# Otis-Schlissel Debate



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 12, 2007)

This may have been posted before, but even if it has it will do no harm to put it up again. Anyway, here is a link to a debate on the Federal Vision:

John Otis - Steve Schlissel Debate on the Federal Vision

This is highly valuable, because in listening to Steve Schlissel you get what Federal Visionists believe (or at least some of them) straight from the horses' mouth. It pains me to say it but Rev. Schlissel is proclaiming another gospel - if you don't believe me listen to the debate. Moreover, he constantly misrepresents Reformed theology and then does not allow John Otis to correct him. Indeed, he even tried to stop John from quoting from Romans and Galatians in order to prove the Protestant view of justification...I wonder why/


----------



## Poimen (Dec 12, 2007)

Thank you for posting this Daniel. 

It's interesting to listen to Steve again; he seemed to have dropped off the FV radar for the last few years.


----------



## Josiah (Dec 12, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> This may have been posted before, but even if it has it will do no harm to put it up again. Anyway, here is a link to a debate on the Federal Vision:
> 
> John Otis - Steve Schlissel Debate on the Federal Vision
> 
> This is highly valuable, because in listening to Steve Schlissel you get what Federal Visionists believe (or at least some of them) straight from the horses' mouth. It pains me to say it but Rev. Schlissel is proclaiming another gospel - if you don't believe me listen to the debate. Moreover, he constantly misrepresents Reformed theology and then does not allow John Otis to correct him. Indeed, he even tried to stop John from quoting from Romans and Galatians in order to prove the Protestant view of justification...I wonder why/



Thanks for the link Daniel, I look forward to listening to this. I realize this might be an odd question, but who is Steve Schlissel? I have not heard of him.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 12, 2007)

Seriously? 

In light of the FV controversy, Steve was one of the original speakers at the Auburn Avenue Pastor's conference (2002) that started this whole mess. 

He also wrote two chapters in "The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros & Cons". 

His website is: Rev. Steve M. Schlissel


----------



## py3ak (Dec 12, 2007)

I thought Schlissel had been distancing himself from FV lately? Of course, that was a vague impression not anything definite.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 12, 2007)

py3ak said:


> I thought Schlissel had been distancing himself from FV lately? Of course, that was a vague impression not anything definite.



It would certainly make sense judging by his current silence on the issue. But what led you to believe this was the case?


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 12, 2007)

At the AAPC conference, Schissel was way out there! He was, and I assume he still is, one of the biggest advocates of NT Wright. He had bought into Wright's NPP hook, line and sinker.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Josiah (Dec 12, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Seriously?
> 
> In light of the FV controversy, Steve was one of the original speakers at the Auburn Avenue Pastor's conference (2002) that started this whole mess.
> 
> ...



 I had heard of him, but never made the connection the FV


----------



## py3ak (Dec 12, 2007)

It was the paedocommunion issue, I believe. That and some rumors of tensions made me think that Schlissel might be following his own path.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 12, 2007)

py3ak said:


> It was the paedocommunion issue, I believe. That and some rumors of tensions made me think that Schlissel might be following his own path.



The paedocommunion issue makes sense.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 12, 2007)

If paedocommunion is of the _esse_ of FV, that would rule him out. If it's only of the _bene esse_ then the umbrella might cover him.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 12, 2007)

I think that paedocommunion is consistent with FV and therefore Mr. Schlissel is very inconsistent with his theology. 

I would therefore still put him under the FV banner.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 12, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Thank you for posting this Daniel.
> 
> It's interesting to listen to Steve again; he seemed to have dropped off the FV radar for the last few years.



If he has moved away, that would be excellent. He was such a gifted speaker, so it is with great sadness that I listened to his comments.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 12, 2007)

No what I meant was that he was not being mentioned by FV supporters and has not been speaking at their conferences. 

But since I see no repentance on his part for this fiasco. He still links to his original lectures. Messiah's Media

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 12, 2007)

Poimen said:


> No what I meant was that he was not being mentioned by FV supporters and has not been speaking at their conferences.
> 
> But since I see no repentance on his part for this fiasco. He still links to his original lectures. Messiah's Media



That is a shame. May God have mercy on his soul.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 12, 2007)

This debate took place just this past Summer. So if Schlissel has moved away from the FV it must be a recent developement.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 12, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> This debate took place just this past Summer. So if Schlissel has moved away from the FV it must be a recent developement.



