer’s defines the word; to turn aside, deviate (from the right way and course). To turn (one’s self) away, to turn away from, keep aloof from one’s society. To shun one.
Why do I take the time to bring this up? It is because the passage is not confusing or unclear. For example, we read in 1 Peter to turn away (ekklino) from evil. Not cozy up with it or even debate it. We are instructed to turn away from those who bring to us contrary doctrine.
Hendricksen comments;
Paul does not say, “Oppose them”; for, though some of those whom he addresses might have been able to do this successfully, others could easily have been led astray if they had entered into a debate. Therefore Paul urges the brothers to avoid these dissenters altogether. He knew that the possibility that some of the members might otherwise have lost their bearings was real, especially in view of the clever methods employed by the propagandizers, as indicated in verse….. Thus within the compass of just a few words Paul exposes the basic error of the gang against which he is issuing a warning. Since in the case of these false teachers the first alternative, namely, serving our Lord Jesus Christ, is out, it must be that they are serving their own bellies. Cf. Php_3:19. Does “their own bellies” necessarily mean that these disturbers are all libertines, sensualists? Probably not, for in that case the warning would be directed against only one kind of troublemakers. The real meaning is therefore probably, “self-servers of any description, people who are slaves of their own ego.” Whether they be Judaizers, antinomians, ascetics, or what not, how they love to hear themselves talk! They are filled with an exalted opinion of themselves
I know this issue of Zacharias is old news but I am still upset about it. He did not turn away from those who bring to us contrary doctrine! He went into a Mormon Church with a so-called “Professor” named Richard Mouw and together the batman and robin team have a message for the Mormon’s. They even brought the worship with them by bringing Michael Card. Together, they would worship two different gods under the roof of an idol factory.
O how God must have been pleased to see Mormons and Christians worship together right? Look how they have broken down the walls of hostility between monotheism and polytheism. Look how the Mormon Church has reached out to the Christian Church to come together and sing kumbaya and we are the world. NOT!
My question is which god was being glorified in the Mormon Church? My other question is where was the outcry from the Church leaders? Zacharias had no right to go into the Mormon Church and speak on behalf of God’s Church. We are talking about a religion that says they, alone, are the people of God, and we need to become Mormons to have salvation.
It reminds me of the time when Moses came down from the mountain and heard the sound of partying. If Moses were a modern day philosopher/apologist he may have asked Aaron to grab a gi’tar and lead worship. Moses would then apologize for bearing false witness against the Israelites and preach a sermon right? Not!
Exodus 34:14; for you shall not bow to another god, for Jehovah whose name is Jealous, He is a jealous God;
God wiped out Nations because of the same nonsense back then right?
What if the Israelites followed today’s model of evangelism?
“Hey you Israelites; let us head over to the Philistine camp, bring our best cantor and don’t forget the instruments and after the worship together one of us can preach to them”.
In the light of Jonah and Nineveh there is a great contrast. Jonah called them to repentance and that was not what Zacharias did. Zacharias did not rebuke them for their belief in billions of god nor did he rebuke the blasphemy that Satan and Jesus are spirit brothers nor did he deal with the issue of the Mormon god, the Father, physically making whoopie with Mary. Instead, he read to them from Romans 1.
If Zacharias knew anything about the Mormons he would have known that they look down upon our interpretation of the Scriptures. Secondly, the man or woman who is not born from above cannot understand the things of God. They must hear the gospel and they must be commanded to repent of their idolatry. When Zacharias was speaking to them it would have sounded as if a ferret was talking to them.
What part of, the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, does he not understand?
1 Corinthians 2:14; But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
This John Lennon apologetics approach makes me sick to my stomach. Make peace and not war? Have these so-called leaders in the Church forgotten the commands of God? Do they not learn from the Old Testament how God destroyed idolaters? Have they changed His name from jealous to tolerant? If you have not heard or forgotten about this unequally yoked event I have included the link. And don’t forget that while they were there, Richard Mouw apologized to the Mormons. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/novemberweb-only/11-15-11.0.html http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19612
The reason I take the time to point this out is because it is similar to Piper’s invitation, only the reverse. He did not go to the heretic’s den, but invited the heretic to the Desiring God conference.
This is a serious issue because the men involved are not the obvious goats who are known by their false doctrine and their self help/social gospels. For example, it is abundantly clear that the Rick Warrens and the Joel Osteens may be considered Church leaders by the masses of ignorant evangelicals, but we know they are nothing more than emissaries for the Adversary. Their fruit stinks because their root is not in Messiah’s word.
But, what happens when the men in leadership positions are not so obvious? Wilson is a smooth talker, and if you can get the CD from alpha and omega ministries you can hear for yourself how brilliant he comes across. By George, he knows the Westminster Confession of Faith better than most. He quotes from many, many reformed personalities as you shall see to make his arguments. But, the arguments are built mainly upon men and Confessions and not the Scriptures themselves.
As I will point out later, doctrine must find a unity between all of God’s people and then friendships take place. We don’t find friends and let doctrine get pushed aside. In other words, unity of doctrine is crucial because it will determine brother and sister and whether or not we are in an “unequally yoked” relationship.
