# Brief rundown of FV theology?



## Jeremy Ivens

Hi there. I am not a fan of FV nor do I hate it. I don't understand it. Would somebody give just a basic rundown of what it is so I at least know that?


----------



## lynnie

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.html

This is the formal PCA position paper that came out several years ago. Parts 2 and 3 are 34 and 14 pages. I guess by brief you mean less than 48 pages, but this will give you a good summary if you skim it. 

I was in a PCA church at the time and we had a dear friend who was into it, but left to join the staff at another PCA. Our pastor actually held a congregational meeting to address FV which is when I figured out that it really mattered and wasn't just another Reformed argument on a non essential matter. So if I were you I would consider this report worth reading, although I am sure other people here can sum it up in much shorter fashion for you. 

I think it is great that you are asking this by the way.

I want to add that if anybody tries to pass it off to you as true repentance bears the fruit of obedience, and we need to obey, and pulls out Spurgeon or somebody on good works in the Christian life, making it sound like the FV critics are antinomian hyper Calvinists ( do you know what I mean by that?), they are misinformed or lying. It isn't the same as the Reformed view of needing to obey God. It is genuine error. I urge you to read the PCA paper.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeremy,

Please click on the link below my Signature to see how to create a proper signature.

It's hard to briefly describe the FV problems. The report by Lynnie is very good at outlining many of the problems. One has to have a certain level of apprehension of the Reformed system of doctrine to detect the nuances of the overarching problem.

I think the main problems with FV theology is not maintaining the appropriate distinction between the invisible and visible Church. There are evangelical graces that belong to the sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit. The Church's work is ministerial in declaring the Gospel and the Promises of God for believers and administering the Sacraments, which also hold forth Christ and His benefits to those who believe. Union with Christ is not something that is conferred by the Church and her ministry. The ministry of the Church is to hold forth those things upon which men and women can believe upon but we leave it to the operation of the Spirit to bring men from death to life.

Federal Vision theology tends to downplay this distinction and sees in the membership of the local body a type of union with Christ. Union with Christ is a kind of Covenantal participation. As far as men and women and boys and girls have not visibly rebelled against the visible Covenant they are in the New Covenant and are in union with Christ as the mediator of that Covenant. They maintain union with Christ by their faithfulness to the Covenant. Baptism and the Lord's Supper really do confer evangelical graces by the administration of those sacraments as opposed to the Reformed understanding that they are sacramentally related but that the evangelical graces only "belong" to the elect as the Holy Spirit confers those graces.

I personally think that a lot of FV theology can also be boiled down to the idea that good parenting is a kind of sacrament in their theology. Good parenting yields good, faithful children and the reason for apostasy is fundamentally traced to the faithfulness of parents to either parent according to faithful means or to fail to do so. While I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of good parenting as a means that God uses in the salvation of people, the FV thends to hyper-intensify that relationship such that the family is seen as federally under the male head and evangelical graces flowing from the fidelity of the father to his husbanding and parenting.


----------



## Jeremy Ivens

Thanks! I will read it. Yes I know what you mean by antinomian hyper-calvinism


----------



## Jeremy Ivens

Semper Fidelis said:


> Jeremy,
> 
> Please click on the link below my Signature to see how to create a proper signature.
> 
> It's hard to briefly describe the FV problems. The report by Lynnie is very good at outlining many of the problems. One has to have a certain level of apprehension of the Reformed system of doctrine to detect the nuances of the overarching problem.
> 
> I think the main problems with FV theology is not maintaining the appropriate distinction between the invisible and visible Church. There are evangelical graces that belong to the sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit. The Church's work is ministerial in declaring the Gospel and the Promises of God for believers and administering the Sacraments, which also hold forth Christ and His benefits to those who believe. Union with Christ is not something that is conferred by the Church and her ministry. The ministry of the Church is to hold forth those things upon which men and women can believe upon but we leave it to the operation of the Spirit to bring men from death to life.
> 
> Federal Vision theology tends to downplay this distinction and sees in the membership of the local body a type of union with Christ. Union with Christ is a kind of Covenantal participation. As far as men and women and boys and girls have not visibly rebelled against the visible Covenant they are in the New Covenant and are in union with Christ as the mediator of that Covenant. They maintain union with Christ by their faithfulness to the Covenant. Baptism and the Lord's Supper really do confer evangelical graces by the administration of those sacraments as opposed to the Reformed understanding that they are sacramentally related but that the evangelical graces only "belong" to the elect as the Holy Spirit confers those graces.
> 
> I personally think that a lot of FV theology can also be boiled down to the idea that good parenting is a kind of sacrament in their theology. Good parenting yields good, faithful children and the reason for apostasy is fundamentally traced to the faithfulness of parents to either parent according to faithful means or to fail to do so. While I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of good parenting as a means that God uses in the salvation of people, the FV thends to hyper-intensify that relationship such that the family is seen as federally under the male head and evangelical graces flowing from the fidelity of the father to his husbanding and parenting.



Thanks! I have a sig now. Sorry about that.


----------



## RamistThomist

Others will point to theological problems. I think I can point to some "on-the-ground" problems and issues (in no particular order).

1. You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
2. Does the FV view of the covenant lead to the sexual abuse/authority scandals? Probably not, but it's funny how that keeps popping up.
3. FV guys are big on wanting "Catholicity," but if you read their blogs and books they are writing to their own people (which is 1% of 1% of 1% of American Evangelicalism) or they are ridiculing evangelicals. Granted, the latter are usually silly but there are a lot of them and some are quite smart.
4. They have--often by their own admission--zero knowledge of Reformed theology.


----------



## Edward

Here's a very brief summary by Alan Strange, who is very active on this board. 

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478

For a more extensive study by the OPC, see:

http://www.opc.org/GA/JustificationBook.pdf

Lane Keister (PCA), who is also on the Board, has also written extensively


----------



## RamistThomist

It's also important to keep FV separate from the New Perspective on Paul. They overlap at points but the NPP developed earlier than and independent of FV. And we don't have evidence from Jim Jordan's earlier writings (_Sociology of Reconstruction_ that he is reading Wright, Dunn, and Sanders.


----------



## Doulos 2

This link was helpful for me.

http://heidelblog.net/?s=federal+vision&submit=Search


----------



## johnny

Federal Vision is subtle,

And many of those who hold to FV don't outright call themselves FV.
It also tends to attract the inteligensia, (they are no dummies)

When I asked about FV on this board I was told to look for Paedo Communion.
It's a sure sign that something is going on, (and it was)
We have left our church at Christmas because of FV.
But they don't call themselves FV'ists so watch out.

Like I said, it can be very subtle.