That is interesting to know, because Steve Schlissel's comments in that debate prove that FVers have not been misunderstood.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2007)

Poimen said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I thought Schlissel had been distancing himself from FV lately? Of course, that was a vague impression not anything definite.
> ...



He got bogged down in some unrelated inner-church adjudications (or some word like that). Yes, he did back off the issue but not for theological reasons, as I recall. He had other things to do.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for posting this Daniel.
> ...



He is an awesome speaker. I have been stunned and overwhelmed by his messages in the past. I haven't listened to him in a while, though.


----------



## Reformed Musings (Dec 12, 2007)

Schlissel isn't speaking at this years conference according to this site. I don't think he's distanced himself from FV, but FVers have distanced themselves from him. He's even farther out than Lusk, which takes some effort.


----------



## Gryphonette (Dec 13, 2007)

*James Jordan? They're sticking with *him*?*

Mercy Maud, the man revealed himself to be a theological _loon_ during the DeRegnoChristi debate. If he's still within the FV pale, but Schlissel isn't, the latter must be _truly_ strange. 



Reformed Musings said:


> Schlissel isn't speaking at this years conference according to this site. I don't think he's distanced himself from FV, but FVers have distanced themselves from him. He's even farther out than Lusk, which takes some effort.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2007)

Reformed Musings said:


> Schlissel isn't speaking at this years conference according to this site. I don't think he's distanced himself from FV, but FVers have distanced themselves from him. He's even farther out than Lusk, which takes some effort.



That is worrying; I am reading John Otis' book at present, and he documents Lusks' heresies - which are a clear denial of justification by faith alone - perhaps Steve Schlissel is a more honest man than the rest of them.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Dec 13, 2007)

I just listened to the MP3. While I am opposed to FV and have went on record saying I believe it is outside of the boundaries of the Westminster Confession and should therefore not be tolerated within Presbyterian churches, I have been very slow to apply the 'H' word.

Listening to this partial debate...to hear Schlissel go head to head with Otis (if only briefly) when Otis is presenting justification by faith alone...I'm not sure if all the FVers are where Schlissel is, but what he is arguing against is the gospel, and what he is affirming is heresy. His comments were clear and set in the context over and against what Otis had presented (the gospel).

It was clear that these men have two different gospels (as there were clearly two different views of justification presented). For Schlissel to be asked at the end if he saw Otis's camp as claiming to be a different gospel and answer, "No...Jesus himself is the gospel, as long as they are representing the proper Christ, then they have access to the proper gospel" is just asinine. Paul wrote to the Galatians, 'Christ will be of no advantage to you', if they pursued their false view of justification. The issue at hand was not the person of Jesus, but the gospel as it relates to justification. There is no hint at all that the Galatian heresy had anything to do with the nature of Christ. Simply believing in the proper view of the Trinity is not enough. Schlissel's comment would include Roman Catholicism as also being a true witness of the gospel.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2007)

prespastor said:


> I just listened to the MP3. While I am opposed to FV and have went on record saying I believe it is outside of the boundaries of the Westminster Confession and should therefore not be tolerated within Presbyterian churches, I have been very slow to apply the 'H' word.
> 
> Listening to this partial debate...to hear Schlissel go head to head with Otis (if only briefly) when Otis is presenting justification by faith alone...I'm not sure if all the FVers are where Schlissel is, but what he is arguing against is the gospel, and what he is affirming is heresy. His comments were clear and set in the context over and against what Otis had presented (the gospel).
> 
> It was clear that these men have two different gospels (as there were clearly two different views of justification presented). For Schlissel to be asked at the end if he saw Otis's camp as claiming to be a different gospel and answer, "No...Jesus himself is the gospel, as long as they are representing the proper Christ, then they have access to the proper gospel." That is just asinine. Paul wrote to the Galatians, 'Christ will be of no advantage to you', if they pursued their false view of justification. The issue at hand was not the person of Jesus, but the gospel as it relates to justification. There is no hint at all that the Galatian heresy had anything to do with the nature of Christ. Simply believing in the proper view of the Trinity is not enough. Schlissel's comment would include Roman Catholicism as also being a true witness of the gospel.





