Hello, this is Pastor Patrick Hines, and I wanted to press on with a series I started a while back on the Federal Vision and Dewey Roberts' great book, which I really, really wish was on Kindle, but here it is, Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision. It's kind of hard to find, but it is a treasure trove. It's an excellent analysis. I think the best one that I've seen. Right up there with John Otis, Danger in the Camp, a wonderful book. Not only in that it exposes the gross errors on the gospel of the federal vision, but also gives lots of really great quotations from great theologians and good expositors of scripture on some of the key passages that are misused by the federal vision. But I want to get right into Dewey Roberts' book here. There's a chapter called The Federal Vision and Justification by Faith Alone. Now, justification by faith alone is the gospel. That is the heart and soul of Christianity. And the Apostle Paul, when he wrote Galatians, made the argument that to get justification wrong is to have a different gospel. He says in Galatians chapter 1 that if we have a changed gospel, if you have justification by faith plus something else, that you're no longer dealing with Christianity any longer, and in fact, you are under the anathema of God, in Galatians 1, verses 6-9. So, to make an error on justification, on how a sinner is made right with God, and what is the legal grounds of not just justification as if that were the initial step of salvation, as many portray it, Sadly, today it's not. It is the whole shebang. It is the final assize. It is the final judgment on the Day of Judgment where we stand before the judgment of God. That is what justification is. That's what justification is. And I want to repeat, as I've had to say many times, I never thought I would have to say this, but apparently we have to say this a lot today. There is no vindication of our faith by our good works on the day of judgment as if those good works are brought into the court as forensic legal evidence that our faith was real and therefore were finally saved by those good works or something like that. It's a very strange doctrine, the idea of final salvation or final justification by fruit. As if our fruit... could withstand the very holiness of God. The reason Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross and died is precisely because, as the Holy Spirit breathed forth in Scripture in many places, that the righteousness by which a person gets into heaven has to be a perfect righteousness or they're not going to heaven. And Paul even says in Galatians chapter 3, if there had been a law given which could have imparted righteousness, or if there had been a law that could have given us righteousness, then truly righteousness or justification would have been by the law. But the law has confined all under sin, okay? And so the law of God is of no use to us when it comes to being right with God. The law, as Paul says in Romans 4.15, the law brings about wrath. And he even says in verse 14 of Romans 4, if those who are of the law are heirs, what he means by that is a person who's of the law, meaning they're trying to obey the law good enough to get into heaven. If by doing that they are actually heirs of eternal life, then faith is made void in the promise of no effect. Okay? Faith is made void in the promise of no effect because the law brings about wrath. Well, why is that? Why is that? It's not because of any defect in the law, it's because of a defect in man. Man is in sin before God, and as soon as Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he plunged the entire human race into sin, and getting into heaven, even in part on the basis of our good works, ceased to be possible. And so we have to get into heaven, We have to be welcomed into heaven, we have to attain heaven on the grounds of someone else's righteousness. We have to get into heaven on the basis of what someone else, a legal representative, who is sinlessly perfect, what they have done for us and in our stead and place. Any teaching that muddies that is not Christianity. dangerous and soul damning and that's not just the you know that's not radical reform theology that's the apostolic position that's what the scriptures teach us okay Paul says in Galatians 2 21 I do not nullify the grace of God I do not make void the grace of God for if righteousness comes through the law then Christ died in vain and so the reason for the incarnation The reason for the incarnation is the doctrine of justification. We need someone else, a legal surety to achieve all of it for us, not to achieve the initial step. but to achieve all of it for us. And that's such an important point in our time, and you have all these strange teachings emanating from different groups today, and compromises going on today, and it's a real sad thing. And that's why I harp on this issue, because the apostles harped on it, and because Jesus taught justification by faith alone throughout his entire earthly ministry, and the entire Bible from front to back. teaches very plainly, very clearly, that no one can get into heaven except on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone. Okay, now, in Dewey Roberts' book, Chapter 14, which is titled The Federal Vision and Justification by Faith Alone, he has three quotations here from three of the worst of the Federal Vision heretics, Peter Lightheart, Steve Schlissel, and Rich Lusk. Says Peter Lightheart, quote, Biblically, again, the case is fairly simple. Does the New Testament ever claim