----------



## greenbaggins

The Federal Vision is Roman Catholicism with a (thin) veneer of Reformed terms (redefined) laid over the top of it. They are Calvinistic with regard to the elect, and Arminian with regard to the non-elect. In the FV, baptism unites a person to Christ, which person then has all the benefits of salvation except perseverance, but all of these benefits are enjoyed in a non-decretally elect way by the non-elect, and in a persevering way by the elect. Some are willing to posit a qualitative difference between the elect and the non-elect (Doug Wilson). Others seriously fudge or erase that distinction (Peter Leithart). I believe the basic error of the FV is the desire to have their faith in something that they can see: baptism. It is a baby-driven theology. What is confusing about the FV is that they use a lot of the terms we use, but fill them with different meaning. As Rich points out, they do indeed erase the distinction between the visible and the invisible church, but I wouldn't put that as the basic error. Their theology of baptism is the basic error, stemming from the quest for illegitimate religious certainty that Scott Clark talks about. Most of the FV are paedo-communion, but not all PC advocates are FV, although they tend to be very soft on FV theologians.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

greenbaggins said:


> The Federal Vision is Roman Catholicism with a (thin) veneer of Reformed terms (redefined) laid over the top of it. They are Calvinistic with regard to the elect, and Arminian with regard to the non-elect. In the FV, baptism unites a person to Christ, which person then has all the benefits of salvation except perseverance, but all of these benefits are enjoyed in a non-decretally elect way by the non-elect, and in a persevering way by the elect. Some are willing to posit a qualitative difference between the elect and the non-elect (Doug Wilson). Others seriously fudge or erase that distinction (Peter Leithart). I believe the basic error of the FV is the desire to have their faith in something that they can see: baptism. It is a baby-driven theology. What is confusing about the FV is that they use a lot of the terms we use, but fill them with different meaning. As Rich points out, they do indeed erase the distinction between the visible and the invisible church, but I wouldn't put that as the basic error. Their theology of baptism is the basic error, stemming from the quest for illegitimate religious certainty that Scott Clark talks about. Most of the FV are paedo-communion, but not all PC advocates are FV, although they tend to be very soft on FV theologians.



Lane,

It's good to hear from you (even if it's virtual). I agree that their fundamental error isn't, per se, the erasing of the visible/invisible Church distinction and I agree that there is an illegitimate quest for certainty in their theology. They will appeal to texts like Ephesians where Paul is using the first person singular pronoun and conclude that this means that when Paul writes things in Ephesians 1-2 about "us" or "we" that everyone addressed is, in some sense, a partaker of that reality.

This observation is going to make some people angry but I've noticed over the years that there is a certain "profile" to people who are attracted to FV theology. It's sort of the profile of the people who packed up and moved to remote areas during Y2K waiting for the lights to go out while all the unprepared starved to death.

There's an organic relationship between "obsessive reconstructionism" and FV theology because "Dad the family priest" takes such center stage in all this theology. It's not by accident that so much is written about how men are the heads of the home and like Christ to their wife and kids and that, should they raise them in the fear of the Lord, they will not depart from it. I don't think it's so much of a theology focused on babies but on the illegitimate use of wisdom literature to create a formula for faithfulness. If Dad gets the family into the correct Church and worldview and life then they will all maintain their fidelity to the Covenant. I think the Sacraments then have to fit, in their understanding, to match this conviction of Covenant succession. It cannot be the case that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the election of children in one sense because that would mean that Dad, the family priest, could do everything the Proverbs tell him to do with respect to training his child in the fear and the admonition of the Lord and the child may, in fact, depart from the faith. The "working of the works" begins with the proper training of the child - making sure he knows that he's got to obey the Covenant and have a proper worldview while the Sacraments are initiatory into this work that Dad and the Church are at work to perfect in the child.

The Puritans were head, heart, and hand Christians. They had their dogmatic and Biblical theology solidly worked out with God being the Creator and us being the creature. Westminsterian theology has a strong element of the heart and hands because it recognizes the fact that we are creatures and can live by the things revealed even though the theology of God in Himself and His decree is hidden from us. The FV are quasi-head, heart, and hands. They want to borrow and steal from elements of Puritanism while abandoning the theological distinctions that properly ground its activity. It has the veneer of being Reformed but only insofar as it can borrow from it while maintaining its desire to ground Dad the family priest's activity into something certain.


----------



## py3ak

Whenever this question comes up, I like to point to the very suggestive analyses provided years ago by T.E. Wilder. I wouldn't back everything to the hilt (he's more of a lumper, I think, where I'm more of a splitter), but some of his propositions can be rather illuminating when it comes to figuring out why this particular congeries of positions are held together.

What is at the heart of FV?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/21794-RCUS-on-the-Federal-Vision?p=271888#post271888

Why do the FV claim to be confessional?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...-about-going-home-to-Rome?p=272256#post272256

How deep do the problems run?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...ision-Statement-July-2007?p=290760#post290760

Where does the family emphasis fit in?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/24450-Adam-and-The-Fall?p=300486#post300486

Why was FV popular?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/20928-I-Read-This-and-Snapped-Help!?p=268704#post268704

How does liturgy fit in?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/21106-Covenant-Renewal-Worship?p=266260#post266260
(Also don't miss the concise remark by Matthew Winzer: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/21106-Covenant-Renewal-Worship?p=265229#post265229)

What are its sources?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/19219-The-fruit-of-the-Federal-Vision?p=240194#post240194

What is the goal?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/19147-Visible-Invisible-distinction?p=248449#post248449

What's the solution?
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/18706-Theonomy-and-the-Federal-Vision?p=234584#post234584


----------



## JimmyH

ReformedReidian said:


> It's also important to keep FV separate from the New Perspective on Paul. They overlap at points but the NPP developed earlier than and independent of FV. And we don't have evidence from Jim Jordan's earlier writings (_Sociology of Reconstruction_ that he is reading Wright, Dunn, and Sanders.





Jacob, if you haven't listened to this lecture by D.A. Carson, on the New Perspective on Paul, you should give it a listen. On youtube but audio only. 

[video=youtube;VQ_3JUms2Bw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ_3JUms2Bw[/video]


----------



## RamistThomist

I listened to it a while back and am in general agreement with Carson. My point was not to lump FV into the same group with NPP.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Whenever this question comes up, I like to point to the very suggestive analyses provided years ago by T.E. Wilder. I wouldn't back everything to the hilt (he's more of a lumper, I think, where I'm more of a splitter), but some of his propositions can be rather illuminating when it comes to figuring out why this particular congeries of positions are held together.
> 
> What is at the heart of FV?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/21794-RCUS-on-the-Federal-Vision?p=271888#post271888
> 
> Why do the FV claim to be confessional?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...-about-going-home-to-Rome?p=272256#post272256
> 
> How deep do the problems run?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...ision-Statement-July-2007?p=290760#post290760
> 
> Where does the family emphasis fit in?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/24450-Adam-and-The-Fall?p=300486#post300486
> 
> Why was FV popular?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/20928-I-Read-This-and-Snapped-Help!?p=268704#post268704
> 
> How does liturgy fit in?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/21106-Covenant-Renewal-Worship?p=266260#post266260
> (Also don't miss the concise remark by Matthew Winzer: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/21106-Covenant-Renewal-Worship?p=265229#post265229)
> 
> What are its sources?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/19219-The-fruit-of-the-Federal-Vision?p=240194#post240194
> 
> What is the goal?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/19147-Visible-Invisible-distinction?p=248449#post248449
> 
> What's the solution?
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/18706-Theonomy-and-the-Federal-Vision?p=234584#post234584



Maybe I've missed that you've posted this in the past but that was a great summary.

Reading those old threads made me wistful for all the people that are no longer active here.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> Reading those old threads made me wistful for all the people that are no longer active here.



I know the feeling! I wonder from time to time how some of them are.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading those old threads made me wistful for all the people that are no longer active here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the feeling! I wonder from time to time how some of them are.
Click to expand...


Yeah, me too. tewilder, DTK, JohnV, Civbert, Theroretical, just to name a few.

It was interesting to read some of those old threads after 8 years of more theological study and some of the points that tewilder made were much more understandable. I didn't agree with everything he wrote but he did make some very keen observations about where we are in Reformed theology. I found, especially, his notion about postmodern approaches to the Confessions to be very insightful as it has been a special concern of mine for a few years now.


----------



## KMK

I assumed that you guys were all still friends on facebook. (I don't participate, so I wouldn't know.) I was just reflecting the other day on how beneficial PB has been to my own, and many others' sanctification. Not just in knowledge which puffeth up, but in real charity which edifieth.

Thank you, Rich, for putting up with us all these years.