While at Westminster Seminary East, a man named Norman Shepherd was alleged to be teaching his students a distorted and gross definition of justification. It was later on, that his audio lectures sealed the allegations. Shepherd did put out a 34 point thesis in defense of his position and I will later cover only one of the points that disqualify him as a Christian.
What is the gospel? I don’t mean to sound harsh, but if you do not understand that justification is legal and forensic, that its application is because of a declaration made by God. It takes place only once (when God declares a man or woman righteous because of the work of His son) than you will not or may not see the confusion in some of Shepherd’s or Wilson’s theology either.
I must mention again the issue of leaven. Although this FV is a rampant problem within the Presbyterian Church, as you will see it is spreading into the Baptist Denominations like gangrene.
This particular Baptist (Piper) is one who is well known and popular. Many, many pastor’s and lay persons look to his sermons and books as tools to strengthen the faith of other Baptist pastors and their flocks. This is why it is imperative that Christians, especially those Baptist Pastor’s who have flocks, be very familiar with Wilson or understand what skubalon (dung) Douglas Wilson is pushing so they may protect their flock. His material is being sold through websites such as American Vision and Vision Forum and we must put pressure on those so-called ministries and command them to pursue doctrinal truth. Pressure only comes in the form of $$ these days. Tell them you will not support them if they sale the material of a man (or any man) who teaches another gospel.
It is evident that many Congregations, Ministries and Para-church ministries do not care about criticism or controversy, but they do care about the gospel of the checkbook.
I don’t care what value these men may have in writing on matters of history or biographies. Obviously Hitler had an ability to spread his message and he had quite a few fan-atics who would kill if he said kill. He didn’t care what others thought. Hitler’s gospel was to exterminate the Jews and had he lived in our day he may even consider holding Conferences with the Muslims because they too had/have a common goal. In their eyes, all Jews have bull’s-eyes on their backs.
What I am trying to say is this; a good working knowledge of history or the history of other men has its place, but it can be equally dangerous when it is used as bait. Knowledge will gain an audience when used with the gift of gab and articulation. But the knowledge of history and biographies do not kill. One can even be wrong when it comes to history or the biography of another because there are no spiritual consequences. But, getting the gospel wrong, will determine your spiritual destination! Wilson uses his knowledge of history and the biographies of other men as bait, in the same way that the Mormon Church equally does in pushing family home evening and family values as bait. Believe it or not, they even use Focus on the Family material to make their case about family.
Before I forget, in light of mentioning American Vision and Vision Forum, I have a question; if I were a Mormon ministry selling good books on parenting and homeschooling would you also buy my other material as well? May the Lord forbid even the entertainment of such an idea! Then to be consistent we must have the same attitude with Douglas Wilson and those who spread the disease of FV. If a ministry sells dangerous material and profits from it, we must not support false gospels or those who promote the men who do.
I realize I may bring other issues up as writing goes on so think of it as information overload. I say this because; there are ministries and ministers who will be included in this article. Some are good and some not so good and some are a stench. Or, another way I like to put it; I think of myself as the cowboy apologist speaking on “the good, the bad and the ugly”! If I go off on a tangent about someone or something you can’t say to yourself, “where is he going with this?” I like digressing at times because they add spice to an article.
Before I forget a word of admonition; it is imperative that a Pastor who reads this article puts aside his feelings on the matter and pursue the truth of the gospel no matter what the cost. I have no Axe to grind with heretics. If anything, I expect more heretics to breed as time goes on. Heresy is a breeding machine. As one commentator has said; “the mind is an idol factory”.
I am frustrated that there is so little written on this man and the movements attached to him. To my credit, I have already been sounding the alarm on these clowns verbally and I praise God some others have also done the same. I am only saddened it took this long for me to write on Wilson and the others associated or pushing these movements. It took Piper asking Doug Wilson to attend the Desiring God Conference to put my fingers to the keyboard. If I can do it (in my condition) then so must others, especially in leadership positions.
The Lord has stirred my heart to ask others to pay special attention to Piper.
We do not pray about heresy. We identify it and we silence it.
Paul instructed Titus to teach that which is in accord with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. Paul goes on to say in Titus 1; “their mouths must be silenced”! So, who is in the limelightsilencing the heretics in the limelight? Instead of silencing Wilson and Wright as men should be, they are endorsing them. As we will read in a moment, he (Piper) does not believe they have a different gospel. He should be using this Conference for educating the sheep of God. He should be warning others of which men to mark out and avoid according to Romans 16! But instead, because of a lack of discernment and in the name of tolerance, unity and non essential attitudes, men bring wolves into the sheep pen to dine together.
You Pastor’s need to believe what you teach. How many times have you warned of the clowns on TBN? How many times have you warned about the “name it claim it, blab it grab it” movement? How many times have you preached from Acts 20 and warned the flock?
Act 20:28 Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God’s church, which he acquired with his own blood. I know that when I’m gone savage wolves will come among you and not spare the flock. Indeed, some of your own men will come forward and distort the truth in order to lure the disciples into following them. So be alert! Remember that for three years, night and day, I never stopped warning each of you with tears.
