Federal Vision with Scott Clark (Part 1)

Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry coming to you from Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston. No Compromise Radio is a program dedicated to the ongoing proclamation of Jesus Christ, based on the theme in Galatians 2, verse 5, where the Apostle Paul said, �But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

In short, if you like smooth, watered-down words to make you simply feel good, this show isn�t for you. By purpose, we are first biblical, but we can also be controversial. Stay tuned for the next 25 minutes as we�re called by the divine trumpet to summon the troops for the honor and glory of her King.

Here�s our host, Pastor Mike Abendroth.

Welcome to No Compromise Radio ministry. My name is Mike Abendroth and today we have a special guest online, but before I introduce our guest, our well-known guest, don�t forget that we have Gospel Assurance, the book with a lot of Puritan writings, so-called Puritans, I know who my guest is, so I better not say.

Some English Reformers have written some chapters in the book I put together, Gospel Assurance, compiled by Mike Abendroth. You can pick that up at Amazon. And also a shout-out to KAGV, 1110 AM, where we�re heard in Anchorage, Alaska, and KFGR by one of our guest�s old students.

Our guest today is Scott Clark. Scott, welcome to No Compromise Radio ministry. Hey, Mike, it�s great to be with you. I think I�ve had you on five or six times, have I not? Oh, at least, yeah. Ten or twenty, I don�t know.

KFGR. Who is the former student at KFGR? His first name is Brian. Any other hints? He�s a Baptist still.

Oh, Brian Onstett. Yeah, that�s right. That�s his church, is KFGR. Oh, nice. That�s fantastic. Well, you�re a radio guy back in Nebraska, and I first was on radio at K-O-I-L. I don�t know if you remember that radio station.

It was in Omaha, and I won a contest, and I got to be interviewed for one minute as a 12-year-old.

The mighty 12 Titans, K-O-I-L, of Omaha. Absolutely. Are you kidding? I grew up with my left ear glued to a transistor radio.

Oh, I know. I remember waiting for, you know, a Cliff Richard song or something to come on. She�s a devil woman.

So, listener, you might not remember Top 40 radio, but K-O-I-L was one of the great Top 40 stations in America, and it was a pioneering station in the �50s and �60s. It�s not the first Top 40 station, but it was one of the early ones, and it was one of the great Top 40 stations.

So, those are the sounds of our childhood. It was a war between W-O-W and K-O-I-L.

That's right. And I think, Scott, I'm one year older than you are, so don't forget that as we're having this interview here. Remember your elder. Yeah. Okay, I will. All right, old man, let's go. All right.

Justification by Faith Alone and the Reformation Definition of Sola Fide

So, Scott, there's a big hubbub these days about federal vision, and is it heretical? Is it not? And before we get to talking about that particular subject, since we're dealing with a doctrine that should be well known, I think we should just make sure we understand what is justification by faith alone?

What is sola fide? So, then when we talk about deviations, people can compare one against the other. So, if you want to just, you know, off the top of your head, tell our listeners about by faith alone, taught by the scriptures, and then also articulated by the Reformers.

So, prior to the Reformation, the Western Church and chunks of the Eastern Church, in different ways, talked about justification as if it were the result—or as if it was the result of our sanctification, and that is our intrinsic personal godliness.

And they said, basically, you are justified to the degree that you are sanctified, and you're sanctified by grace plus works, or grace and cooperation with grace. That was the story. And in the Reformation, we said, no, Paul says that God, that Christ justifies sinners.

Abraham was a sinner when he was justified, and that he was justified not on the basis of what God the Spirit had done in him, or by grace and cooperation with grace. He was justified on the basis of what Christ did for him, and for all of his elect.

Christ came, Christ obeyed for us, and Christ died for us. And so, all that he did is credited to us. We receive the benefit of that, that is, the declaration of righteousness through faith, which is resting, receiving, leaning, trusting in Christ and his finished work.

And so, justification is God's declaration that we are righteous only for the sake of what Christ has done for us, and we receive that by grace alone, that is, by divine favor alone, not by medicine, and—.