that works are, in any sense, necessary for justification? Romans 2.16, again, claims that the doers of the law are justified. That is a controversial passage, but it shows that works and justification are legitimately linked. James 2 is even clearer. Again, this is a controversial passage, but whatever the specific sense of James 2, he explicitly states that we are justified by works and not by faith alone in James 2.24. There's Peter Lightheart arguing like a good Roman Catholic. And Steve Schlissel says, this statement, Romans 2.13, the doers of the law will be justified. It's not a theoretical proposition concerning some meritorious method of being right before God. The presuppositions undergirding Paul's statements include facts that the law is obeyable. And this is just breaking from the quotation. This is what Schlissel harps on all the time. See, they could obey it. I mean, Abraham obeyed God. I mean, he obeyed the Lord. We as Christians, we obey God. That's true. And our confessions and the scriptures address that very clearly. We walk in new obedience. We walk in newness of life, and there's a change that takes place in us. However, however, we're still sinners, and there's still sin mingled with that obedience, and therefore that new obedience cannot in any way, shape, or form justify us before God. He says the law is obeyable, that truly responding to the law in faith does justify, and that such justification is not an exclusively Jewish possession. End quote, says Steve Schlissel. And then Rich Lusk, always gotta love him for his clarity, quote. works of faith filled obedience, works of faith filled obedience, in a secondary way, cause our final justification and salvation. Breaking from the quotations. I've told people many times, when you see adjectives put on the front of justification or salvation like initial or final, watch out! Watch out, there's unbiblical false gospels coming. Okay, justification is not an initial thing. Okay, salvation is not something, well, there's initial salvation and that's totally gracious and then there's final salvation by works or something like that. The Bible does not teach that anywhere. That is not a biblical teaching. That is no part of the apostolic proclamation. It's no part of what the apostles taught. Okay, says Lusk. Works are the means through which we come into possession of eternal life. The path of obedience is the way we must trod if we are to be justified at the last day. Could they be any clearer? I mean, where is grace in any of this? Is Jesus mentioned anywhere in any of these things? This is straight up law. This is straightforward law. You want to get into heaven? Keep the law. It's actually true. And that's why we need Christ. These people actually think that we can obey the commandments of God and satisfy their requirements. And that's exactly what the entire Bible labors to make clear. No, we can't. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Apart from the law. Okay, the law can't justify you. Romans 3, 20. Therefore, by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified in his sight. Works of law is not exclusively circumcision and dietary laws. See, Paul, when he talks about the law, he's talking about the prohibition against adultery, against stealing, against idolatry, the things from the Decalogue. That's what he talks about in Romans chapter 2. So don't, you can't limit works of law to Jewish ceremonies and circumcision and dietary laws. It's anything in the law, anything in it at all. Ten commandments, dietary, ceremonial, whatever. Okay, I'm moving to the chapter now. The 17th century reformed theologian, Johann Heinrich Alsted, wrote words which have often been attributed to Luther. The article of justification is said to be the article of the standing or falling church. I have not found any place where Luther wrote those exact words, but he certainly agreed with that position. He also expressed himself similarly in various places, particularly in the smuggled articles of 1537. Calvin and all the reformers agreed with Luther on the necessity of this article of faith. One of the later Reformed theologians, Antonius Wallais, wrote, the topic of justification in theology is easily foremost and for us the most saving. If it be obscured, adulterated, or overturned, it is impossible for purity of doctrine to be retained in other loci or for the true church to exist. One of the key differences, but by no mean the only difference, between the federal vision and the historic Protestant faith concerns justification by faith alone. The proponents of the federal vision generally have two ways to respond to these differences. First, they sometimes affirm that they believe in justification by faith, conveniently leaving alone out of their statement. Second, if pressed concerning the deletion of alone, they will assert that they do indeed believe in justification by faith alone. but their meaning is different than the classical understanding of the phrase. Okay, just breaking from the quotation here. One thing that is incredible to me that people should know, people that are leaders in reformed circles today should know, is that false teachers and heretics have always, do always, will always affirm the words of scripture. They always have. And that they've always affirmed the words of orthodoxy too. They always have. They would never outright deny any of these things in words, but if you look at their larger quotations and their larger teachings, they do deny all of these truths, all of them. Okay, so