I don’t need to tell you the obvious, but will point out;
1. Pay attention
2. You are overseers of God’s people
3. Savage wolves will come in among you
4. From your own people, from among yourselves, men will arise
5. They WILL distort the truth.
The word distort says thayer is; diastrephō;
to distort, turn aside, to oppose, plot against the saving purposes and plans of God, to turn aside from the right path, to pervert, corrupt
6. After they distort the truth they will draw or tear away disciples to follow after their own path of corruption.
How many times have you warned your flock with that same warning in Acts 20 and told men and women it is just as applicable today and in the future as it was back then? Have you been on your guard and watched the theology of these men or do you get upset when others point out issues of someone you have held dear for so long?
Why do you assume men don’t change after teaching for twenty or thirty years? I have asked before and I will ask again; how many Protestants saw a future conversion over to the dark side with Francis Beckwith to Roman Catholicism or what about when Clark Pinnock? He was reformed and was once writing good books? He now embraces the heresy of “Open Theism”. Did you ever think these men would change? Who would have thought Francis Schaeffer’s son would depart the faith and look to the Eastern Orthodox Church for salvation?
May God prick your conscience to see, that you must forget what men once believed and look to what they believe RIGHT NOW. I don’t care what they used to teach or for how long. I don’t care how many good books they wrote.
Let me also say that this equally applies to men like James Packer who should be publicly rebuked until he apologizes for signing the ECT document. I would expect an idiot to sign an agreement with Satan’s church, but not one who calls himself one of the Lord’s chosen. If he does not have the discernment to see what that document had intended to do, then he is not fit to neither write nor teach in the pulpit because he has betrayed the Messiah.
You may not like that, but feelings have nothing to do with defending the faith. Furthermore, I am astonished at how many Christians continue to read read and point others to C.S. Lewis who believed the Mass was a sacrament! Why do these men continue to have an audience? We no longer have a narrow path and a broad path. We have;
THE YELLOW BRICK PATH?
We have the Wizard of Oz Christianity? Where are the true leaders of the Church who are outspoken against heresies and uncompromising about false teachers? Where are the men with brains, courage and a heart? Instead we have a Church filled with cowardly lions that have no courage, tin men with no heart and scarecrows with no brains? Come out come out where ever you are!
If I have any agitation in my words it is because selected Church Elders do not see the heresy of Wilson. If they cannot see the heresy, do they really know the gospel? You cannot know a counterfeit if you do not know the original. That is just a fact of life. And if you cannot see a counterfeit staring at you in the face, what in the world are you doing behind a pulpit and what gives you the right to write books for us or endorse books by these men?
If you have read my articles or heard my big mouth, I constantly beat the drum about understanding and believing the gospel. Let me repeat the question; if you or another says you understand and believe the gospel and yet, embrace someone who does not understand or believe the gospel, then do you really understand or believe the gospel? I see this all the time. An evangelical tells me that Roman Catholics are saved. Do they really understand and believe the gospel? I would hope that you would say “of course not”. Then, as I continue on with this article, you must understand what Wilson and Wright are teaching and ask yourself the question; if they have a false gospel and Piper does not believe it is false, then, does Piper understand and believe the gospel?
If you are a Pastor/Elder or someone with authority in your congregation and you do not listen to this warning about Wilson, FV. NPP or AA, then please, turn in your resignation and find yourself a job where you don’t have to worry about stepping on men’s toes or hurting their feelings. I don’t know what we will do without you, but we would rather! If you are one of the “untouchables” or embrace one of the “untouchables” and ignore counsel and guidance, you are headed for a fall or God’s displeasure. You are in sin if you cannot discern a false gospel and continue leading God’s people. You are the blind leading the blind.
Proverbs 11:14; where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.
Also, keep in mind that I am not the only one speaking against Douglas Wilson and these other movements. I first became familiar with Wilson’s teachings years ago while I was attending the OPC Church. But, other godly men had already written on his theology and continue to sound the alarm to this day. Please note, I may have differing views then those whose links I am citing (always have to have that clause) but for the sake of argument I want to back up my statement that many oppose Wilson and his rat pack. I try to practice what I preach about pointing to other ministries, so you make sure you use Biblical discernment when going to these links.
With that said; I enjoyed the articles on Wilson and Federal Vision, in the flockalert website. However, Sproul is used in flockalert to define justification and I have serious problems with R.C. Sproul. Don’t think Sproul or his son is innocent with regard to the FV movement. I have the July 2003 “Tabletalk” in my hot little hands. This particular issue has an article by a man named Peter Leithart. Leithart and Douglas Wilson are FV pals. In the same year the article was put out in Tabletalk Leithart also put out a book called “Against Christianity”. Douglas Wilson published the book for Leithart. In the book Leithart calls Christianity the heresy of heresies.
On page 13 of his book, under the number 2, he writes; “Christianity is the heresy of heresies, the underlying cause of the weakness, lethargy, sickness, and failure of the modern church”.