----------



## RamistThomist

I'm friends with CivBert on Facebook.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> It was interesting to read some of those old threads after 8 years of more theological study and some of the points that tewilder made were much more understandable. I didn't agree with everything he wrote but he did make some very keen observations about where we are in Reformed theology. I found, especially, his notion about postmodern approaches to the Confessions to be very insightful as it has been a special concern of mine for a few years now.



Yes, I think for instance that some of the historical details could probably be disputed, but I found his analysis a stimulatingly different critique of the FV. It's always interesting to me to see how different filters can fit the same data. Of course, I should also have linked to the epic post where he pointed out that James Jordan's theology was eerily parallel to another Jordan's _Wheel of Time_....

While the Confessions are dehistoricized from the Reformation and Protestant Scholastic contexts in which they arose, it seems people will be able to say they subscribe because of ad hoc agreement with the words, even when they are at odds with its tenor and scope. Simplicity and immutability are one area where that sometimes seems to happen.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Please do; I would like to revisit that; I couldn't find it searching. 


py3ak said:


> Of course, I should also have linked to the epic post where he pointed out that James Jordan's theology was eerily parallel to another Jordan's Wheel of Time....


----------



## RamistThomist

py3ak said:


> . Of course, I should also have linked to the epic post where he pointed out that James Jordan's theology was eerily parallel to another Jordan's Wheel of Time....



I would dispute that. I thought of writing a Philosophy in the Wheel of Time book. For all of his faults, James Jordan holds to a linear view of time with an eye towards eschatological maturation. Robert Jordan is very against that (at least in the books). Every book begins by denying there is the beginning and the end, but only _a_ beginning.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> While the Confessions are dehistoricized from the Reformation and Protestant Scholastic contexts in which they arose, it seems people will be able to say they subscribe because of ad hoc agreement with the words, even when they are at odds with its tenor and scope.


You can pin that on a wall to describe the way the Confessions are handled at times.

My very first Presbytery meeting I broke the "gentlemen's rule" in not talking during my first Presbytery meeting as a new Elder a number of years ago. A candidate for ministry was being examined who held to Paedocommunion and he presented a paper on why he believed in PC. A good number of the TE's and RE's had the opinion that "...he explained why he believes this so why are we pulling him through a knothole on this issue...?" The problem was that his paper was contradictory to our Standards. At one point the candidate even stated that he could read the Confessions in such a way that he agreed with the words of the Confession (even though propositionally they contradicted his own view). That was, again, good enough for enough men present that he was approved for ordination by about 66% of the Elders in attendance. It's not just the FV that are treating our Confessions with a "reader response" theory. The sad irony is that I imagine that more Elders would be constructionists with respect to our U.S. Constitution (and be up in arms about the way the Supreme Court rules) than there are Elders who treat our Church's constitution in the same manner.


----------



## py3ak

Chris, I think that must be on a thread that got moderated and so is no longer searchable. I'll bring the comment to your attention if I come across it, but I'm probably out of time to hunt for it any longer.

Jacob, just based on my memory of the comment, it wasn't about the philosophy of time, nor would that have been the suggested point of contact. As I recall (and without having read Robert Jordan), it was about the idea that Adam should have fought to defend Eve from the serpent, and might well have died doing so. You could have a derivation that paralleled a number of points but didn't necessarily agree on an important point (for instance, how David Lindsay showed C.S. Lewis how to do the Space Trilogy).

For the record, I'm not endorsing everything tewilder said. The older threads themselves contain corrections that were offered to him on multiple points, some of which were quite valid.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Jeremy Ivens said:


> Hi there. I am not a fan of FV nor do I hate it. I don't understand it. Would somebody give just a basic rundown of what it is so I at least know that?



Hi Jeremy,

Here are some resources:

1. PCA Report
2.The URCNA Report on the FV
3. OPC Report
4. URC's Nine Points Contra FV
5. Audio: Explaining the Nine Points
6. Library: FV Articles 
7. Audio Echo Zoe Interview
8. RCUS Report
9. Baptism and the Benefits of Christ
10. Baptism, Election, and the Covenant of Grace
More resources on the FV

Hope this helps.

rsc


----------



## TylerRay

ReformedReidian said:


> You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.



I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.


----------



## greenbaggins

TylerRay said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.
Click to expand...


The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.


----------



## RamistThomist

It is true that Jordan is the ultimate brains behind the operation, but Wilson is the personality. And few other FV guys have Wilson's linguistic skill and connections with mainstream evangelicals. Take Wilson completely out of the picture and in 10 years the CREC becomes a different operation.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder



The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Fred Greco has a good article on Puritan's Mind on NT Wright/NPP that is a good place to get a foundational understanding of that vein of the controversy.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Semper Fidelis said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the Confessions are dehistoricized from the Reformation and Protestant Scholastic contexts in which they arose, it seems people will be able to say they subscribe because of ad hoc agreement with the words, even when they are at odds with its tenor and scope.
> 
> 
> 
> You can pin that on a wall to describe the way the Confessions are handled at times.
> 
> My very first Presbytery meeting I broke the "gentlemen's rule" in not talking during my first Presbytery meeting as a new Elder a number of years ago. A candidate for ministry was being examined who held to Paedocommunion and he presented a paper on why he believed in PC. A good number of the TE's and RE's had the opinion that "...he explained why he believes this so why are we pulling him through a knothole on this issue...?" The problem was that his paper was contradictory to our Standards. At one point the candidate even stated that he could read the Confessions in such a way that he agreed with the words of the Confession (even though propositionally they contradicted his own view). That was, again, good enough for enough men present that he was approved for ordination by about 66% of the Elders in attendance. It's not just the FV that are treating our Confessions with a "reader response" theory. The sad irony is that I imagine that more Elders would be constructionists with respect to our U.S. Constitution (and be up in arms about the way the Supreme Court rules) than there are Elders who treat our Church's constitution in the same manner.
Click to expand...


Seriously? 66%, while a majority of "yays", should have at least called for a review of his position. Did presbytery make him vow to "not teach" the view?


----------



## TylerRay

ReformedReidian said:


> And few other FV guys have Wilson's linguistic skill and connections with mainstream evangelicals.



Very true. Jordan himself can be rather prickly.


----------



## TylerRay

greenbaggins said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.
Click to expand...


I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.

From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.

I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.


----------



## mvdm

TylerRay said:


> from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology,



Incorrectly deduced.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.
Click to expand...


I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?


----------



## Captain Picard

TylerRay said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.
> 
> From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.
> 
> I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.
Click to expand...


There are shades/gradations of the acceptance of Shepherd's NPP-esque justification theory within the FV guys, and as far as I know, the Rushdoony fans don't even like (for example) Wilson.

But you aren't being unfair.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.
> 
> From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.
> 
> I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.
Click to expand...


Rush was an influence, but not a big one. They all go to Jordan and Jordan pretty much dismantled Rushdoony's version of theonomy.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?
Click to expand...


Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium: 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV

The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeremy Ivens

Thanks for the help everybody


----------



## TylerRay

The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

Rushdoony is usually thought of as having originated Christian Reconstructionism, and the Federal Vision arose in Reconstructionist churches. In the 80s, the Reconstructionists split over the same issues that are now associated with the Federal Vision. The FV controversy has only widened the breach.

While it is true that Jordan and other FV folks now repudiate theonomy (which is just one part of Reconstructionism), the Reconstructionist influence is still plain.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
> 
> Rushdoony is usually thought of as having originated Christian Reconstructionism, and the Federal Vision arose in Reconstructionist churches. In the 80s, the Reconstructionists split over the same issues that are now associated with the Federal Vision. The FV controversy has only widened the breach.
> 
> While it is true that Jordan and other FV folks now repudiate theonomy (which is just one part of Reconstructionism), the Reconstructionist influence is still plain.