Why Baptists Are Vulnerable to Federal Vision Teaching

So, Scott, as we're thinking about justification by faith alone, and then some deviations, of course, this is such a central doctrine, so it's obviously to be, I guess, expected that there's going to be attacks on this.

If I look at the landscape, and of course, I maybe am an insider in certain places, or I'm excluded in other circles, but from where you sit—are you sitting in Escondido right now, by the way?

I am. Okay. I'm excluded from almost everywhere, so good for you for being an insider somewhere.

So you're sitting in Escondido. I don't know if you're at West Cal or not, or you're at home, but why do you think—. I'm in Elk Hill, Cascadia. We're talking about practice. Why do you think so many Baptists, maybe five-point Calvinist Baptist, why do you think Baptists buy in to federal vision, or at least they say, well, federal vision's part of the camp, and yeah, you know, federal vision people deny law gospel hermeneutics, and any good news passage can have demand in it, and all this kind of stuff.

Why are Baptists particularly prone to believe in this error?

Well, you know, I wouldn't have said that they were until very recently. There was a handful of Baptists who were saying similar things from a slightly different angle. There are Baptists who embraced the so-called new perspective on Paul, that Paul isn't really talking about forensic justification or any of that.

So there was that, but in the last several years, I began to notice a kind of alliance growing. There's a notable Baptist organization where the board was split, and some of them sided with the federal visionists and some of them didn't, and the ones that didn't left the organization, and some in the organization actually, you know, left where they were serving and went to Moscow, Idaho to join up with basically the headquarters now of the federal vision movement in Moscow, Idaho, that is, not Russia.

So it's a weird sort of realignment, and you know, we were talking off-air about how that happened, and I have a theory, I have a theory for a lot of things, and my theory for this is twofold. One, the leader of the federal vision movement now, as a fellow in Moscow, Idaho, has positioned himself as a culture warrior.

He's going to stand up against all the bad things and bad people, bad things happening in society out there. He's going to defend Christendom, you know, and Christianity against all the bad people. And so folks who are nervous, scared, worried about what's going on, they are, you know, impressed by that, influenced by that, and so, you know, they sort of overlook little things like the federal vision, and people say, well, you know, he fights, so that's the ethos here.

It doesn't really matter what he says about the justification, because he fights for us. And then on the other hand, I think there's a kind of lateral step that's a little bit inside baseball, but the short story is this, that in Baptist theology, who is in the Church?

All the things that we think in morality, there's a way to be in it, but it's the culture war.

Confessional Standards and the Law-Gospel Distinction

I think so, Scott. Do you think it's fair to say that if Baptists don't have a law gospel paradigm for not just identifying parts of the sentence, right, is this an indicative or imperative, but also as a hermeneutical lens, if they don't believe in the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, doesn't it make it harder for them to see the errors of the typical federal visionist?

I think that's right.

I don't know how widespread there is in the Baptist world an appropriation of or appreciation of the, you know, the Reformation distinction between law and gospel. I think it exists, but I'm not sure how widespread it is.

Part of that is because there's a, in a lot of the sort of broader evangelical Baptist world, or even Baptistic world, right, there are people who aren't formally Baptist but are practically Baptistic.

First of all, they're not confessional, right? They're not subscribing of the 1677 or 1689 Second London Confession, where, for example, if you look at chapter 11, it's very, very clear, just like the Westminster, and just like the Savoy, which is for the Congregationalists, very, very clear about the nature of justification.

You know, it says in 11 .1 in the 1689, those whom God effectually call us, He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, that would be Rome, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but only by imputing Christ's act of obedience.

Now, there's actually a revision, unto the whole law and passive obedience in its death, for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

So that's a great, clear Reformation statement of justification, and probably relatively few Baptists are grounded in the Reformation way of speaking, because they're not confessional, they're not catechized, taught with language that you find in the 1689.

Well, Scott, I just want to make sure our listeners heard you say, and I have it now documented, it's recorded in this little digital recorder, that you said of the 1689, of the act of obedience of Christ, that was a quote, good revision, end quote.

So I'm just going to hold, I'm going to just, you know...

There were places where they followed the Congregationalist, the Savoy, and they made some improvements. Because there was some opposition at the Westminster Assembly, and so I think the language is best understood in the Westminster Confession to imply that, but you have to draw an inference, they didn't say it.