If you need some conversation about the book and want to defend this asinine statement, just put it into the blog comments and we can discuss the matter. Wilson has written for Tabletalk as well. Nevertheless, the writer from flockalert did great research on FV and N.T. Wright as well, so I do not have to put too much info in this article on Wright. He also did a good job on the theology of C.S. Lewis, so he has gained brownie points with me! (Smiles)
http://flockalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/what-is-the-federal-vision-is-it-heresy
http://flockalert.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/beware-of-nt-wright
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/A%20Refutation%20of%20the%20Auburn%20Avenue%20Theology.htm
When two or more have made a judgment about a man’s theology, tried to communicate their concerns to that individual according to Matthew 18 and the accused dismisses us as “Scribes and Sanhedrin” then this conduct and attitude must be taken all the more seriously and evaluated by other Christians further.
Even though the theologies of these groups (FV, NPP and AA) are in no way identical, they do overlap in many areas. And, as I tell others, another way to put it is this way; there may be varieties of weeds in the same garden; nevertheless, they are still weeds!
It is my opinion that these movements want a return to Rome, but without the smells and bells, without the Mariology, without the trinkets, without the whacky traditions, etc, etc. Not only is it my opinion, one Presbyterian journal wrote this as well. When you go to the link below, page down to; “The Unconditional Covenant in Contemporary Debate—and the Protestant Reformed Seminary” by Prof. David J. Engelsma.
Shepherd and Rome
The same distinct leaning towards Rome appears in the defenders of the doctrine of justification by faith and the works of faith in conservative Reformed circles. Norman Shepherd laments that there are “unresolved questions” remaining “that are really the legacy of the Protestant Reformation” (The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism, P&R, 2000, p. 4). These unresolved questions have to do with the doctrine of justification and include Reformed weaknesses regarding man’s responsibility and the importance of works.
Ominously, Shepherd states that his doctrine of a conditional covenant, with its essential element of justification by faith and faith’s works, offers “hope for a common understanding between Roman Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism regarding the way of salvation” (Call of Grace, p. 59). Although Rome is called to give up its notion of merit, that false church is not required to repent of its doctrine of justification by faith and works as denial of the gospel of grace. Nor is she rebuked for her heretical explanation of Romans 3, 4 and James 2 .
Rome in Their Heart
Even though these defenders of justification by faith and faith’s works are still in Reformed churches, Rome is in their heart. Shepherd takes Rome’s side against Luther’s translation of Romans 3:28 by means of the word “alone”:
Luther inserted the word “alone” into his translation of Romans 3:28 to make it read “For we hold that one is justified by faith alone apart from works of the law.” This is the origin of the dogmatic formula, justification by faith alone. However, his insertion actually distorts Paul’s meaning (“Justification by Faith Alone,” in Reformation & Revival Journal, 11, no. 2 [Spring 2002]: 87).
Part 2
Let me now cover both Douglas Wilson and his confused covenant theology.
Please note for the record; I want to address the issue of election and sanctification. I believe, and can show, that a spouse and/or a child receive great benefits from being in the family of a believing parent(s). We are told that the spouse is hagiazo by the faith of the believing spouse and as a result, the child is hagios.
1 Corinthians 7:14; For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified because of her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.”
I understand that Paul says in the above passage, they are his words and not the Lord’s. I have heard that argument again and again. However, Paul understood Biblical Judaism better than Douglas Wilson and Paul had a greater pedigree compared to Wilson. Paul knew the children of believing Jews, if they were chosen and called by God, would not only hear the gospel from the parents, but would also come to a saving faith.
Paul did not teach security to those under the care of a believing parent(s). One need only to re-read the TaNaKh and see how many children, who grew up circumcised and under the wing of believing parent(s), who later departed from the faith. Had Wilson been around 2000 plus years ago and ran across a religious Jew who had been circumcised and departed from the faith, would he have told the Jew “we must hold you to your circumcision?”
This is what he is doing now. He says “we must hold them to their baptisms”. It does not matter to him whether or not the baby was baptized by the Roman Catholic Church or a liberal Presbyterian Church and it does not matter to him if parents were garden variety pagans who thought it would be nice to have the baby sprinkled. As long as the triune formula is used, the baby is good to go. But, in the light of 1 Corinthians 7, if the parents are not believers, then how can the child be clean and holy? The baby cannot stand on the heels of a baptism, especially before coming to a saving faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of the Lord. Every Jew circumcised or not, still needed to exercise faith in the Living God before any blessing was given to them. Wilson has put the cart before the horse.
Secondly, God has no Grandchildren who will make it to His kingdom on the shirttails of the parents. The child or husband or wife must have been chosen;
Ephesians 1:4-5; just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
If the wife is a believer and the husband or child is not, then the husband or child, if elect, will come to a saving faith. If the spouse or the child does not believe the gospel and does not come to repentance then this person has simply enjoyed the benefits of a godly love extended to the spouse or the child. Now, this may upset a great number of you to hear this, but the fact remains that God chooses some for honor and some for dishonor. He determines our boundaries and who our parents would be, whether elect or not.