don't be fooled if someone gives the right answers to questions when they know where you're coming from and they're trying to be accepted by you. You can't just take their word for it because you need to know people lie. People just lie. and they'll equivocate, and they'll say things in certain contexts around certain people that they would never say around others. Now, another instance, they qualify justification by faith alone as justification by covenant faithfulness. Such a definition of faith is a fundamental and radical change of the scriptural way of salvation. Faith is not the same as faithfulness. That should be obvious, okay? Because faithfulness, the ness part of it there, refers to a subjective disposition within me. Faithfulness is not faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is a saving grace, okay, whereby we not only assent to the truth of God's word promised in the gospel, the promise of salvation, but we receive and rest on Christ alone. That's what faith is. Faith is a looking away from self to Christ alone. Faithfulness is my walk with God. I mean, I'm at times more faithful, less faithful, okay, but that is a gross A conflation of two very different concepts. Faith and faithfulness are not the same thing. Okay, says Roberts. True faith will lead to faithfulness, but faithfulness is not equivalent to faith. Faithfulness is equivalent to obedience. Okay, so to say we're justified by faithfulness is to say we're justified by obedience. Okay, and that's not true. As an example, Peter Lightheart testified at his trial, quote, I heartily affirm that Abraham was justified apart from works and before circumcision. And I heartily agree, and I've always taught, that sinners are justified when we receive Christ and his righteousness by faith alone. Lightheart's statement begs the question how he can hold to justification by faith alone and also hold to justification by baptismal grace. Or, how can he hold to both justification by faith alone and final justification? Okay, just FYI, you can't hold to justification by faith apart from works and final justification by works. You can't. Because the Bible does not teach that there's an initial and a final justification. There's only one justification. Period. When a person is declared righteous, it is because they have been granted faith in Christ by God, united to Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed to them, Christ's cross is received as the full satisfaction for their sins, they are once and for the rest of eternity righteous in the sight of God, and they cannot possibly be anything other than righteous on account of Christ's work received in their stead. Now listen to this. Not surprisingly, Lightheart contradicts his statement on justification by faith alone in the following quote. Okay, here's Lightheart, quote. This is from, I believe this is from, against, no, no, no, this is from his essay, Judge Me According to Your Righteousness, in that book, The Federal Vision, that was edited by Steve Wilkins, I think. Or, yeah, I think. He says this, I remember this quotation angered me the first time I read it, too. Second, the Protestant doctrine has been too rigid in separating justification and sanctification. More rigid, certainly, than scripture itself, I would say. No, it hasn't. No, it hasn't. He says, I argue below that when examined under a military conflictual metaphor, rather than solely under the imagery of the courtroom, justification and definitive sanctification are not merely simultaneous, nor merely twin effects of the single event of union with Christ, though I believe this is the case, rather they are the same act. So justification and sanctification are the same thing. They're the same act. And haven't you always thought, yeah, when you read Paul, when you read Paul's writings about who would bring a charge against God's elect, it is God who justifies, you know, charges, justified, condemned, judge, righteousness, guilt, condemnation. Those are forensic legal terms, aren't they? Aren't they? Law, impute, verdict, justify, condemn. Yep, those sound like courtroom things to me. But haven't, I mean, all of us have wondered, I wonder what it would mean if we examined it under a military conflictual metaphor. I mean, haven't you always wondered that? About a military conflictual metaphor. I mean, that needs a whole sermon preached on it. Okay? Re-examining justification under a military conflictual metaphor. What in the world is that? What's that talking about? A military conflictual metaphor. Purpose Driven Military Conflictual Metaphors. That'd be a cool book to write. So Justification and Sanctification, they're the same act. Okay, listen to this. God declares us righteous by delivering us from all our enemies, or to use the language of 1 Kings chapter 8, God justifies by giving to the righteous according to his righteousness, by keeping his covenant promises with those counted righteous. Okay, stop there. I read this essay years ago. Actually, I moved my Federal Vision books back there. I have a whole shelf of Federal Vision books. And I remember reading this essay. He says, 1 Kings chapter 8. I thought, 1 Kings 8, isn't that Solomon's prayer of dedication at the temple? I looked it up. Yeah, it is. And Solomon prays that God would give each one, justify by giving the righteous according to his righteousness. What is he talking about? Is he talking about how a person gets into heaven? No, he's talking about the civil righteousness and the judicial concepts of the land. That's all