And I think in Savoy and in the Second London, they got that right. So there are some things, obviously, in the Second London that they messed up, but it's very solid on justification. And those guys who drafted the Second London, they got the distinction between law and gospel.

They were Protestants in their soteriology. The problem is, a lot of American evangelical Christians are not actually Protestants. They don't have a conscious connection to the Reformation.

Why the Federal Vision Joint Statement Replaces Faith with Loyalty

Talking to Scott Clark today on No Compromise Radio. Scott, in the Federal Vision Statement, a joint Federal Vision Statement, in their section on justification by faith alone, it's interesting to me because as you're talking about many Baptists who don't understand the Confessions, if they would understand the Baptist Confession or Westminster, Savoy, wherever we want to go, Belgic, Heidelberg, any of those sections on justification, and then how we receive the benefits by faith alone, we would then, if we understood those Confessions, look at the Federal Vision Joint Statement, and when they talk about justifying faith is, quote, a living, active, and personally loyal faith, end quote.

Wouldn't we immediately say, okay, this allegiance talk, this love talk, this here, in this particular case, loyal talk, that's moving us away from trusting, resting, and receiving,.

Right? It absolutely is. So, this is just like, so, the best analogy, and I got this from your friend of mine, my pastor, Chris Gordon. Years ago, he compared the Federal Visionists to the Romanstras, and he was exactly right about that.

That was a great insight, and so, I've been, you know, working on that analogy for a long time, and so, when you read, should you read, if you were you to read the Joint Federal Vision Profession, which I preserved for posterity and for analysis at rscottclerk .org, and you can find it at the, find all kinds of Federal Vision resources on the Heidel blog, heidelblog .net slash resources, and then you can just search down there, and you'll see it.

So, if, you know, were you to read this, you'd see it starts off by saying, we affirm that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, and then people say, well, look, there it is, grace alone, faith alone, what are you talking about?

You're just a negative nelly. You just have to find things to criticize. That's all you do. Well, we have to ask the same question of the Federal Visionists that we asked of the Remonstrants. What do you mean by grace?

What do you mean by faith? And the Remonstrants had redefined grace to mean nature, and they redefined faith to mean faithfulness, and you see something similar to that, which, and you see the similar kind of thing, as you were saying, in their statement on justification.

So, the first paragraph isn't horrible, but the second paragraph, it says 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, right, and watch this, as you say, personally loyal faith.

Well, show me a Reformation concession where faith is defined as a personally loyal faith, right? That's the language of the new perspective on Paul, whereby faith becomes fidelity, faithfulness, or loyalty.

So now you've qualified faith has to be of a certain kind in order to be justified, right? And now, of course, we've always said there's true faith, false faith, historical faith, and true faith is a certain knowledge and a hearty trust.

But when the Federal Visionists get their hands on it, what they've done is they've gone back to basically the Medieval and the Roman definition of faith. Rome says that faith justifies because it has certain qualities, not because it looks to Christ, but because it has certain qualities.

And they said faith is formed by love. That is, your sanctification, that's code for your sanctification makes faith justified. And they've done the same thing by saying living, acting, active, and personally loyal faith.

It encompasses, they say, the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. And that's not necessarily objectionable, but how active, right? Living, of course, it has to be.

It's true faith. It's a living faith. But it's not, my loyalty doesn't make faith powerful. Christ makes my faith powerful, because Christ is the object of faith. So they've corrupted the doctrine of justification while pretending to affirm it.

Why Allegiance Language Cannot Be the Ground of Justification

Scott, it's interesting to me, because if I was an unbeliever that was taught biblical Christianity from my youth, and someone said to me, these are the claims of Christ. I know you've heard them, but I'm going to give you the claims about Jesus again and tell you the good news.

And here's how I want you to respond to this living Savior, Jesus, who's the Lamb of God. I want you to respond to him with a loyal faith. I would say, if I had been taught, how loyal must I be, right?

If I have to receive Christ, well, the focus is on not my reception, not my trusting, arresting. It's on the object, the Lord Jesus. But if it's treasuring or desiring, in this particular case, by allegiance, how much allegiance do I need to have?