The only reason I hesitate to go that far is because, having visited, known, and lived in the same locality with a number of leading, first-generation recons and FVers, it just isn't that clear. Joe Morecraft is a hyper-Recon, but violently opposed to FV. Steve Wilkins started out embracing Reconstructionis, to be sure, but he did that at the same time he embraced Banner of Truth's neo-Puritanism. Is Iain Murray, then, responsible for FV?

As to bringing neo-Calvinism into the game, that could easily have been Francis Schaeffer, Kuyper, or to a lesser extent Van Til (in fact, Clarkians accuse Van Til of creating FV).

And if you look at Rush's doctrine of the church and sacraments, it's basically non-existent, which is not what the FV have in mind.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I was getting ready to say that Jacob.

FV in many ways is hyper-ecclesiastical whereas Rushdoony (mainly because of his experience with the PC(USA) and the Indian reservation then later in California) was anti-ecclesial. 

While some in FV came out of CR, it was more a repudiation of Rushdoonyism than an acceptance thereof. A good example of this was Bahnsen's excoriation of James Jordan's hermenuetics.


----------



## TylerRay

The difficulty is that the Federal Vision is in some ways rather broad. It would probably be pretty tough to show that Rich Lusk, for instance, is a theonomist. However, I used to be a member of a church CREC church that embraced the Federal Vision and theonomy wholeheartedly. 

In my experience, the older men who are involved with the Federal Vision were either in reconstructionist camp at one time, or still in it today, almost to a man.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> The difficulty is that the Federal Vision is in some ways rather broad. It would probably be pretty tough to show that Rich Lusk, for instance, is a theonomist. However, I used to be a member of a church CREC church that embraced the Federal Vision and theonomy wholeheartedly.
> 
> In my experience, the older men who are involved with the Federal Vision were either in reconstructionist camp at one time, or still in it today, almost to a man.



The older generation is sort of theonomic. The younger is not. The younger realize that Jordan dismantled theonomy and see no need to press it. One could call them, I suppose, liturgical theonomists.


----------



## RamistThomist

I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source: they just don't know much about the post-Reformation heritage and certainly little to nothing of Patristic and medieval reflection. Of course, this isn't entirely their fault. Baker Academic doesn't feel the need to keep Beardslee, Heppe, and Muller in print. Banner of Truth is more likely to print another piety treatise (valuable as it is) and many others are going to write_Yet One More Book on the Five Points_. 

I lost interest in theonomy when I started reading and studying Oliver O'Donovan.


----------



## Vox Oculi

thanks for all the reading material. It's a lot to digest.

Quick question: is it bad enough to consider the broader _movement_ a heresy?

Is Doug Wilson a bad man? Not to be trusted? I've really only run into him on Christopher Hitchens debate videos on youtube--apparently they had a traveling debate tour together a while back.

Where is it generally a risk that you'd run into? Given my location, I don't know if I should be alert for it creeping in to religious circles I might move in.


----------



## RamistThomist

Vox Oculi said:


> thanks for all the reading material. It's a lot to digest.
> 
> Quick question: is it bad enough to consider the broader _movement_ a heresy?



Probably



> Is Doug Wilson a bad man?



Yes. http://moscowid.net/


----------



## ZackF

This thread has been most helpful especially with the comments on FV connections and disconnections to theonomy.


----------



## KMK

ReformedReidian said:


> I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source:



Yeah. It's called 'the internet'.


----------



## Vox Oculi

Before I was familiar with his face, I used to say Phil Johnson reminded me of Doug Wilson. Well, no more. 

I'll give the benefit of trust to the website. Given what it says, he's got a colossal lack of discernment at the very least and is arguably unqualified to be an elder/his church not a real church. Phew.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

TylerRay said:


> The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).



I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision. 

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. It's called 'the internet'.
Click to expand...


NOt always. I learned of the Federal Vision by sitting in the pew of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church from 2004-2006 (whenever I was in town). I learned of theonomy from my pastor who studied under Bahnsen and lived with him for a while and from Lonn Oswalt, who proofread a number of Bahnsen's works (see the thank yous in Van Til: Readings and Analysis)


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
Click to expand...


I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet. 

For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.


----------



## RamistThomist

Vox Oculi said:


> Before I was familiar with his face, I used to say Phil Johnson reminded me of Doug Wilson. Well, no more.
> 
> I'll give the benefit of trust to the website. Given what it says, he's got a colossal lack of discernment at the very least and is arguably unqualified to be an elder/his church not a real church. Phew.



He slut-shamed rape victims (as classified under Idaho Law) and pleaded for leniency with the judges. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/87950-A-Question-for-Doug-Wilson-Fans


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ReformedReidian said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.
> 
> For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.
Click to expand...


Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book _What We Believe_ argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.


----------



## ZackF

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.
> 
> For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book _What We Believe_ argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.
Click to expand...


But he may be moving in that direction...


----------



## RamistThomist

KS_Presby said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.
> 
> For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book _What We Believe_ argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he may be moving in that direction...
Click to expand...


Maybe not. Thomas Aquinas held to analogical knowledge (and language) and Sproul is a Thomist.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I confess I am no Van Til expert and do not know the places in Van Til's thought where he argued for paradox and then systematized theology in that direction. Where I have understood Van Til clearly is the distinction between Theology of the Ectype and Theology of the Archetype. It's another way of stating that man is a creature and God is God. God knows certain things in Himself and man's knowledge is always analogical. God's knowledge of things is comprehensive, our knowledge is limited to what we can apprehend from that which God reveals to us in general and special revelation. This Ectypal theology is always a creaturely accommodation and never gives man univocal (the same kind) of knowledge as God's but it is sufficient to create a systematic apprehension of the truths that creatures are able to apprehend. A perfect theology of the ectype is always going to be clouded by sin (which is why we have debates on what the Scriptures teach) but even when all sin is finally removed and man is not clouded in his understanding, he will still be a creature. He will never have nor can he ever attain God's knowledge of things.

I want to add that this is not an invention of Van Til. This is classic Reformed orthodoxy on man as the creature dependent upon but distinct from the creature. Clarkianism is a departure from this fundamental hermeneutic in the Reformed tradition (and I should say that they didn't invent this but carried this conviction forward from their theological forebears as they didn't recast all theology).

God's knowledge of something being qualitatively different than our own is not an excuse for playing the Paradox card whenever it suits us. Barth, for instance, picked up on this Creator-creature distinction and concluded that theological understanding could never be a historical or textual understanding of a text revealed to us. The only way a person could understand God's Revelation, in the neo-orthodox tradition, is the encounter with the text where the text becomes the Word of God in the moment. The propositions or the events could not convey any truth in the naked text itself. This is not Reformed.

At the other end of the spectrum is the rationalist view where the text is merely a collection of logical syllogisms that need to be worked out using the laws of logic. This denies the supernatural work of the Spirit in which the external testimony of the Word and the internal testimony of the Spirit work together to cause the reader to apprehend and believe the breathed-out Word of God.

The FV advocates seem to make the error of pitting Revelation against itself where the concept of Covenant creates a set of ideas that can be held in paradoxical tension with the system of doctrine that emerges from the text. This is an inappropriate use of the theology of the ectype. The Word of God is written for and accommodate to creatures. It is not a theology that has irreconcilable contradictions in which we appeal to some higher theology of the archetype where the tension is resolved because, if true, then it is never resolved. Why? Because we're always limited to creaturely apprehension. We are to labor in the Word to properly understand, by the Spirit, what the text teaches and what the good and necessary consequences of that text teach as well. If our Covenant theology that emerges from our exegesis creates a fundamental contradiction with the system of doctrine that comes by way of GNC from the text then we haven't achieved some sort of "higher principle". Rather, we have simply not done proper exegesis to begin with.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Don't forget Ray Sutton's five point covenant model as a source for a lot of this.