he's talking about. Lord, give to the righteous according to their righteousness. He's talking about in the courts and in his rule as king in that country. Okay? He's not talking about how we're justified. Justify by giving the righteous according to his righteousness. As if by praying that in his prayer at the dedication of the temple where he wants righteousness and justice to reign in the land. What's one of the things the prophets castigated the people of Israel for? Justice is not in the land. And the judges are taking bribes and everything. So what does Solomon pray? Justify by giving to the righteous according to his righteousness. That has nothing to do with the doctrine of the justification of sinners before God. You know, I asked Guy Watters. I sat down with Guy Watters. I had him as a professor. I asked him a whole bunch of questions about the federal vision. And I asked him about this quotation here. I remember asking him, is he really making that dumb of an error? He assumes everywhere you see the word justification that somehow that's relevant to the doctrine of justification. I mean, D.A. Carson talks about that in his book, Exegetical Fallacies. It's called the word concept fallacy. Assuming everywhere you see a certain word that the doctrine that goes by that word's name is somehow relevant to it. If the psalm writer says, give me according to my righteousness, meaning in the temporal sphere, in this world, on a horizontal plane, that's not relevant to how you get to heaven. That should be obvious, right? And Waters said, yeah, I mean, they could be making an error that's that lame. I mean, it certainly looks like it to me, okay? Okay, Dewey Roberts continues here. It is interesting that in an article in which Lightheart claims to be giving biblical perspectives on the doctrine of justification, he uses a metaphor which has no foundation in the Bible. He defines justification in terms of a military conflictual metaphor, which necessarily denies the forensic nature of the doctrine. Okay, I just want a break from the quotation. Duh. Why would you examine the justification of sinners? Okay, think about the Bible. Okay, hit the Bible. Creation, God creates man, enters into the covenant of works, Genesis 2, 16, 17. Okay, there is a promise of life there, if Adam had withstood that temptation, he would have earned the right to eat from the tree of life. That's what Genesis 3, verses 22 to 24, I think it is, says. that lest the man put forth his hand and eat from the tree of life and live forever, had he withstood the temptation, he would have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever. At the end of the book of Revelation, we get to eat from the tree of life and live forever, because Christ has earned that right for us. And so the doctrine of man's fall into sin and the need for a redeemer, someone who can redeem us from sin, because all mankind is going to be judged by God, it says in Hebrews. It is appointed to man to die once and to face judgment. Okay? All of the law of God, the forensic legal nature of salvation, of justification before God. Why would we think, you know, we need to examine this under a military conflictual metaphor? What is that even talking about? What does that mean? Military conflictual. I just want to tell you, that's Theobabble. That's Theobabble. It's meaningless. And as Robert says, it denies the forensic nature, the legal nature of the doctrine. I mean, the word itself, the way Paul uses it, were justified, meaning what? Forensically, legally, pronounced righteous before God so that the guilt of our sins will not be brought against us on the day of judgment. Again and again, reading the Federal Vision guys, just like reading N.T. Wright in the New Perspective, again and again I thought, and I remember asking Guy Watters this question, I said, you know, it seems like These guys, these authors, they've never had a moment where they lost some sleep thinking about their guilt before the Holy God. Like the Holy Spirit has not convicted them of sin because they don't see the gospel in any of these passages. Anyway, Roberts continues, the Bible nowhere defines justification in that way. Amen, it doesn't. Military conflictual metaphor. I remember thinking, what is that talking about? This is typical federal vision doublespeak. Federal vision proponents first say that they believe in justification by faith alone, then they redefine justification to include sanctification and covenant faithfulness. Finally, they affirm that justification is based on personal righteousness. In other words, they don't believe in justification by faith alone. And I've had a number of people contact me. That program I did where I played those quotations from Doug Wilson being interviewed by Chris Arnson on Iron Sharpens Iron, where Arnson did what I had always wished somebody would do, and that is play some quotations from Steve Schlissel for Doug Wilson and get his comments. And to hear Schlissel's hatred of the gospel in living color, just to hear it dripping from his lips, his hatred of justification of my faith alone, and then have Arnson say, so would you say, Doug, that my friend Steve Schlissel believes in justification of my faith alone? Long pause, yeah. I just think, okay, there you go, there you go. The words justification by faith alone are meaningless in the federal vision universe of discourse. They don't mean anything. Okay. Justification by faith alone is obscured, adulterated, and overturned at the present time by the federal vision proponents