I must make this point because the Church was modeled after the Nation of Israel. The Jews did not see what we see now. They looked forward and we look back. Nevertheless, salvation is from the Jews and is the root of our faith even though we now call ourselves followers of the Messiah or other nicknames. God chose very specific people and within that Nation there were the good, the bad and the ugly. No one disagrees that the Jews were chosen by God out of all the Nations and no one disagrees that the revelation of His word was very limited and given to them alone. For example;
Deuteronomy 7: 7-8; “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Psalm 147:18-20; He sends out His Word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow. He declares His Word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not done so with any nation; and they have not known His judgments. Praise Jehovah!
This is the reason for pride within many Jewish circles. Instead, it should have been an attitude of humility. The Jews looked down upon other Nations because they, alone, were called to receive a special love not given to the other Nations. Yes, they were often the hand of God, an instrument in destroying other Nations. But this was not to communicate that they were better than the other Nations. It was done so that promises would be fulfilled to Abraham and his seed. And also that the Jew would see why God would say to them his name is jealous. They were to learn just how intolerant God was toward idolatry and instead, they misunderstood. Arrogance leads to haughtiness and this is what the Jew did.
I take the time to point this out for a couple of reasons. What if the baby, who was baptized as a Roman Catholic, grows up and decides he or she has something the world doesn’t have? Are there “cocky” Roman Catholics out there who boast that they were baptised as babies? That depends, how much witnessing do you do? I have heard from the mouths of Roman Catholics, a sort of smug attitude because they were baptized and subsequently, followers of the Roman Catholic Church. I feel that they have become religious Jews in drag. Making claims to a religion that they know nothing about. The Jews had Abraham as their father and the Roman Catholics have the Popie as their father.
Rome has friends in Protestant places
Are Roman Catholics members of the New Covenant? Does Roman Catholic baptism make the baby a member of the covenant? As we will see later on, the baby who is baptized by a Roman Catholic priest is entitled to all the blessings that God’s people receive as well. But, the caveat is, will the baby remain true to his/her baptism? If the baby grows up to be a man, he can walk away from the covenant, and he can come right back in as he sees fit. A 24 hour door is always open to the baptized Roman Catholic. This is why I use the term “hold them to their baptisms”. According to Wilson, if you find a person who is Roman Catholic and is living in the world as a pagan, you must remind them that they were baptized into a covenant and must return to the covenant.
This is the topic being discussed between James White and Douglas Wilson. In the beginning of the CD, Douglas Wilson gives some words of encouragement (not to me, I didn’t buy it) to those who may think he is in favor of many R.C. doctrines. He denounces many R.C. Doctrines publicly.
He says he
“I detest the errors of Rome and I pray for the day of her repentance. Among those errors, I would include the idolatry of the Mass, the use of images in worship, their profound confusion on the matter of faith and works, purgatory, Mariolatry, merit, the saints, the papacy…”Wilson vs. White CD
Doesn’t that sound nice? He refers to himself as a “Classical Protestant” and he says we (I assume the Protestants) should detest our own failings more than those of others. He laments what the protestant world has become. He goes on to say;
“Honesty still compels me to state, that I detest our sectarianism, in fighting, gym crack evangelism, hostility to covenant connections and lack of historical awareness. These are our besetting sins and I believe the best way to demand that Rome repent is to show them how”.
Did you catch that? Was this a moral repentance or a doctrinal repentance he is asking from Protestants? This is like watching the news and hearing some lying politician saying “the American peoples this” and “the American people that”. I end up yelling at the TV saying “you don’t represent my beliefs you numbskull. I am an American; you cannot speak for me especially since you don’t have a clue about what I believe”. Secondly, when push comes to shove, I am a follower of the Messiah and not a “protestant”.
Wilson does not speak on behalf of all Protestants and that is my point. It sounds to me that he is saying we should stop fighting among ourselves, have historical awareness, stop the hostility to covenant connections, etc and Rome will follow in our footsteps? Is he such an idiot that he believes things will change if we do it his way?
You see, the above statement he made caters to his belief system. What he really says to me is we need to follow his plans. We need to stop our hostility to covenant connections, have historical awareness, make love and not war, etc. And he says he detest sectarianism? For those who do not know the word, I would say it is safe to say denominationalism. Sectarianism is defined as;
sectarian spirit or tendencies; excessive devotion to a particular sect, esp. in religion.
Why do we have divisions within Protestantism? It is because we have wheat and tares that cannot dwell together because we do not have doctrine in common and besides that, light and darkness cannot dwell together nor are they permitted to do so. Why do we have different denominations? It is because of two reasons; liberalism creeping into one particular denomination and the men in charge are pansy’s, and will not fix or address the problem so people are forced to find an alternative where they can worship in spirit and in truth.
The other reason for splitting denominations is because of people like Doug Wilson. They want to have it their way and they will start a new denomination in order to have it their way. So, the man who points the finger at us for sectarianism has three fingers pointing right back at him. We must fight false doctrine and liberalism and expose false gospels.
