I thought I was done responding to this really bad article purporting to deal with law and gospel (twice! and then gave a comparison to R. C. Sproul’s much more clear statement). But the fun never ends. A commenter raised a question:

Why would you say Jesus in his faith and perseverance is not a model for us? “Consider HIM (Jesus) who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” The author of Hebrews directs us to Jesus as the “captain of our faith” after listing a litany of “heroes” in chapter 11.

To which our intrepid theologian responded in part,

I don’t even think Heb. 11 is about saving faith

When that belief was questioned, the exchange became even more surreal. This Hebrew 11 exegesis shows Roman Catholic or “Federal Vision influence:

You can tell me you’re just reading the Bible and are not influenced either by Rome or Moscow, but I admit I would be skeptical of that claim.

So here is John Calvin, from his obscure and marginally Reformed (sarcasm, by the way) Institutes of the Christian Religion in Book Three, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ” and chapter 2

Since the nature of faith could not be better or more clearly evinced than by the substance of the promise on which it leans as its proper foundation, and without which it immediately falls or rather vanishes away, we have derived our definition from it—a definition, however, not at all at variance with that definition, or rather description, which the Apostle accommodates to his discourse, when he says that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” Heb. 11:1). For by the term substance (ὑπόστασις), he means a kind of prop on which the pious mind rests and leans. As if he had said, that faith is a kind of certain and secure possession of those things which are promised to us by God; unless we prefer taking ὑπόστασις for confidence. I have no objection to this, though I am more inclined to adopt the other interpretation, which is more generally received. Again, to intimate that until the last day, when the books will be opened (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12), the things pertaining to our salvation are too lofty to be perceived by our sense, seen by our eyes, or handled by our hands, and that in the meantime there is no possible way in which these can be possessed by us, unless we can transcend the reach of our own intellect, and raise our eye above all worldly objects; in short, surpass ourselves, he adds that this certainty of possession relates to things which are only hoped for, and therefore not seen. For as Paul says (Rom. 8:24), “A hope that is seen is not hope,” that we “hope for that we see not.” When he calls it the evidence or proof, or, as Augustine repeatedly renders it (see Hom. in Joann. 79 and 95), the conviction of things not present, the Greek term being ἔλενγχος, it is the same as if he had called it the appearance of things not apparent, the sight of things not seen, the clearness of things obscure, the presence of things absent, the manifestation of things hid. For the mysteries of God (and to this class belong the things which pertain to our salvation) cannot be discerned in themselves, or, as it is expressed, in their own nature; but we behold them only in his word, of the truth of which we ought to be as firmly persuaded as if we held that every thing which it says were done and completed. But how can the mind rise to such a perception and foretaste of the divine goodness, without being at the same time wholly inflamed with love to God? The abundance of joy which God has treasured up for those who fear him cannot be truly known without making a most powerful impression. He who is thus once affected is raised and carried entirely towards him. Hence it is not strange that no sinister perverse heart ever experiences this feeling, by which, transported to heaven itself, we are admitted to the most hidden treasures of God, and the holiest recesses of his kingdom, which must not be profaned by the entrance of a heart that is impure. For what the Schoolmen say as to the priority of love to faith and hope is a mere dream (see Sent. Lib. 3 Dist. 25, &c.) since it is faith alone that first engenders love. How much better is Bernard, “The testimony of conscience, which Paul calls ‘the rejoicing’ of believers, I believe to consist in three things. It is necessary, first of all, to believe that you cannot have remission of sins except by the indulgence of God; secondly, that you cannot have any good work at all unless he also give it; lastly, that you cannot by any works merit eternal life unless it also be freely given,” (Bernard, Serm. 1 in Annuntiatione). Shortly after he adds, “These things are not sufficient, but are a kind of commencement of faith; for while believing that your sins can only be forgiven by God, you must also hold that they are not forgiven until persuaded by the testimony of the Holy Spirit that salvation is treasured up for us; that as God pardons sins, and gives merits, and after merits rewards, you cannot halt at that beginning.” But these and other topics will be considered in their own place; let it suffice at present to understand what faith is.

Don’t know how Doug Wilson managed to turn back time and insert himself into the Institutes. Or is John Calvin a crypto-Roman Catholic?

This is no secret. No obscure passage. (What would be truly obscure would be to find notable Reformed writers from the Reformation or post-Reformation era who agreed with Jason.) This is at the center of John Calvin arguing for justification by faith against Roman Catholic soteriology. No one could have a passing knowledge of Calvin’s popular bombshell and not know this.