such as Lightheart, Schlissel, Lusk, Wilkins, and others. The true doctrine of the gospel is at stake in this controversy. And I can't state that enough. It's still the main issue. It's still the main issue. I've been getting some texts from someone on the western half of the United States who says, what do you do if your pastor mirrors and mimics everything Doug Wilson does in his church services and everything? And I said, run and don't look back. Get out. Get away from that. Roberts goes on, therefore the first thing we must consider in this chapter is the question, does the Bible teach that sinners are justified by faith alone? There are certain key verses in scripture that are the battleground for this dispute between the federal vision and the historic Protestant faith over justification by faith alone. It is acknowledged that the scripture nowhere uses the phrase justification by faith alone, yet the near equivalent to that standard formulation is given in one of those key verses, Romans 3, 28. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Just FYI, I ran into a guy downtown. What's funny, John O'Rourke ran into the same guy. And John O'Rourke from Full Armor Ministries, in his newsletter, said, this guy's theology is a veritable train wreck of heresy. And it is. And this guy just ranted at me, you know, you guys that teach faith alone. And I said, at the beginning of our conversation, as soon as he started ranting about that, I said, okay, you have my word. I will never use that phrase, faith alone, again in this entire conversation. How's faith apart from works for you? Can I use that phrase, faith apart from works? How about faith apart from deeds of righteousness? How about faith apart from works of law? Those are all biblical statements. And I told him, look, if justification, if salvation is by faith apart from works, then it is by faith alone. Faith apart from works means faith alone. In fact, faith apart from works is stronger than faith alone. The phrase, apart from works of the law, is what is intended by those who assert that justification is through faith alone. As Robert Haldane commented on this verse, this passage asserts not merely that men are justified without perfect obedience to any law, but without any obedience of their own. It's exactly right, that is what it says. It may likewise be remarked that believers will not be acquitted at the last day on account of their works, but will be judged according to their works. Our God does not justify any according to their works, but freely by his grace." Writing in the early 19th century, Haldane elaborated on themes which are pertinent in the present controversy with the federal vision. Haldane specifically says that the judgment according to works which every believer will undergo is not a final justification or a final acquittal based on works. Judgment and justification are two different things. Now, just breaking from the book here, I did a sermon, which a number of people told me was helpful, called Justified Persons and Judged Works. God accepts and accounts our persons as righteous in his sight, not for anything wrought in us or done by us, but for Christ's sake alone. And there is a judgment of works, too. But that judgment is not for our salvation or our justification. Many people reduce the scriptural teaching about justification to a simple denial of the works of morality, or good works. But Romans 3.28 specifically says that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. That phrase is a comprehensive term, which includes all the works of the law, moral and ceremonial. Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant before the law was given at Mount Sinai, but it was also included in the law as a requirement for all male sons, Leviticus 12.3, etc. Romans 3.28 sets the stage for Paul's argument in Romans 4.9-15 that Abraham received the righteousness through faith before receiving the sign of circumcision. Okay, so Paul is ruling out of court circumcisional justification because the Jewish people fought that. That's one of the big controversies. That's why Galatians was written. They taught that justification was by faith in Christ and circumcision. They taught circumcisional salvation. Sadly, in much the same way that a lot of professing Christians after the time of Christ made the same error on baptism. Circumcision is a work of the law and assumes that the one circumcised will be obedient to the law. As Charles Hodge states, quote, the Jews believed that circumcision secured its benefits not only as a seal of the covenant, but from its own sanctifying power. This was only one aspect of the doctrine of salvation by works against which the sacred writers so earnestly protested. The doctrine of salvation by rights, like circumcision, was, in the view of the apostles, a much lower form of doctrine, more thoroughly Judaic, than the doctrine of salvation by works righteousness." Hodge makes an important point in light of the denial by the Federal Vision Advocates that they teach salvation by works. By connecting salvation with the rite of baptism, they are necessarily teaching salvation by works, in a much lower form of salvation by works at that. Their form of doctrine is thoroughly Judaic. It is the ancient heresy of the Judaizers. Whenever justification is connected with circumcision or baptism, the lowest form of works righteousness is taught. That's a brilliant insight. He's exactly right. He's exactly right. There are examples of both types of works righteousness in scripture. The