----------



## MW

I think the connection with neo-Calvinism is to the point. It is the neo-Calvinist antithesis which creates a theoretical association between CVT, theonomists, and the FV. After that they go their separate ways. Neo-Calvinism is hyper-covenantal, and leaves no room for a neutral sphere by means of secular-sacred or nature-grace distinctions. Everything is "religious." For CVT the antithesis was apologetical. This was an evangelical focus because his main concern was the gospel. For that reason he does not appear to go to the extremes of theonomists and FVers. Theonomists took this in the direction of law, society, and politics. As there is no "secular" state, the state must be redeemed by God's social order. For the FV the emphasis falls on church, ministry, and sacraments. As all cultural expression is religious and must be redeemed, the church must bring its redeeming rituals into all cultural forms and thereby transform the culture.


----------



## RamistThomist

Semper Fidelis said:


> I confess I am no Van Til expert and do not know the places in Van Til's thought where he argued for paradox and then systematized theology in that direction. Where I have understood Van Til clearly is the distinction between Theology of the Ectype and Theology of the Archetype. It's another way of stating that man is a creature and God is God. God knows certain things in Himself and man's knowledge is always analogical. God's knowledge of things is comprehensive, our knowledge is limited to what we can apprehend from that which God reveals to us in general and special revelation. This Ectypal theology is always a creaturely accommodation and never gives man univocal (the same kind) of knowledge as God's but it is sufficient to create a systematic apprehension of the truths that creatures are able to apprehend. A perfect theology of the ectype is always going to be clouded by sin (which is why we have debates on what the Scriptures teach) but even when all sin is finally removed and man is not clouded in his understanding, he will still be a creature. He will never have nor can he ever attain God's knowledge of things.
> 
> I want to add that this is not an invention of Van Til. This is classic Reformed orthodoxy on man as the creature dependent upon but distinct from the creature. Clarkianism is a departure from this fundamental hermeneutic in the Reformed tradition (and I should say that they didn't invent this but carried this conviction forward from their theological forebears as they didn't recast all theology).
> 
> God's knowledge of something being qualitatively different than our own is not an excuse for playing the Paradox card whenever it suits us. Barth, for instance, picked up on this Creator-creature distinction and concluded that theological understanding could never be a historical or textual understanding of a text revealed to us. The only way a person could understand God's Revelation, in the neo-orthodox tradition, is the encounter with the text where the text becomes the Word of God in the moment. The propositions or the events could not convey any truth in the naked text itself. This is not Reformed.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum is the rationalist view where the text is merely a collection of logical syllogisms that need to be worked out using the laws of logic. This denies the supernatural work of the Spirit in which the external testimony of the Word and the internal testimony of the Spirit work together to cause the reader to apprehend and believe the breathed-out Word of God.
> 
> The FV advocates seem to make the error of pitting Revelation against itself where the concept of Covenant creates a set of ideas that can be held in paradoxical tension with the system of doctrine that emerges from the text. This is an inappropriate use of the theology of the ectype. The Word of God is written for and accommodate to creatures. It is not a theology that has irreconcilable contradictions in which we appeal to some higher theology of the archetype where the tension is resolved because, if true, then it is never resolved. Why? Because we're always limited to creaturely apprehension. We are to labor in the Word to properly understand, by the Spirit, what the text teaches and what the good and necessary consequences of that text teach as well. If our Covenant theology that emerges from our exegesis creates a fundamental contradiction with the system of doctrine that comes by way of GNC from the text then we haven't achieved some sort of "higher principle". Rather, we have simply not done proper exegesis to begin with.



I need to make it clear that I side with CVT on archetypal/ectypal, analogical knowledge, and the like. I understand what he means by "paradox" and "apparent contradiction" (though the latter was a very poor use of words). And I suppose it isn't his fault that FVers did horrible and ignorant things with those terms. 

I just get annoyed when I see whippersnappers say, "Oh the trinity--how can there be 3 and 1? It's paradox, brother." Well, there is a paradoxical element to this, but we can at least try to give an answer on the terms of person and nature, for example.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV
> 
> The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.
Click to expand...


What you call a "smear" hasn't been answered by that book. I looked up every reference to Schilder in that book, and NOWHERE does it address Schilder's undifferentiated covenant membership formula "Alles of Niks." Basically, what I saw there was that Schilder is hard to understand and even harder to translate, due to his impenetrable Dutch. I called Ron Gleason about Schilder's formulation on this, and he agrees with me that Schilder's covenantal formulations are problematic. He had to deal with it in Holland (where he ministered to Schilder's daughter), and also in a CanRC that he pastored over here. The book you referenced only references Schilder's own work once, and that was not on the question of covenant membership. The colloquium spent far more time on justification and on the covenant of works than on covenant of grace membership. So, your claim is not born out by the evidence.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ReformedReidian said:


> I need to make it clear that I side with CVT on archetypal/ectypal, analogical knowledge, and the like. I understand what he means by "paradox" and "apparent contradiction" (though the latter was a very poor use of words). And I suppose it isn't his fault that FVers did horrible and ignorant things with those terms.
> 
> I just get annoyed when I see whippersnappers say, "Oh the trinity--how can there be 3 and 1? It's paradox, brother." Well, there is a paradoxical element to this, but we can, at least, try to give an answer on the terms of person and nature, for example.



I can understand this. I think I was trying to formulate the idea that ectypal theology is not an excuse to formulate a theology with actual contradictions and then claim it is a paradox because the resolution to the problem is found in the mind of God. It is also not appropriate to go the direction of rationalism and deny the Creator/creature distinction and assume that we can arrive at all knowledge possible through logical syllogism. 

I think what you're expressing above is sort of a lazy theology that has the appearance of Godliness. There is a lot of pious-sounding language around bad theology and what you're expressing is that some are just laid back about the implications of their ideas. They think they are being pious because they've convinced themselves of some theological concept that they believe is in inextricable tension or contradiction with another part of theology. The resolution is not to simply claim that there is no resolution but to actually investigate things further. It's sort of like the pacifist who appeals to the "trajectory" of the New Testament being about Christ bringing peace and that we see most clearly the attitude of God in the person of Christ. They haven't even begun to grasp the nature of the Hypostatic union and that the Son's human and divine will are not in competition with one another. They have further not grasped that the Divine Logos' will is of unity with the Father and the Spirit. Thus, whatever the LORD willed in the Old Testament _is_ representative of Christ's will.

You don't have to be a rationalist and insist that our understanding of things is univocal with the Godhead. You simply have to use the ordinary means of understanding the text and the good and necessary consequences of what that entails and this involves _work_ and not a "...I'm too lazy to study the Trinity so I'll just throw something out that Jesus represents God's heart, brother." 

So my larger point, which I'm struggling to express, is that I was trying to say what Matthew was saying that I'm not sure we can blame CVT for introducing paradox as an excuse for the FV. It's probably an unfortunate word but I see Van Til as guarding the notion that man's knowledge is creaturely. I think those who read Van Til can take a word and miss the whole point and then run in a direction he never intended - using the idea that man's knowledge is creaturely (or analogical) as an excuse to formulate some idea of Covenant that is in contradiction with Reformed systematic theology but saying that it's held together by paradox. This is illegitimate.

Am I making any sense?