If I can make one more observation, I would say Wilson has created the problem in the same manner that the Arminians have done. Telling people they can come to God by a free will is no different than telling men and women you are in God’s covenant by baptism. This results in bringing goats into the sheep pen. This results in making people religious or giving comfort and aid to the enemies of God along with a false sense of security. If it is not the gospel that causes the change then it is worthless. Jesus loves me is not the gospel. Choose Jesus is not the gospel. I was baptized as a baby is not the gospel.
I don’t know about you but I have problems with this mindset. We are sinners saved by grace. Roman Catholics would not know the gospel if it bit them in the tuchas. No matter how much we fail, we continue to live out our faith, we run the race, and remind ourselves the just shall live by faith! If salvation depended upon me or your living a perfect life no soul would be saved. We are saved because the perfect obedience of the Messiah was credited to our account, and we live that life. In the meantime, we are instructed to contend earnestly for the faith. We defend our faith against imposter religions who seek self righteousness. How dare Wilson say he laments what the protestant world has become. It is I who lament how he has deceived hundreds of people with his gospel plus “remain loyal to your baptism by obedience”. This is why you may have heard the term “final salvation.” You cannot know until your time has come.
Should we also lament our own failings to the Mormons or the JW’s like Richard Mouw did? Why is it he is given the green light to bash all of the protestants? Who nominated him the pope of the Protestants? Father Wilson has stepped on the toes of many godly people who know how they are saved and what they are saved from. Therefore, he does not represent me not multitudes of others who believe the gospel.
Wilson says we should be examples to the Roman Catholics. Again I ask, doctrinally or morally? He says he detests many Romish doctrines, but accepts their baptism conducted by a possible pedophile?
If I had not already said so Wilson is pastor of the Christ Church (Christ less Church in my opinion) in Moscow ID. I pulled up his sight and what do I find? I found an amazing amount of Creeds and Confessions including the so-called Apostles Creed. Read my article on this bogus Apostles Creed if you have the opportunity.
Under the page “Understanding” it reads;
Our various creeds and confessions express an important part of who we are as a church. We confess and believe together with our fathers in the faith and our brothers throughout the world. We are baptized into their company as members of the same body, the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with them we eat of a common loaf and drink from a common cup. Their creed is our creed, even as their life is our life—one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. The elders of Christ Church therefore subscribe to these creeds and confessions, holding them to be a faithful witness to what the Scriptures teach, and as a means of identifying with the broader Church. http://www.christkirk.com
You need to see between the lines when you read this. Any person who is baptized into the community is code for “we accept anybody who is baptized with the triune formula found in Matthew 28:19”. “Their creed is our creed”. Hmm, as you will read later on, James White pointed out that Mormons also baptize their people using the triune formula. Do we share their creed? Are they our family?
How important are these creeds to the leaders at Wilson’s congregation? I will let the website give you the answer;
We hold to the ancient creeds as defining the faith once delivered to the saints, and we hold that no one rejecting the truths proclaimed in these creeds can be right with God. http://www.christkirk.com
Are you awake? The creeds are the final matter concerning the faith? Where is the Scripture? If you are “blessed” (hahaha) to be one of their church leaders and you reject the truths presented in the creeds, you cannot be right with God. According to this asinine and arrogant statement, I am not right with God if I dismiss the creeds and confessions and favor the Scriptures as the only source for truth? Note to the numbskull; the creeds are not the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The Scriptures alone are God breathed, not the works of men!
During the debate with Dr. James White, in Wilson’s opening remarks, he also says he has been called a heretic by many. May I say this is a red flag and our cue to do further investigation! I don’t know about you, but I am generally considered a Biblicist and only hated by those with heretical theology. No Christian should have to throw out the accusation that he has been condemned as a heretic by men within his own Presby denomination, nor should any Christian be charged with tampering with the gospel unless there is some substance to the accusation.
Enemies of the gospel calling us heretics are one thing, but Presbyterians and Baptists (who understand the doctrine of justification and imputation) who are concerned about Wilson’s theology and calling him a heretic is completely different.
He is making himself out to be a victim. He is not being called a heretic by the Mormons or the JW’s mind you. He is being called a heretic by those within his own ranks who share many of his same convictions! These are Presbyterians, who have called him to the carpet for his abuse of covenant theology. A theology, when followed through, leading to paedo communion. We Baptists already had concerns with baby baptism and rightly so. It is unbiblical. But I think, no, I hope you would agree this has crossed the line because it is even clearer that there is NO biblical precept, command or example to feed the Lord’s Supper to babies.
How can a baby profess Yeshua as Lord and the Son of God? How can he declare the death of the Lord until he returns when he cannot even spit out the words goo goo gaga? While many Pentecostals may interpret goo goo gaga as Jesus is Lord, nevertheless, it is not.
Why doesn’t John Piper even entertain the accusations made by other godly men in the Church? Why does he not see Wilson’s (under the radar) baptismal regeneration? How can it not be baptismal regeneration when the baby is initiated into a covenant by his or her baptism and will never be required to be baptized after a confession years later? Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are post salvation blessings. They are given to those who believe the gospel. There is not one precept, command or example of a baby being baptized!
