Years ago, in the second house in which Mrs Heidelblog and I lived, water seeped into the basement every time it rained and it rained frequently. As the ground became soaked water would push in and up through the basement. We had . . . Continue reading →
The Reformed churches have endured discussions and disagreements about salvation (justification, sanctification, and deliverance from the wrath to come) before. Beginning in the late 16th century a Reformed minister in Amsterdam began offering significant revisions of the Reformed understanding of Scripture. Early . . . Continue reading →
Do Reformed Christians ignore the Epistle of James? Particularly, have those who confess the Reformed theology, piety, and practice been guilty of ignoring James’ teaching in 2:14–17. Whether James has been ignored in recent years is a difficult assessment to make. How . . . Continue reading →
Scripture does not say that baptism is the instrument of salvation any more than the Noahic flood or the Red Sea were the instruments of salvation. No, faith is the sole instrument of salvation. We were delivered through, i.e., out of the flood and the Red Sea. Continue reading →
His teaching is a subtle form of legalism and eventually is “another gospel”. —D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Continue reading →
Shepard affirms that from a covenantal perspective a person may pass from an elected and justified status to a non-elect and non-justified status. This transition does not mean simply that a person is first treated as though he were elected and justified . . . Continue reading →
It is not proper, therefore, to set up a dichotomy whereby according to God’s secret will, election or justification cannot be lost, but according to our covenant perspective they may be lost. The statements cited show a tendency to use typically Calvinistic . . . Continue reading →
“Shepherd is undoubtedly driven by a biblicistic concern to limit modern theological vocabulary strictly to the biblical incidences of those words.”—Guy Prentiss Waters. Continue reading →
The Federal Vision is still an issue. That should not surprise anyone. Some version of this error has been with us at least since the mid-16th century, when the Protestant doctrine of justification was severely threatened. It became a serious issue in . . . Continue reading →
2. He infers a general conclusion, “That a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law,” chap. 3:28. What is meant by “the law,” and what by “the works of the law,” in this discourse of the apostle about . . . Continue reading →
It’s hard to remember where I last saw an actual shell game. It might have been at the Nebraska State Fair or it might have been at some amusement park. It doesn’t matter. The fellow behind the table shows you three empty . . . Continue reading →
Finally, a word needs to be said about the confessional implications of Fuller’s doctrine of Justification. Fuller claims that there are “several passages in Scripture which clearly indicate that the enjoyment of God’s gracious benefits depends on meeting certain conditions” (p. 108). . . . Continue reading →
Way back in 2009, when the Federal Vision controversy was still going the claim was made by a proponent of the Federal Vision that there is not a single, agreed doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone but rather there . . . Continue reading →
In light of the current discussion, it seems appropriate to re-post these brief points with some explanatory resources below. We are rehashing some of the same issues, particularly points 7–9. These points were adopted as “pastoral advice” to the churches by the . . . Continue reading →
“Just searched “federal vision” at meet the Puritans.com and there are no returns. Puritans have everything to say re Tullian and nothing to say re FV” —Mihai Corcea on Twitter.
it basically boiled down to this: 1) Have weekly communion; and 2) meet with the local RC priest and treat him as a brother. And then go from there. He has always tended towards mechanism in my mind, because his priority is . . . Continue reading →
I would say that the most foundational error in the book is his rejection of the “dual aspects of the covenant” (55-56), a matter which I consider essential to good Reformed theology and well balanced Calvinism. Reformed theology at its best accepts . . . Continue reading →
Digging through an old hard drive, looking for another file, I stumbled across an interview I thought was lost, the Covenant Radio interview with William Hill on the Federal Vision and Recovering the Reformed Confession. Here’s the interview:
Revisionism isn’t always a bad thing. I am a revisionist myself. I’ve been trying to help people see the history of Reformed theology rather differently from the way it was often presented from the middle of the 19th century through the 1970s. . . . Continue reading →
If possible, I wish to raise an alarm without being an alarmist. The Reformed theologian, J. H. Alsted (1588-1638) said that the doctrine of justification is the article of faith by which the church stands or falls. Of course, he was only . . . Continue reading →