----------



## RamistThomist

Semper Fidelis said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need to make it clear that I side with CVT on archetypal/ectypal, analogical knowledge, and the like. I understand what he means by "paradox" and "apparent contradiction" (though the latter was a very poor use of words). And I suppose it isn't his fault that FVers did horrible and ignorant things with those terms.
> 
> I just get annoyed when I see whippersnappers say, "Oh the trinity--how can there be 3 and 1? It's paradox, brother." Well, there is a paradoxical element to this, but we can, at least, try to give an answer on the terms of person and nature, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand this. I think I was trying to formulate the idea that ectypal theology is not an excuse to formulate a theology with actual contradictions and then claim it is a paradox because the resolution to the problem is found in the mind of God. It is also not appropriate to go the direction of rationalism and deny the Creator/creature distinction and assume that we can arrive at all knowledge possible through logical syllogism.
> 
> I think what you're expressing above is sort of a lazy theology that has the appearance of Godliness. There is a lot of pious-sounding language around bad theology and what you're expressing is that some are just laid back about the implications of their ideas. They think they are being pious because they've convinced themselves of some theological concept that they believe is in inextricable tension or contradiction with another part of theology. The resolution is not to simply claim that there is no resolution but to actually investigate things further. It's sort of like the pacifist who appeals to the "trajectory" of the New Testament being about Christ bringing peace and that we see most clearly the attitude of God in the person of Christ. They haven't even begun to grasp the nature of the Hypostatic union and that the Son's human and divine will are not in competition with one another. They have further not grasped that the Divine Logos' will is of unity with the Father and the Spirit. Thus, whatever the LORD willed in the Old Testament _is_ representative of Christ's will.
> 
> You don't have to be a rationalist and insist that our understanding of things is univocal with the Godhead. You simply have to use the ordinary means of understanding the text and the good and necessary consequences of what that entails and this involves _work_ and not a "...I'm too lazy to study the Trinity so I'll just throw something out that Jesus represents God's heart, brother."
> 
> So my larger point, which I'm struggling to express, is that I was trying to say what Matthew was saying that I'm not sure we can blame CVT for introducing paradox as an excuse for the FV. It's probably an unfortunate word but I see Van Til as guarding the notion that man's knowledge is creaturely. I think those who read Van Til can take a word and miss the whole point and then run in a direction he never intended - using the idea that man's knowledge is creaturely (or analogical) as an excuse to formulate some idea of Covenant that is in contradiction with Reformed systematic theology but saying that it's held together by paradox. This is illegitimate.
> 
> Am I making any sense?
Click to expand...


I think we are on the same page.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV
> 
> The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call a "smear" hasn't been answered by that book. I looked up every reference to Schilder in that book, and NOWHERE does it address Schilder's undifferentiated covenant membership formula "Alles of Niks." Basically, what I saw there was that Schilder is hard to understand and even harder to translate, due to his impenetrable Dutch. I called Ron Gleason about Schilder's formulation on this, and he agrees with me that Schilder's covenantal formulations are problematic. He had to deal with it in Holland (where he ministered to Schilder's daughter), and also in a CanRC that he pastored over here. The book you referenced only references Schilder's own work once, and that was not on the question of covenant membership. The colloquium spent far more time on justification and on the covenant of works than on covenant of grace membership. So, your claim is not born out by the evidence.
Click to expand...


Surely you recognize that saying Schilder's formulation is "problematic" is different from saying his theology is a "pillar for the FV". From folks who are able to penetrate his Dutch- including those attending the colloquium- Schilder did differentiate covenant membership using the terms "legal/vital", as opposed to the terms "inward/outward".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).



Agreed. They lean heavily on this.


----------



## TylerRay

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. They lean heavily on this.
Click to expand...


Even more, one can have strong reservations about Van Til's apologetics while appreciating his preaching and lecturing.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV
> 
> The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call a "smear" hasn't been answered by that book. I looked up every reference to Schilder in that book, and NOWHERE does it address Schilder's undifferentiated covenant membership formula "Alles of Niks." Basically, what I saw there was that Schilder is hard to understand and even harder to translate, due to his impenetrable Dutch. I called Ron Gleason about Schilder's formulation on this, and he agrees with me that Schilder's covenantal formulations are problematic. He had to deal with it in Holland (where he ministered to Schilder's daughter), and also in a CanRC that he pastored over here. The book you referenced only references Schilder's own work once, and that was not on the question of covenant membership. The colloquium spent far more time on justification and on the covenant of works than on covenant of grace membership. So, your claim is not born out by the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you recognize that saying Schilder's formulation is "problematic" is different from saying his theology is a "pillar for the FV". From folks who are able to penetrate his Dutch- including those attending the colloquium- Schilder did differentiate covenant membership using the terms "legal/vital", as opposed to the terms "inward/outward".
Click to expand...


The actual work of Schilder's that the book quotes is available here. Schilder never uses the term "vital" in that entire speech. Furthermore, in the third to last paragraph, he clearly lumps together the covenant before and after the Fall as being the same covenant. He outright denies that the substance of the covenant is made with the elect. The quotations that the book was thinking about are irrelevant to the "Alles of Niks" issue. Covenant members are either faithful or unfaithful in Schilder's theology, precisely what the FV has been saying all along. The decoupling of covenant from election is the nub of the problem. 

It would, of course, be anachronistic to call Schilder FV. However, that speech confirms everything I have thought about his covenant theology as being a precursor to the FV's view of covenantal membership. This is not to say that Schilder holds Arminian views with regard to the non-elect, or that he necessarily believes that baptism unites a person to Christ (although he speaks very strongly of baptism here):


> If a believer thinks "I am baptized, but of what use is that to me; it could have been a mistake, and not a real baptism (only some drops of water)", then he will never have rest. But what is promised and demanded you may consider as something that you have coming to you, as a right, and that gives certainty.



I know that the Canadian RC has always highly respected Schilder. However, I continue to believe that his covenant theology is off. FV writers do quote him as being influential in their own formulations (I think Norman Shepherd is the link here, but I can't remember right off). NOthing you have said, Mark, has convinced me otherwise. Furthermore, your claim that Schilder makes a distinction between "legal/vital" is demonstrably false. Schilder talks about "legal" in his speech, but he makes no such distinction between legal and vital.


----------



## greenbaggins

ReformedReidian said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. They lean heavily on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more, one can have strong reservations about Van Til's apologetics while appreciating his preaching and lecturing.
Click to expand...


Whether they understand Van Til on the issue of paradox is, of course, open for debate. My understanding of Van Til on this point is that there are things which we cannot understand, being finite creatures. If God has revealed it, however, that means we must believe it, whether we understand it or not. I do not believe that Van Til understood any of these types of things to be ultimately contradictory. 

What is interesting about this (and just occurred to me reading this) is that the FV's embrace of paradox is eerily similar to the Roman Catholic Church's additive theology. In Rome, they never throw anything "good" away. So they wind up with loads of contradictory theologies that can all be reconciled by the nebulous and all-embracing category of "tradition." This makes it very hard to debate a Roman Catholic, of course, because there is always an answer to everything, even if it is not a coherent answer.


----------



## greenbaggins

Scott Clark shows the pathway between Schilder and the FV fairly clearly in his article published in the CPJ, which is available online here. But, no doubt, that is only another part of the smear campaign against Klaas Schilder. John Barach notes the connection, as does Norman Shepherd.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> NOthing you have said, Mark, has convinced me otherwise.



I have no illusions of convincing you.



greenbaggins said:


> Furthermore, your claim that Schilder makes a distinction between "legal/vital" is demonstrably false.



Strange that you conclude the absence of this clear distinction in one speech means it must be demonstrably absent in the rest of Schilder's works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> But, no doubt, that is only another part of the smear campaign against Klaas Schilder.