Judaizers connected ceremonial works with moral works at the council of Jerusalem. Okay. In Acts 15 verse five, it is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the law of Moses. Circumcision assumed and demanded that the one circumcised would be obedient to the law. And that's why Paul says in Galatians 5.3, I solemnly testify that if you receive circumcision, you are a debtor to keep the whole law, and Christ will be of no benefit to you. The rich young ruler focused on the moral requirements of the law when he asked Jesus, good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Paul before his conversion trusted in his circumcision on the eighth day as part of his hope of righteousness before God. The Scriptures frequently teach that the circumcision of the flesh is nothing Deuteronomy 10, 16, Deuteronomy 30, verse 6, Jeremiah 4, 4, Jeremiah 9, 25, Romans 2, 28, 29. Circumcision is not outward in the flesh, but is of the heart, even though God commanded it. That's why we can't denigrate the sign, just because we affirm that it doesn't affect what it signifies. That's an error that It's constantly made by people. They think, well, you guys baptize babies, you must believe in some form of baptismal regeneration. No, it doesn't necessitate that. Any more than the circumcision of babies necessitates that people believe in circumcision or regeneration. The Bible doesn't teach that in either case. Circumcision or baptism is not the means of salvation. It never has been. There are signs of it, but they're not the means of it. Circumcision, okay, excuse me, the rich young ruler focused on the moral requirements of the law when he asked Jesus, good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? Paul before his conversion, I'm rereading this, sorry, I keep losing my place. Okay, the scriptures frequently teach that the circumcision of the flesh is nothing without a heart that has also been circumcised. And the Jewish people made that mistake. They thought circumcision, hey, we've been circumcised. And Paul says, and the Old Testament teaches as well, Deuteronomy 10, 16, Deuteronomy 30, verse 6, Jeremiah 4, 4, Jeremiah 9, 25, that circumcision without a heart that has been circumcised, without regeneration, is nothing. And yet God still commanded it. We can't discard it just because, well, it doesn't affect what it signifies, so there's no point in doing it. No, you still obey God. You still do it, what he tells you. But it's the sign without what it signifies is not, doesn't do anything. It's not worth anything to that person. Justification is neither through ceremonial works nor moral works of righteousness. Both are works of the law and have no part in our justification, which is by faith alone. James D.G. Dunn, a New Perspective on Paul scholar, made the mistake of trying to distinguish between ceremonial works and moral works in his comment on Romans 3.28. And they all do this. All the false teachers do this. He said that Paul was prohibiting ceremonial works, but not moral works. That's what Roman Catholic apologists, upper eastern Orthodox people do the same thing. Quote, here's James E.G. Dunn, quote, his denial that justification is from works of law is more precisely a denial that justification depends on circumcision or on observation of the Jewish purity and food taboos. Now, why would Dunn want to limit it to that? Because he wants to teach that you get into heaven by being good. Why would Rome try to limit works of law to only circumcision and dietary laws? Why do they want it to say that? Because they want to include works of the moral law to get you into heaven. But Paul won't allow for that. says Dunn, works of the law are nowhere understood here, either by his Jewish interlocutors or by Paul himself, as works which earn God's favor, as merit amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges. They are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what mark out the Jews as God's people, end quote. Yet John Murray, in his comment on Romans 328, describes why all works are excluded in the matter of justification by faith. Listen to Murray, Murray's right here. The only answer is the specific quality of faith is the specific quality of faith as opposed to that of works. Justification by works always finds its ground in that which the person is and does. It is always oriented to that consideration of virtue attaching to the person justified. The specific quality of faith is trust and commitment to another. It is essentially extra-extraspective in that respect. And in that respect is the diametric opposite of works. Faith is self-renouncing. Works are self-congratulatory. Faith looks to what God does. Works have respect to what we are." In his commentary on Romans, W.G.T. Shedd refutes the Romanist doctrine of making justification dependent on infused righteousness or personal sanctification. The Romanist attempt to produce justification by sanctification, to obtain the pardon of sin upon the ground of either internal or external obedience, is not an adaptation of means to ends. It is like an attempt to quench thirst with bread instead of water. The true correlate to guilt is atoning sacrifice, and to substitute anything in the place of it, however excellent and necessary in other respects the substitute may be, must be a failure." When either Romanists or the Federal Vision proponents assert that justification is based on the total life of a person, they are confusing the issue as Shedd astutely observes. The justification of a sinner can only