And of course, the answer would have to be a perfect allegiance. And of course, no unbeliever could ever do that.

So when they talk about, you know, and here's another thing that people don't know. The Federal Vision teaches two stages of justification, initial and final. They did not learn that from the Reformation.

They learned that from Rome. And so they say, you know, you can, some of them are very open about this. You're initially justified by grace alone, through faith alone, and they'll even talk about the imputation of Christ's act of obedience.

And people will throw that up and say, see, there it is. And I say, well, that's only half the car. You've only looked at the front end of the car. There are four wheels on the car. What does the back end say?

Well, on the back end, you're finally saved through good works or through sanctification. In which case, all the talk about the front end, initial justification, right, by grace alone, through faith alone, it doesn't mean anything that the two front tires, you've.

Baptism, Apostasy, and the Federal Vision View of Perseverance

Let the air out of the front tires. So, Scott, would this summarize their belief? If you are in by baptism, you receive the benefits of Jesus, you are united with Christ, you have adoption and justification, forgiveness, and you get all that, but you keep it by law-keeping, so I guess you don't get all the benefits of Christ, which would include perseverance and preservation to the very.

End. Well, you have to do your part. So they wouldn't say necessarily—some of them have come close to say law-keeping. I did see one say at one time, you know, in by—because the new perspective slogan is, in by grace, stay in by work.

And one of them said, well, that's almost right. I really like that. But the more accurate way of saying it would be, in by baptism, which is grace for them, stay in by cooperation with grace. And that is the medieval system.

That is exactly the medieval system that the entire Reformation rejected. So listen to what they say about apostasy. This is a quotation from their section on apostasy from the Federal Vision Profession from 2007.

We affirm that apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians. Now listen to this. All who are baptized into the triune name are united with Christ in His covenant of life. And so, those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace.

The branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away from someone, because out of the living covenant body, the connection that that an apostate had to Christ was not merely external. Well, there you have it.

That is a direct repudiation of the Reformation explanation of apostasy. Judas was never actually united to Christ. But according to the Federal Visionists, he really was, and he fell away. So all the remonstrants at the Synod of Dort, they rise up and they say, yes!

Somebody understands us, because that was the fifth point of the remonstrance from 1610 that caused, ultimately, the Synod of Dort.

Upcoming Discussion of Merit Theology and Federal Vision Questions

Talking to Scott Clark today on No Compromise Radio. We're going to do part two tomorrow. We're going to record that in just a few minutes, but part two is tomorrow. We'll talk a little bit about some of the recent controversy and what's happening.

We'll talk a little bit about merit theology, M-E-R-I-T, and what they think of that, and why this matters today, what kind of questions to ask Federal Visionists who tell you they believe in faith alone, but how can we see through that, and a few other things tomorrow on No Compromise Radio.

Scott, we've got about a minute left. Tell our listeners about your blog, and your cast, and your heidel jeep, your heidel dog, your heidel blog, and your heidel pod, your podcast.

All that stuff. Yeah, you can find everything at heidelblog .net, h-e-i-d-e-l-b-l-o-g .net, heidelblog .net, and there you'll find the Heidelcast, a weekly podcast, and even daily. Sometimes we do a little short one every day or every other day or so to keep the feed fresh.

You can subscribe there at heidelblog .net. I don't know, we post probably, well, usually a quotation, an article, and a piece of audio every day to try to edify people and keep them fed, and there's all kinds of resources there.

We have a resource page that covers theonomy, federal vision, Christian living, prayer, you know, these are mostly responses to.

Questions that people have sent. So there you go. And even a few articles by a Baptist.

Yes, Mike Ebendroff is one of our most popular authors. We love Mike Ebendroff.

Scott, thanks for being on. We'll see you tomorrow.

Thanks, Mike. No Compromise Radio with Pastor Mike Ebendroff is a production of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston. Bethlehem Bible Church is a Bible-teaching church firmly committed to unleashing the life

Please come and join us. Our service times are Sunday morning at 1015 and in the evening at six. We're right on route 110 in West Boylston. You can check us out online at bbcchurch .org or by phone at 508 -835 -3400.