No doubt.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing you have said, Mark, has convinced me otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no illusions of convincing you.
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, your claim that Schilder makes a distinction between "legal/vital" is demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange that you conclude the absence of this clear distinction in one speech means it must be demonstrably absent in the rest of Schilder's works.
Click to expand...


I do not assume that. You misrepresent my position. You gave sources. I read them. They do not say what you think they say. If there is evidence of something else in Schilder's work, then put me in touch with those sources. You will not convince me by mere assertion, which is what you seem to be doing right now. You will have to do better than that if you want your charge against me of smearing Schilder to stick. You claimed that legal/vital was in the sources you gave me. It was not. Show me where they are.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> You claimed that legal/vital was in the sources you gave me.



Did not claim it was in that source. I provided that source when you asked for the written material for the colloquium. Read more carefully. 



greenbaggins said:


> Show me where they are



Do your homework. Look for reliable sources that know how to read Dutch.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> What is interesting about this (and just occurred to me reading this) is that the FV's embrace of paradox is eerily similar to the Roman Catholic Church's additive theology. In Rome, they never throw anything "good" away. So they wind up with loads of contradictory theologies that can all be reconciled by the nebulous and all-embracing category of "tradition." This makes it very hard to debate a Roman Catholic, of course, because there is always an answer to everything, even if it is not a coherent answer.



A friend of mine said he was reading one of John Henry Newman's books in which he was supposed to have argued that we needed an infallible external authority to tell us what irreconcilable paradoxes we should believe or reject. If it is true that Newman said that (I would have to investigate it further) then I can see why - apart from the obvious similarities concerning justification - so many FVers have made the jump to Rome.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If it is true that Newman said that (I would have to investigate it further) then I can see why - apart from the obvious similarities concerning justification - so many FVers have made the jump to Rome.



I don't know if Newman said it, but it is a standard line among convertskii. It only makes the problem worse, though. as the history of post-Vatican II has shown, this is fraught with danger. If the Bible requires an infallible interpretation, then the supposed infallible encyclical or council would also need an infallible interpreter. Whoever this might be, his interpretation--also infallible--would require yet another infallible interpretation, and so on .

An infallible x needs an infallible y-interpretation. Yet, how do I know I am interpreting y-interpretation correctly. So now I need an infallible interpretation y (z), which is itself functioning as an infallible intepretation of x. So now I need an infallible interpretation of z. 

Of course, the honest convertskii see this and realize that one must own up to an infinite regress or acknowledge the knowing subject in the reception of truth (the dreaded "subjectivism" charge!). I have a few friends that simply went nihilist or atheist on this point.


----------



## ZackF

Reformed Covenanter said:


> so many FVers have made the jump to Rome.



I think I am one of the few folks out there where the FV lead someone OUT of Rome.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Whether they understand Van Til on the issue of paradox is, of course, open for debate.



I have a hard-job believing that they understand the people from whom they claim to get their ideas. Still, I have yet to see it proved that they misunderstood Cornelius Van Til. Conversely, I think it is reductionist to blame the whole FV movement on CVT.



greenbaggins said:


> My understanding of Van Til on this point is that there are things which we cannot understand, being finite creatures. If God has revealed it, however, that means we must believe it, whether we understand it or not.



I agree that there are doctrines in scripture that are supra-rational, but not contra-rational. There are some things that are deep mysteries that we cannot fully understand; but scripture contains nothing that is irrational. 



greenbaggins said:


> I do not believe that Van Til understood any of these types of things to be ultimately contradictory.



I have heard some Van Tillians argue that there are some things that appear contradictory to us, but are not contradictory to God. The problem, however, with affirming irreconcilable paradoxes is how do we know which irreconcilable are ultimately irrational (and to be rejected) and which irreconcilable paradoxes are ultimately rational (and to be accepted)? What has precluded many Paradox Theologians from embracing the FV is a commitment to orthodox instincts, and the face of the FV does not fit alongside such instincts. But it is hard to see how they reconcile their rejection of the FV's contradictions with their own commitment to irreconcilable paradox.


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The problem, however, with affirming irreconcilable paradoxes is how do we know which irreconcilable are ultimately irrational (and to be rejected) and which irreconcilable paradoxes are ultimately rational (and to be accepted)?



Well noted. It ultimately comes back to a conflation of archetypal and ectypal theology. The "irreconcilable paradox" arises because ectypal theology is made "incomprehensible," whereas ectypal theology is already accommodated to human limitations for the purpose of making the truth knowable. There would be no irreconcilable paradox if theology was confined to the ectypal.

Knowledge is one of the constituent parts of faith.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

MW said:


> It ultimately comes back to a conflation of archetypal and ectypal theology. The "irreconcilable paradox" arises because ectypal theology is made "incomprehensible," whereas ectypal theology is already accommodated to human limitations for the purpose of making the truth knowable. There would be no irreconcilable paradox if theology was confined to the ectypal.
> 
> Knowledge is one of the constituent parts of faith.



That point about ectypal theology articulates something that I have been thinking about for a while, but have not been able to articulate. Thanks. If what you have said is correct, it would appear that while the Clarkians err in denying the archetypal/ectypal distinction the Paradox Theologians err in the opposite direction by confusing archetypal and ectypal theology. Thus they would appear to fall into the very pitfall that they are often seeking to avoid.


----------



## Peairtach

ReformedReidian said:


> I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source: they just don't know much about the post-Reformation heritage and certainly little to nothing of Patristic and medieval reflection. Of course, this isn't entirely their fault. Baker Academic doesn't feel the need to keep Beardslee, Heppe, and Muller in print. Banner of Truth is more likely to print another piety treatise (valuable as it is) and many others are going to write_Yet One More Book on the Five Points_.
> 
> I lost interest in theonomy when I started reading and studying Oliver O'Donovan.



Which of O'Donovan's books did you find particularly helpful, Jacob? I've never read any.


----------



## TylerRay

greenbaggins said:


> Scott Clark shows the pathway between Schilder and the FV fairly clearly in his article published in the CPJ, which is available online here. But, no doubt, that is only another part of the smear campaign against Klaas Schilder. John Barach notes the connection, as does Norman Shepherd.



So does David Engelsma in his book on the Federal Vision.


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If what you have said is correct, it would appear that while the Clarkians err in denying the archetypal/ectypal distinction the Paradox Theologians err in the opposite direction by confusing archetypal and ectypal theology. Thus they would appear to fall into the very pitfall that they are often seeking to avoid.



That is a fair conclusion from an analytical point of view, taking in the ideas with their consequences. To what degree this is a conscious thing in the different theologians would be difficult to say.


----------



## TylerRay

mvdm said:


> Do your homework. Look for reliable sources that know how to read Dutch.



This sort of reminds me of Van Til's defense of Shepherd's theology.

(Note when reading the quote below that Bavinck had not as yet been translated into English, and was little known to the English-speaking world.)



> If you were to look in the Westminster Library for Norman Shepherd's Master's thesis, you would find a masterful work. He knows, as Dr. Clowney said, he knows the Dutch, he knows Herman Bavinck, he knows the men of there [sic]. And part of the difficulty was that he was speaking about things that others did not understand. In the nature of the case, how could a PCA man even have heard of Bavinck? Or of the solidity with which that man has developed the concept of the teaching of Scripture with respect to Justification by Faith alone.



The interview may be read here (note--the church whose website I am linking to is steeped in the Federal Vision, and I do not endorse its theology).

Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?" Cornelius Van Til did.


----------



## mvdm

TylerRay said:


> Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?"



Given he is at the center of the FV problem, no I wouldn't rely on him to explain Schilder's legal/vital distinction, any more than I would rely on some reckless non-Dutch reading polemicist.