Here‘s another, from the heretical chapter entitled “The Beginning of Justification and Its Continual Progress.” later in Book III:

Lastly, as there is no sanctification without union with Christ, it is evident that they are bad trees which are beautiful and fair to look upon, and may even produce fruit, sweet to the taste, but are still very far from good. Hence we easily perceive that every thing which man thinks, designs, and performs, before he is reconciled to God by faith, is cursed, and not only of no avail for justification, but merits certain damnation. And why do we talk of this as if it were doubtful, when it has already been proved by the testimony of an apostle, that “without faith it is impossible to please God?” (Heb. 11:6).

Jason, of course, is free to disagree with Calvin and side with whatever his profs taught him this at Westminster West.  What I can’t abide is him pretending to be articulating anything like the Reformed mainstream and using vile associations (real and also totally imaginary, based on the same ignorance seen in this exchange) to dismiss people who read the Bible. We live in a wonderful intellectual environment where people who use the Bible just like all the other Protestants are written off as influence by Roman Catholics and “FV.”

Here is more of the Roman Catholic/Moscovite John Calvin, and Matthew Henry and more Mathew Henry. Notice, I don’t always agree with Matthew Henry, but I don’t pretend otherwise and assert everyone else must be corrupted by errorists.

Yes, due to this:

I do find the BCO’s statement “the visible church, which is his [Christ’s] body” (PP 3) to be, at best, an unhelpful choice of words.

The WS seem to be careful to apply the term “body” (WCF 25.1), of which “Christ is the head” (WCF 25.1; WLC 64) only to the invisible church. Of course, contra “all the baptized,” it is only members of this body who are said to enjoy “union with Christ” (WLC 65, 66).

The distinct terms “kingdom of Christ”, “the house and family of God,” and “society” are used in the Standards to reference the visible church (WCF 25.2; WLC 62).

Frankly, especially given the current state of things, I think the BCO statement should be amended accordingly

So here we go again:

I hear people claim that the Westminster Standards insist that only the “invisible Church” is “the body of Christ.”

In the Book of Church Order, here is preliminary principle #3:

Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty (emphasis added).

If anyone really thinks that the Westminster Confession contradicts this, they need to get it amended to say:

Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is not His body because only the invisible church may be described in this way, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty.

Likewise, the beginning of the preface about Jesus being “THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH” would need to be rewritten so that it no longer included the emphasized words:

Jesus Christ, upon whose shoulders the government rests, whose name is called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace; of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end; who sits upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth, even forever (Isaiah 9:6-7); having all power given unto Him in heaven and in earth by the Father, who raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Ephesians 1:20-23); He, being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church, and gave all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints (Ephesians 4:10-13).

After all, this too makes the “body of Christ” the church with offices–offices that are visible.

Of course, if we are to make these revisions to the BCO, we would need to edit the Scriptures on which it is founded. Actually, I can’t see any way to edit First Corinthians 12.12-30. It would need to be completely expunged from the Bible:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

All of this editing and expunging is necessary if the Westminster Confession teaches that only the invisible Church is the body of Christ and that the visible Church is not the body of Christ. What I find odd, however, is that I don’t see anywhere in the Westminster Standards that make that precise claim. I see that the Westminster Confession affirms that the invisible Church is the body of Christ, but I don’t see them excluding the visible Church from being the body of Christ. In fact, chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession goes on to use First Corinthians 12.28 as a source for describing the visible Church:

Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

So I don’t see a reason to insist that the Westminster Confession contradicts the PCA’s Book of Church Order or First Corinthians 12.12-30.

I claim to affirm the following. The first is from Luke’s Gospel:

And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’ Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.

The second is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 10, paragraph 4:

Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved

So, are both these things true? I think so.

Or is anyone who claims that people believe for a while and then fall away guilty of violating the Westminster Standards?

If I am wrong and one is violating the Westminster Standards by affirming that apostates (or some of them) “believe for a while,” would that be preferable to contradicting Jesus?

No, kidding. Someone named Mark comments:

I am no advocate of the federal vision or Peter Leithart’s view of baptism or his view of apostasy. (I’m a Baptist and, besides having come from a religious background where there were strong elements of baptismal regeneration, I find teachings that even have a shade of baptismal regeneration distasteful).

However, you would have done well to quote a larger portion of that text on page 99. I think you are doing a disfavor to Mr. Leithart. Whatever the merits (or de-merits) of his theology, Leithart certainly did qualify what he was saying by indicating that this was only in one sense, and in another sense God certainly does not change at all.

via Leithart: “Apostasy Happens” « Johannes Weslianus. (my boldface).