If one wants to press the matter then let us consider those men and women who were on the planet before Abraham and were never snipped. What would Wilson hold them too? What of Abraham? Was he immediately snipped or was it about 24 years later that the flesh was cut? With that in mind, was he saved when he believed the Lord and righteousness was credited to his account according to Genesis or was he saved only after he was snipped? And let us push the matter further. What of the women in the covenant who were not circumcised? Were they excluded from the covenant? What of Sarah? Would Wilson say to her; we must hold you to your circumcision?
Do you see how stupid this becomes when we force baptism to be an extension of circumcision and apply this to babies? In a second I will mention Joshua and the snipping that took place to adults who had left the wilderness. Were they God’s people during that time? Of course they were. But, they were circumcised years later.
Secondly, how can he justify acknowledging Roman Catholic baptism? How can the children of unbelieving, garden variety pagan Roman Catholic parents, who do not know or obey the gospel, how can their child be considered a covenant baby? 1 Corinthians 7 applies to the parent(s) who is a believer in order that the spouse or the child would be holy. God’s grace may extend to the unbeliever due to His compassion and many have seen a spouse or a child come to saving faith. But, dung plus dung equals dung. If there be no believer in the household, then the family is not hagios.
This Roman Catholic baptism garbage cannot be likened to the Old Covenant. The Jews typically knew the God of Abraham and so the children were sure to receive the Law of God because they were within, what Jews call, the four walls of Torah. The children were constantly receiving teachings. The parents were commanded to teach them “shaman”. That is, that the words would be taught diligently to their children.
Deuteronomy 6:4-7; “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
The Targum reads; And thou shalt unfold them to thy children, and meditate upon them when thou art sitting in your houses, at the time when you are occupied in secret chambers, or in journeying by the way; at evening when you lie down, and at morn when you arise.
There is no gospel to be found in the walls of the Roman Catholic Church! What Roman Catholic parent teaches their child anything of value concerning God? “C’mon children, let us grab our rosary beads and pray repetitiously to Mary our co-redemptrix? Douglas Wilson and his paedo pals say your baptism as a baby is perfectly legitimate and so, not only do we have our Priest on board, we have some Protestants as well”.
What message would the R.C. parents tell their children even if they were of age to understand? First words out of their mouths would be “let us sin and head down to confession at the end of the week”! Such a deal! Would the parent unfold the gospel to the child? What gospel? The gospel of the Mass or the gospel of the Eucharist or the gospel of adding your good works to the perfect and finished works of God?
There is in Rome, only a system of works defying the gospel of God. When all is said and done, it is their attempt to suppress the righteousness given to us as a gift from God through the finished work of his Son and in its place; they bring their righteousness to the throne of God. To the Roman Catholic who may be reading this? Your works and the works of the Messiah go together like oil and water. They will not blend together and there is no synergism nonsense. You have attacked the finished work of the Messiah.
As I said earlier, whether Wilson or the FV advocates agree or not, I contend this stinks of baptismal regeneration. How can Wilson even think that babies are brought into the covenant community by a baptism?
Now let’s briefly cover circumcision as an everlasting ordinance. For the context read Genesis 17: 7-14. I want to focus on the words circumcision, everlasting ordinance and the result of no circumcision according to words of the Lord to Abraham. The uncircumcised male “shall be cut off from his people. The uncircumcised male has broken the covenant. What was the penalty for breaking the covenant?
Genesis 17:13-14 “A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
I am reminded of those who were wandering the desert for almost forty years. Question; were their remnant/elect within that body of people? Were their descendants of Abraham in the mix? The answer is yes. Next question; were they circumcised? The answer is no. So the question I have to those who twist the Covenants and believe baptism is the circumcision of yesterday; (in the language of Wilson when he says we must hold Roman Catholics to their baptism) what circumcision would you hold these Jews to? The story is very clear from Joshua.
Joshua 5:2-7: At that time the LORD said to Joshua, “Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time.” So Joshua made himself flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. This is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way after they came out of Egypt. For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised. For the sons of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, that is, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished because they did not listen to the voice of the LORD, to whom the LORD had sworn that He would not let them see the land which the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. Their children whom He raised up in their place, Joshua circumcised; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them along the way.
I believe the argument stands on its own.
This may be a good time to mention Norman Shepherd and a couple of his 34 theses. First let me quote from two men who fought against the Norman shepherds of their day.
Why is maintaining and defending the biblical doctrine of justification so important? Traill answers that question by pointing out that justification is the keystone in the arch of all Christian doctrine (Traill, 67):
“All the great fundamentals of Christian truth centre in this of justification. The Trinity of persons in the Godhead; the incarnation of the only begotten of the Father; the satisfaction paid to the law and justice of God, for the sins of the world, by his obedience and sacrifice of himself in that flesh he assumed; and the divine authority of the scriptures, which reveal all this, are all straight lines of truth that centre in this doctrine of the justification of a sinner by the imputation and application of that satisfaction. There can be no justification without a righteousness; no righteousness can be but what answers fully and perfectly the holy law of God; no such righteousness can be performed but by a divine person; no benefit can accrue to a sinner by it unless it be some way his, and applied to him; no application can be made of this but by faith in Jesus Christ. And as the connection with, and dependence of this truth upon the other great mysteries of divine truth is evident in the plain proposal of it, so the same has been sadly manifest in this, that the forsaking of the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ’s righteousness, has been the first step of apostasy in many, who have not flopped till they revolted from Christianity itself.”