Well said brother, even if there are people in the FV movement who disagree with Steve Schlissel, Norman Shepherd and Rich Lusk on justification, then they should clearly distance themselves from these men. However, there continued unwillingness to do this makes me suspicious. Mr. Schlissel is NOT proclaiming the gospel in this debate, the logic of his position would have us believe that anyone who acknowledges Jesus as Messiah, and lives a life of "Covenantal faithfulness" is a Christian - this is damnable heresy (Gal. 1:6-9). And no amount of filibustering or double-talk can get round it.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Stephen (Dec 13, 2007)

Thanks, Daniel for the link to the debate. I am anxious to listen to it. Steve Schlissel is all over the board. I am not sure he knows what he believes. Schlissel still is a hyper-covenantalist like Lusk and the others. He has not changed his stripes. I believe he is not connected to a denomination or even Presbyterian. He has an independent congregation in New York. Unfortunetly, he is connected with Chalcedon and was involved with R. J. Rushdooney, before his glorification. I wonder what Rushdooney would think if he was still here on earth? Where does Mark Rushdooney fit into all this?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2007)

Stephen said:


> Thanks, Daniel for the link to the debate. I am anxious to listen to it. Steve Schlissel is all over the board. I am not sure he knows what he believes. Schlissel still is a hyper-covenantalist like Lusk and the others. He has not changed his stripes. I believe he is not connected to a denomination or even Presbyterian. He has an independent congregation in New York. Unfortunetly, he is connected with Chalcedon and was involved with R. J. Rushdooney, before his glorification. I wonder what Rushdooney would think if he was still here on earth? Where does Mark Rushdooney fit into all this?



Chalcedon, as far as I am aware, rejects the Federal Vision as Joe Morecraft was speaking at the recent Chalcedon Conference - if it had any links with the FV Joe M would not be there.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 13, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Daniel for the link to the debate. I am anxious to listen to it. Steve Schlissel is all over the board. I am not sure he knows what he believes. Schlissel still is a hyper-covenantalist like Lusk and the others. He has not changed his stripes. I believe he is not connected to a denomination or even Presbyterian. He has an independent congregation in New York. Unfortunetly, he is connected with Chalcedon and was involved with R. J. Rushdooney, before his glorification. I wonder what Rushdooney would think if he was still here on earth? Where does Mark Rushdooney fit into all this?
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2007)

For anyone wanting to know what R.J. Rushdoony would have thought of the Federal Vision, read his commentary on Romans & Galatians.

Just as he opposed the heresy of societal salvation by Statist "grace" (i.e. law), so he opposed the heresy of personal salvation on account of good works.

I have an appendix in the back of my forthcoming book _A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government _, which distances Christian Reconstruction from the Federal Vision, and I quote from Rush (among others) to prove my point.


----------



## Stephen (Dec 13, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> For anyone wanting to know what R.J. Rushdoony would have thought of the Federal Vision, read his commentary on Romans & Galatians.
> 
> Just as he opposed the heresy of societal salvation by Statist "grace" (i.e. law), so he opposed the heresy of personal salvation on account of good works.
> 
> I have an appendix in the back of my forthcoming book _A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government _, which distances Christian Reconstruction from the Federal Vision, and I quote from Rush (among others) to prove my point.



Who is the publisher of your forthcoming book? The title sounds like something I may be interested in reading. I used to subscribe to Chalcedon and appreciated much of Rushdoony's work, although I certainly would not agree with him in some areas. I have read some of Joe Morecraft's material and agree that he rejects this FV nonsense.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2007)

Stephen said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > For anyone wanting to know what R.J. Rushdoony would have thought of the Federal Vision, read his commentary on Romans & Galatians.
> ...



Stephen

I am self-publishing it and will keep you posted. Like yourself, I would not agree with Rush on everything, but appreciated his work. Interestingly, it was John Otis who insisted that I write an FV-disclaimer (John has written a foreword, as has PB member Doug Comin).