It might be interesting in just how false an impression the blog post is designed to communicate, regarding Dr. Leithart (or the Rev…: he is both a Ph. D., and ordained in the PCA).  But the point of the blog is to claim that this represents one monolithic theological position that can be attributed to a bunch of people. No need for precision, just spray the accusations.

Well here is the only collective statement. This is the “federal vision theology.” I don’t think Wes is capable of accurately representing Peter Leithart’s thinking, but even if he did so, he would only be describing Peter Leithart’s thinking. If he wants to target others, he needs to actually deal with them. I have seen no evidence he is capable of doing that, either (for example).

The Sandemanian system was an extreme reaction against the ‘ Neonomian,’ and also against the ‘ Marrow,’ doctrine, which arose during last century, almost simultaneously in Ireland and Scotland, and which continues to exist, within a limited circle, in the present age, among the followers of Sandeman and Glass, while it has tinged the writings of many who did not, in all respects, embrace their opinions. It was a recoil from the ‘ Neonomian’ doctrine which had prevailed in the preceding age, but it went to the opposite extreme, and was equally at variance with that of the ‘ Marrow’ divines, for it denied that faith is an act of the mind at all,—or at least an act of the renewed mind, and affirmed that if it were an act of obedience, we must be justified by a ‘ work.’ The writings of Sandemanians contain some important truths, and are fitted to correct several prevalent errors ; but not content with vindicating the one, and exposing the other, they have gone much further, and have virtually claimed for themselves a monopoly of the only sound view of free Justification by grace, on grounds which bring them into direct collision with the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

The difference between the two is one of a much more fundamental nature than is generally supposed. It is often regarded as a mere difference of opinion on a metaphysical question respecting the nature and definition of faith ; but on deeper inquiry into the grounds on which the Sandemanian doctrine rests, and the arguments by which it is maintained, it will be found to resolve itself into one of the most important questions which ever engaged the attention of the Church. For that question, considered in its widest extent, and reduced to its ultimate analysis, amounts to this,—Whether the work of the Holy Spirit in applying to men individually the redemption purchased by Christ, and producing faith and repentance in them in order to their Justification, be, or be not, inconsistent with a free Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ ?

Sandemanians are anxious to reduce faith to a mere intellectual assent, and to exclude from it trust, affiance, and assurance, with everything that is spiritual or holy, or that can be regarded as a moral duty,—for this express reason, that were it considered as including any of these fruits of the Spirit, or as being an act of moral obedience, we must be held to be justified by ‘a work.’

But this reason involves the tacit assumption that faith is itself the righteousness by which we are justified,—for if it be not that righteousness, but merely the means by which we receive and rest on the righteousness of Christ, it may be, as the Protestant Church teaches, a fruit of the Spirit, a holy principle, and even a moral duty, without implying the slightest departure from the doctrine of a free Justification.

Let faith itself be excluded, as well as every other grace, from forming any part of the ground of our acceptance, and the work of Christ for us will still remain the only righteousness by which we are justified, while the work of the Spirit in us may be acknowledged in all its fulness and efficacy, as that by which alone we can be so united to Christ as to become partakers of His righteousness. Instead of an intellectual, we may have a spiritual, apprehension of divine truth, and instead of a cold assent, a cordial consent, to the Gospel, without impairing in the slightest degree our reliance on Christ alone. The relation of the work of the Spirit in us to the work of Christ for us is one of the most important subjects in Theology.

From page 188-19, of James Buchanan on Justification.

This is exactly right. As I have affirmed as my covenant theology, Christ is the righteousness of believers, the only righteousness that avails with God:

We affirm Christ is all in all for us, and that His perfect sinless life, His suffering on the cross, and His glorious resurrection are all credited to us. Christ is the new Adam, obeying God where the first Adam did not obey God. And Christ as the new Israel was baptized as the old Israel was, was tempted for 40 days as Israel was for 40 years, and as the greater Joshua He conquered the land of Canaan in the course of His ministry. This means that through Jesus, on our behalf, Israel has finally obeyed God and has been accepted by Him. We affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father.

And again, faith only justifies because it receives this alien righteousness:

We affirm we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Faith alone is the hand which is given to us by God so that we may receive the offered grace of God. Justification is God’s forensic declaration that we are counted as righteous, with our sins forgiven, for the sake of Jesus Christ alone.

And this is entirely consistent with the other aspect of Protestant Orthodoxy:

We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.

This should not have raised an eyebrow among educated or Reformed Calvinists. But some claiming to know something went so far as to broadcast the accusation that I have denied Sola Fide. For example:

To say that in the matter of justification before God, we are justified by an obedient faith is to deny the Apostles’ teachings.