Traill was by no means alone in his convictions regarding the centrality of justification by faith alone to true Christianity. One of his contemporaries on the continent, the Dutch Puritan Wilhelmus a Brakel (1635-1711) wrote:
“Justification is the soul of Christianity and the fountainhead of all true comfort and sanctification. He who errs in this doctrine errs to his eternal destruction. The devil is therefore continually engaged in denying, perverting, and obscuring the truth expressed in this chapter and, if he does not accomplish this, to prevent exercise concerning this truth. When new errors appear on the horizon, even when they initially do not pertain to justification at all, they in time will eventually culminate in affecting this doctrine. One must therefore be all the more earnest to properly understand, defend, and meditate upon this doctrine” (Brakel. Vol. 2. p.341) http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1098
With that said, look at the following and see how cleverly justification and sanctification are merged together by Shepherd. Always remember when you state a position and throw in a “but” the position cannot rest on its face value. A “but” is a contrast to what was just said. If I were to say “I believe in grace alone through faith alone in Messiah alone but, obedience to the Law is essential and necessary to be saved.” See the conflict and contradiction? Notice also he says continuing in a state of justification is necessary.
In the first one I post, see how he says the believer is in a state of justification, but, the believer’s obedience, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification.
Number 21; The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification
Number 25; The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone does not mean that faith in isolation or abstraction from good works justifies, but that the way of faith (faith working by love), as opposed to the “works of the law” or any other conceivable method or justification, is the only way of justification. (John Calvin, Institutes, III, 11, 20. “Indeed, we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies ‘but faith working through love’ [Gal. 5:6]. But it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.”).
What initiated this article? Why, it was John Piper himself! The headline on the website says;
On Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at the Resurgence National Conference, Pastor Mark Driscoll emceed a Q & A time with Pastors John Piper and Matt Chandler. Please watch as Mark, John, and Matt discuss the dangers and struggles that pastors face, keeping the church focused on Jesus and not the men leading it, false gospels, maintaining humility in the midst of authority, accountability, contextualization, racial diversity and how much Pastor John can bench-press. http://theresurgence.com/driscoll_piper_chandler_2008-02-26_video_tnc_qa
When he sat on a bar stool next to Mark Driscoll and Matt chandler answering questions, the question was asked;
“Dr Piper, in your defense against the doctrine of N T Wright-have you found Federal Vision theology of Doug Wilson to be another gospel”?
Cue it up to about the 43rd minute and listen carefully. His answer was a stern “no”. Here are portions of the answer.
“NO. That’s easy. Doug Wilson doesn’t preach another gospel. OK. I don’t think N.T. Wright preaches a false gospel either. I think N. T. Wright preaches a very confusing gospel…This isn’t about him so I won’t talk about him anymore….Doug Wilson is one of the most careful and bright, uh, reformed, post millennial, objectivist theologians around and he’s got people around him that are dumb. (Laughter) I listened to all three hours of his grilling, go to his website…..He subjected himself voluntarily to be examined by the Presbytery and as I listened I thought brilliant, wrong on numerous cases, but wrong the way you’d expect a Presbyterian to be wrong……its very complicated. Don’t write Doug Wilson off very easily. He’s a very bright guy, I don’t think he is a heretic, I don’t think he’s preaching another gospel”.
Not only did he tell the world Douglas Wilson was not preaching another gospel he also mentioned he did not believe Tom Wright was preaching a different gospel. As we move the clock forward (eighteen months later) we see Piper maintains his position on Wilson. Why wouldn’t he? After all, it would look bad if Piper invited a man to the Desiring God Conference who was teaching a different gospel right? So Piper would have to defend the theology of Wilson.
Now, on September 27th -29th Douglas Wilson will be one of the speakers at the 2009 Desiring God National Conference in what is called “with Calvin in the Theater of God” http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1878_why_doug_wilson_is_speaking_at_dgs_fall_conference
John Piper answers in the video, why he asked Wilson to attend the upcoming Desiring God Conference. You may call it semantics, but in the video a statement is made that needs to be remembered later when I quote from the book, Future Grace.
Piper says; “And he’s going to take our place and his righteousness is going to count for me on that last day”. Call me nitpicky, but I believe this is the same language that confirms the position in his book which looks forward to a future justification. One of the problems with this theology is that it confuses justification and sanctification. I would have said “He has taken our place and his righteousness has already counted for me”.
Call me a Biblicist, but I recall the Scriptures speaking of justification in the past tense. We have been justified and we have obtained access and peace, right now! We are in him, right now. Secondly, we have no condemnation, right now! This is not a future event that we wait for in the hopes that we remained in the covenant to see our justification come to fruition. Our faith looks back to the work accomplished. Not to a work in the future.
Romans 5:1-2; Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in our hope of sharing God’s glory.
Romans 8:1; Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in union with Christ Jesus.
I am still working on this article. Pray for me, Moshe