Thread by @RScottClark

TFW people doing history and theology on the internet to complain about people doing history and theology on the internet. 😂

The good news is not: Jesus died for everyone who ever lived, to make it possible for you to be saved, if you do your part.

The good news is that Jesus obeyed and died to accomplish salvation and the Holy Spirit effectually applies that salvation to those for whom he died, by grace alone, through faith alone and even faith is the gift of God (Eph 2:8-10).

There is no orthodox sense to “in by grace, stay in by works.” Richard Baxter and his successors in the Federal Vision movement (e.g., Norman Shepherd and his followers & defenders) have been teaching this error since the middle of the 17th century.

No orthodox Reformed or Presbyterian church confesses this. We all confess the opposite, that our salvation is based on Christ’s works and received by us by grace alone, through faith alone.

The “in by grace, stay by works” formula was taught, however, by the opponents of the Reformation: Rome and the Remonstrants, in different ways. It was also taught by the Medieval church and the Reformation rejected it then too.

Beware of those who appeal to the “diversity” of Reformed theology, without grounding the center of Reformed theology in the Word of God as confessed by the P&R churches.

Be especially careful about those who appeal to the “diversity” in Reformed theology whose friends all seem to be Federal Visionists & advocates of the NPP. There’s a reason for that.

There was and is a mainstream of Reformed theology, a center, by which we may evaluate the “diversity.” There were also margins to Reformed theology.

E.g., Owen and Turretin are much closer to the center of Reformed theology than Baxter and Davenant. We know that by comparing what they wrote with what the P&R churches confess.

The Reformed had opportunities at Dort, Westminster, and even at Savoy to embrace “Christ died for all but...” (e.g., hypothetical universalism) but they didn’t and several influential orthodox writers rejected that language.

The Synod of Dort teaches the opposite. One cannot reconcile Dort with any form of universalism, hypothetical or otherwise. Neither can one reconcile Dort to “in by grace, stay in by works” in any form.

The Remonstrants taught a form of universalism: “Christ died for all men and every man.” Synod rejected that categorically. Definite atonement is one of the five rules/canons of Dort. It’s basic Reformed orthodoxy and not up for negotiation.

The self-described Federal Vision movement teaches “in by [baptismal] grace, stay in through good works.” The URCNA rejected that as did the RCUS, the OPC report, the PCA General Assembly (& Report) and others said amen (the ARP & RPCNA).

Yes, some FVists teach that INITIAL justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, but they also teach that there is a FINAL justification through works. The Reformed Churches reject this.

The FVists learned this “two-stage” doctrine of justification from the Romanists, not the Reformed.

Some of the advocates of “in by grace, stay in by works” appeal to the doctrine of “Double Justification.” Don’t be confused. Luther taught this in 1518 & 19 as did Bucer and others later and all it means is this:

We briefly used “justification” in two related senses: 1) the declaration that we are justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed; 2) our claim to faith is justified/vindicated by our good works.

Ironically, some of those who appeal to “Double Justification” (even though they don’t understand it) also call Luther an antinomian. More misunderstanding.

Calvin didn’t use this language. He spoke of a “twofold grace:” justification and sanctification. It’s the same thing that Luther was saying but in different words.

Caspar Olevianus, who was deeply influenced by both Luther and Calvin, taught a “twofold grace:” justification and sanctification.

In the Protestant “double justification” or “twofold grace/benefit” scheme, salvation is always by grace alone, through faith alone. Good works are always nothing but fruit and evidence of salvation.

In orthodox Reformed theology, as confessed by the churches, good works are never “instrumental” in salvation. They are always fruit and evidence.

One way you can tell that someone is, as Tertullian said of Marcion, a “Pontic mouse” chewing away at orthodoxy, is their dissatisfaction with good works as fruit and evidence of salvation.

The crazy thing is that the first time I saw a “Reformed” minister defending the proposition that there’s an “orthodox sense” to “in by grace, stay in by works” was in defense of Norman Shepherd, before they started calling their theology the “Federal Vision.”

It’s also a funny thing for a movement that was always “just vision” that it’s defenders/enablers/proponents keep saying essentially the same thing over and over in different (or the same) ways even as they deny that any such theology really exists.

If it doesn’t exist, how were some many Reformed Churches able to identify and reject it? When you read someone saying, “Who knows what the FV is?” Read: “I haven’t taken the time to understand it nor have I read the denominational reports or other serious engagements.”

Oh it exists alright and the irreducible core of the FV doctrine is “in by [baptismal] grace, stay in by works.” As with Rome, “works” here means “cooperation with grace.”