This is nonsense in so many ways, it is hard to know where to begin. It actually makes salvation by works rather than the by the righteousness of Christ look credible to anyone trying to read the Apostle.

Here is a reasonable way to get the conclusion:

To say that in the matter of justification before God, we are justified by a faith that merits righteous standing or makes up for our sins is to deny the Apostle’ teaching.

And here are some other ways (all saying close to the same thing):

To say that in the matter of justification before God, we are justified by a disobedient faith is to deny the Apostles’ teachings.

To say that in the matter of justification before God, we are justified by a faith that is not obedient is to deny the Apostles’ teachings.

To say that in the matter of justification before God, we are justified by a faith that does not work by love is to deny the Apostles’ teachings.

As I have pointed out, the Westminster Standards state explicitly and unambiguously that we are justified by an obedient faith:

Faith is obedient. Thus the church has always taught: According to Chapter 11, Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, faith is an act of “evangelical obedience.” Furthermore it is always one act of obedience among others in the justified person.

Paragraph two of the same chapter states that faith is “not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.” “Dead faith” is a direct appeal to James 2 and “worketh by love” is a direct appeal to Galatians 6. Both passages are about justification and the Westminster Confession uses those passages in a chapter that is about justification. There is no way anyone can claim that these passages are about some kind of parallel soteriological scheme so that they are not about the same justification. Galatians 6 and James 2 are dealing with the same issue, according to the Confession.

But wait! Does this mean that we are justified by works? Of course not. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received (as Christ is received) only by faith.

3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Faith discharges no debt. Faith does not satisfy the Father’s justice regarding our sin. Christ and Christ alone does all that.

And for that very reason no one needs to try to deny or disguise the fact that faith is obedient. In fact, trying to do so, besides being a hideous attack on the grammar of every language, demonstrates that one is not thinking about justification and Christ’s imputation in a correct way. It will lead to people trying to be “passive” enough, inactive enough, to say that they have true non-working faith. In that direction lies madness.

The way to make sure that people don’t make faith into a meritorious work is to emphasize the work of Christ. Nothing but the blood of Jesus washes clean our sin; our faith does not do that. When the Bible says that God cleanses our hearts by faith (Acts 15.9), it is because faith receives Christ, not due to any alleged merit in the obedience of faith.

In fact, not only is faith in Christ obedient, but it is obedient to the First Commandment of the Decalogue.

• Having no other gods before Yahweh meant never sacrificing animals to any other god but Him. This is not only the obvious context of Exodus and the Pentateuch, but only a few sentences after the giving of the decalogue God gives instructions on how to properly sacrifice “ascension offerings and peace offerings.” These sacrifices pointed to Christ. The First Commandment teaches us to trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
• The fact that neither unfallen Adam, nor Christ, needed to be forgiven is entirely irrelevant. The First Commandment tells us to trust in God alone for all that we need. For us sinners, that means that we must trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life. For Jesus it meant trusting the Father for vindication, growth in grace (Luke 2.51), and resurrection to glory. If we need it, then the First Commandment tells us to look for God as he has revealed his will in reference to that need. We need justification, sanctification, and eternal life. Those can only be found in Christ. Christ is true God as well as true Man. Thus, the First Commandment teaches us to trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
• The Ten Commandments are part of the administration of the covenant of grace. They were not stipulations given to sinless beings in which they were expected to persevere in perfect obedience. They are stipulations given to sinners expected to constantly sin. When an Old Testament Hebrew sacrificed to Baal in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, he was violating the First Commandment. When a Church member decides to pray to the god of the Mormons for the forgiveness of sins, he is violating the First Commandment. The First Commandment teaches us to trust in Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
• Thus the preamble to the Decalogue makes it clear that the Ten Commandments are given for the saved community to live by faith in God’s grace. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Thus, the Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches:
  

  Q44. What doth the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?
  A44. The preface to the Ten Commandments teacheth us, That because God is The Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all His commandments [Deut. 11:1; Luke 1:74-75].

  The Decalogue explicitly appeals to God as Redeemer, the one who frees God’s elect from all sin and brings them into an estate of salvation (See question 20 and then 21 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism).

None of this means that some how the “goodness” of faith makes us righteous. Faith is only a gift of God anyway and cannot merit anything. It merely receives Christ and his righteousness.

Why is confusion being spread in the Reformed churches about such a basic point? And why are ministers of the Gospel having their standing destroyed by accusers who are never held to account?

SEE ALSO Faith: Joint FV Statement & the Westminster Standards