Here is a link to a sermon which introduces my book: SermonAudio.com - Theonomic Reconstruction


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 14, 2007)

Well I just went for a bicycle ride and listened to the Schlissel-Otis debate, and was gobsmacked with what I heard!

Schlissel kept saying that the standard Protestant position is that faith = bare mental assent. I'm amazed that he hasn't even grasped the the rudiments of the reformation: faith = trust.

And then he asks Otis where Justification by Faith Alone is taught outside Galatians and Romans: what about Phil. 3:8-9, 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:8-9; John 3:16; Luke 18:9ff. ... and the list could keep going on and on.

The FV debate is complicated by the fact that not all in the camp would agree with Schlissel on the above, Doug Wilson being one.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well I just went for a bicycle ride and listened to the Schlissel-Otis debate, and was gobsmacked with what I heard!
> 
> Schlissel kept saying that the standard Protestant position is that faith = bare mental assent. I'm amazed that he hasn't even grasped the the rudiments of the reformation: faith = trust.
> 
> ...




Yes, what really annoyed me about what Steve Schlissel was saying (apart from the fact that he was teaching heresy) was that he kept misrepresenting the Protestant and Reformed view, then when John Otis tried to correct him, he would not listen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 14, 2007)

Yes, one other thing that got me was that Schlissel doesn't seem to be aware that the word "justification" has a variety of meanings in the NT. Hence, when we read of the young man trying to "justify" himself in Luke 10 (to which Schlissel referred) and the use of "justification" in James 2:24 we're dealing with words that have a different meaning to those which Paul uses in Galatians, Romans, and Titus 3.

These are basic issues that one can't miss if they've read Calvin's exposition of justification in _Institutes_ book 3 let alone any of the Protestant orthodox systems.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 14, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Yes, one other thing that got me was that Schlissel doesn't seem to be aware that the word "justification" has a variety of meanings in the NT. Hence, when we read of the young man trying to "justify" himself in Luke 10 (to which Schlissel referred) and the use of "justification" in James 2:24 we're dealing with words that have a different meaning to those which Paul uses in Galatians, Romans, and Titus 3.
> 
> These are basic issues that one can't miss if they've read Calvin's exposition of justification in _Institutes_ book 3 let alone any of the Protestant orthodox systems.



 Fascinating, isn't it, that Luther and Calvin had to take great pains to explain that to the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

This stretches credulity to think that Schlissel is unaware of this. If he embraced it at one point it is very telling that he would retreat to such a disingenuous stance knowing full well what the answer to such facile exegesis would be.


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 14, 2007)

In that sense there is nothing new about the NPP. In reality, it's the OPP held by the RCC.

I'm not sure how many of you will get this musical connection from the early 90's:
"You down with OPP?"
"Yea, R-C-C"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> In that sense there is nothing new about the NPP. In reality, it's the OPP held by the RCC.
> 
> I'm not sure how many of you will get this musical connection from the early 90's:
> "You down with OPP?"
> "Yea, R-C-C"



 Well said, what Steve Schlissel was teaching in that debate was, in essence, Romanism. In fact, am I not right in saying that his is ecumenical and has had Papists and Eastern Orthodox priests speak at his church?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SouthernHero (Dec 14, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> I'm not sure how many of you will get this musical connection from the early 90's:
> "You down with OPP?"
> "Yea, R-C-C"



Ha, I get it... good stuff.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 14, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> The FV debate is complicated by the fact that not all in the camp would agree with Schlissel on the above, Doug Wilson being one.



While I agree with you on the above, others are well on their way (or if not they are being inconsistent). The FV system reduces everything to 'covenant' which includes either a sloppy definition of the term or one, in my opinion, that includes at least the seed of some of these ideas of Schlissel without having the courage to blossom forth the fruit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2007)

One thing I noticed in the deabte, which would perhaps separate Steve Schlissel from Romanism, is that he does not believe the Protestant view of justificaton is - to quote the Council of Trent - "anathema" or a damnable heresy.

However I can't say that inspires much confidence.


----------