be through an atoning sacrifice, to which all the scripture abundantly testifies. Works can never justify because there is no atoning sacrifice in them. End quote. Okay, I'm gonna stop there. That's a great thing. One of the seminary guys here has a wonderful signature in his emails that he sends. Let me see if I can find one and read it. I love his signature. And I'm always reminded, it's one of his favorite Bible verses, he says here, for justification, the works of men are works of worthlessness, because works don't bleed. And without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin, Hebrews 9.22. Your works cannot save you. Your works cannot contribute to your getting into heaven. Your works do not cause you to be welcomed into heaven. The fruit of your faith can no more justify you or finally save you than a spider's web could catch an avalanche where there's 400 million tons of snow. For justification, the works of men are works of worthlessness because works don't bleed. And without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. And also when I was preaching this past Sunday night, I was thinking about, and as I was writing my sermon, that God taught the Israelites about justification by faith alone in the Passover. And I was thinking about what a, what an incredible night that was when the angel of the Lord went out to strike down the firstborn in all the houses, except where he saw the blood of a blemish free lamb. And I was thinking, what if the people in that house had said, okay everybody, let's all prick our fingers, and y'all gotta squeeze one drop of blood into the basin here before I use hyssop to plaster this blood all over. We gotta add our own blood to the blood of a lamb. What if they had done that? It wouldn't have worked. What if they had taken little post-it notes and took pushpins or something and taped them or pinned them to the doorpost on the blood of the lamb? We also did this and did that and I was covenantally faithful and this and that. Wouldn't have worked. Passover, for the Passover to work you had to take a blemish-free lamb? Kill it take its blood put it on the doorpost when the angel the Lord saw the blood he passed over that house It is exactly the same with us first Corinthians 5 7 Christ Our Passover was sacrificed for us. How can anyone claim to be a Christian? Who is trusting in? to get them into heaven, to cause the angel of the Lord's wrath to pass over them, trusting in their fruit, their covenant faithfulness, their progress of sanctification, their good works. If you're doing that, if you're relying on that, I want to invite you to repent. I want to encourage you to repent and come to know Jesus Christ. See, the guys that wrote all these quotations here, they don't know Christ. These guys are lost. They think they're going to get into heaven by their own faithfulness, by their own good works. And because of that, Christ will be of no benefit to them. No matter how much lip service they give to him, no matter how much they say we couldn't do it without him, he will be of no benefit to them. They are debtors to keep the whole law, they are severed from Christ, and they have fallen from grace. And so, when they die, they will appear before God, not dressed in the righteousness of Christ, because they didn't think that that was enough. They will appear with however well they did keeping the law, and we know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Being justified freely, justified as a gift by His grace. There is a righteousness that justifies us and gets us into heaven and it is the gift of righteousness, Paul says in Romans 5, 17. And if you don't have that gift imputed to your account and you're not trusting only in the righteousness of Christ and in his shed blood, you're lost. You are not in the kingdom of God. You've believed another gospel and are under the curse of the law. So please don't die like that. If you've been taken in by this federal vision stuff, turn away from it. Walk away from it. Turn and never look back. Find a church that understands the true gospel, believes and preaches, teaches and defends it. and put the heresy and the false doctrine behind you. I don't care how witty they sound, or how many books are put out, or how many conferences they do, or how many people they're able to sucker into thinking that they're orthodox. Still doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. There's only one true gospel that can save, and if you don't get it, if you don't understand justification by faith alone, that it's faith in Christ alone, because it's Christ's righteousness alone that can meet the requirements of God, then you're not a Christian. and in fact you're in your sins and under God's just condemnation. So believe the gospel that we're justified by faith apart from works, faith without works, faith apart from works of law, faith apart from deeds of righteousness. That's the gospel. Please, please believe it. Thank you for watching or for listening. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, and you've been listening to the Pulpit Supplemental Podcast. You can find us on the web at www.bridwellheightspca.org. Our sermons are streamed through sermon audio, and you can listen to that on the iTunes podcast version of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church. Feel free to join us any Sunday morning for worship at 11 a.m. sharp at 108 Ridgewell Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee. And may the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.