----------



## TylerRay

mvdm said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given he is at the center of the FV problem, no I wouldn't rely on him to explain Schilder's legal/vital distinction, any more than I would rely on some reckless non-Dutch reading polemicist.
Click to expand...


What about Cornelius Van Til? Or David Engelsma?


----------



## mvdm

TylerRay said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given he is at the center of the FV problem, no I wouldn't rely on him to explain Schilder's legal/vital distinction, any more than I would rely on some reckless non-Dutch reading polemicist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Cornelius Van Til? Or David Engelsma?
Click to expand...


If you have something from CVT or DE discussing Schilder's legal/vital distinction, pass it along and perhaps I can answer.


----------



## RamistThomist

Peairtach said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source: they just don't know much about the post-Reformation heritage and certainly little to nothing of Patristic and medieval reflection. Of course, this isn't entirely their fault. Baker Academic doesn't feel the need to keep Beardslee, Heppe, and Muller in print. Banner of Truth is more likely to print another piety treatise (valuable as it is) and many others are going to write_Yet One More Book on the Five Points_.
> 
> Desire of the nations
> Bond of imperfect
> I lost interest in theonomy when I started reading and studying Oliver O'Donovan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of O'Donovan's books did you find particularly helpful, Jacob? I've never read any.
Click to expand...


Deesire of the nations
Bonds of imperfection


----------



## TylerRay

mvdm said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given he is at the center of the FV problem, no I wouldn't rely on him to explain Schilder's legal/vital distinction, any more than I would rely on some reckless non-Dutch reading polemicist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Cornelius Van Til? Or David Engelsma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have something from CVT or DE discussing Schilder's legal/vital distinction, pass it along and perhaps I can answer.
Click to expand...


My reason for referencing Van Til was that in the quote that I provided he justifies Shepherd's doctrine of justification by saying that Shepherd knows Dutch, and that American Presbyterians do not understand Dutch theology. If Shepherd claims that his doctrine of justification is rooted in Schilder's covenant theology, it's no stretch to infer that Van Til thinks that Shepherd gets Schilder right.


----------



## mvdm

TylerRay said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given he is at the center of the FV problem, no I wouldn't rely on him to explain Schilder's legal/vital distinction, any more than I would rely on some reckless non-Dutch reading polemicist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Cornelius Van Til? Or David Engelsma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have something from CVT or DE discussing Schilder's legal/vital distinction, pass it along and perhaps I can answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reason for referencing Van Til was that in the quote that I provided he justifies Shepherd's doctrine of justification by saying that Shepherd knows Dutch, and that American Presbyterians do not understand Dutch theology. If Shepherd claims that his doctrine of justification is rooted in Schilder's covenant theology, it's no stretch to infer that Van Til thinks that Shepherd gets Schilder right.
Click to expand...


You seem determined to distract from my point, so I will say this one time and leave it here: this does not disprove the fact that Schilder (in the Dutch) makes a "legal/vital" distinction with respect to covenant membership.


----------



## TylerRay

mvdm said:


> You seem determined to distract from my point, so I will say this one time and leave it here: this does not disprove the fact that Schilder (in the Dutch) makes a "legal/vital" distinction with respect to covenant membership.



I'm sorry--I really don't mean to distract from your point. I only meant to point out that Van Til felt that Shepherd's view of Justification (and thus the FV view of justification) was well rooted in a certain strand of Dutch theology, which Shepherd and the FV claim is Schilder's.

I'll say no more about it. Schilder's own distinctions are certainly worth looking into. I don't have an ax to grind with Schilder--I just wanted to point out a part of the link between Schilder and the FV.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that legal/vital was in the sources you gave me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did not claim it was in that source. I provided that source when you asked for the written material for the colloquium. Read more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your homework. Look for reliable sources that know how to read Dutch.
Click to expand...


Mark, you made the claim that Schilder makes the distinction between legal and vital. You have not provided one single source to back that up. Since YOU made the claim, I do not have to prove your claim false. You have to prove it true. Show me the source. Your prevarication on this issue suggests to me rather strongly that you don't even have a source that proves this point.


----------



## timmopussycat

TylerRay said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism.
Click to expand...

and Amen!!!


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that legal/vital was in the sources you gave me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did not claim it was in that source. I provided that source when you asked for the written material for the colloquium. Read more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your homework. Look for reliable sources that know how to read Dutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark, you made the claim that Schilder makes the distinction between legal and vital. You have not provided one single source to back that up. Since YOU made the claim, I do not have to prove your claim false. You have to prove it true. Show me the source. Your prevarication on this issue suggests to me rather strongly that you don't even have a source that proves this point.
Click to expand...


Lane, I’ve come back here to see you’ve headed down your usual path. I debated whether to respond, but your charging me with prevarication necessitates a response. So let’s look back. When I told you to do your homework, I was hoping you’d be reminded of Dr. Kloosterman’s paper entitled “For the Sake of Accuracy” that translated from the Dutch evidence of Schilder’s legal/vital distinction.

“For the Sake of Accuracy” was posted in a thread here on the Puritanboard back in 2009.

That thread was started by, and that paper was posted by, none other than…….. Lane Keister.

http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/index.php/t-47351.html.

In that thread, you indicated you hadn’t read the Schilder material cited in the Kloosterman piece, but without giving any reason, stated you still weren’t convinced by the paper’s evidence. 

So back then, I asked you:



> Do either of those works of Schilder that you read address the internal/external or legal/vital distinction? If so, please cite some excerpts to show support for your charge that Schilder should be lumped with the FV.
> If not, then perhaps you could tell us upon what source you base your claim, and why you are not convinced by Kloosterman who, unlike you, has read the Dutch work in the original language.?



You never answered.

Then, literate-in-Dutch Rev. Wes Bredenhof of the Can RC chimed in the thread:



> I've read the Kloosterman piece and, also having read a bit of Schilder (in Dutch and English), I think it's a fair and balanced description of where KS stood. I don't think KS should be regarded as a precursor to FV in any meaningful way. The situation is somewhat analogous to the way in which theonomists have tried to appropriate Calvin as a precursor.
> 
> When Schilder says "alles of niets" (all or nothing) when it comes to the covenant, it seems to me that he is speaking of the vital aspect. Either you have a vital relation to God through Christ in the covenant of grace, or you don't. All or nothing.
> 
> From my reading of Schilder, he (and other Vrijgemaakt/liberated theologians) recognize that there are two ways of relating to the covenant of grace.



If that was not evidence enough, Rev. Bredenhof has since published his own book on the FV, in which he defends Schilder against the misappropriation by the FV folks. You can find it at the Reformed Fellowship publishing site. I’ve also spoken to another Dutch fluent pastor familiar with Schilder who would agree with Bredenhof’s conclusion.

I understand your reliance on a certain illiterate-in-Dutch partisan polemicist who sought to damage closer URC/CanRC relations, but you might consider a better approach is rather than ceding Schilder to the FV, you could argue against their misappropriation, leaving them hanging out to dry even further than they already are. 

So while I might be tempted to say it is *you* who prevaricates when you peddle the line that there is *no proof *Schilder made a legal/vital distinction- even when you had known otherwise- I’ll prefer to just chalk it up to faulty memory.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that legal/vital was in the sources you gave me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did not claim it was in that source. I provided that source when you asked for the written material for the colloquium. Read more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your homework. Look for reliable sources that know how to read Dutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark, you made the claim that Schilder makes the distinction between legal and vital. You have not provided one single source to back that up. Since YOU made the claim, I do not have to prove your claim false. You have to prove it true. Show me the source. Your prevarication on this issue suggests to me rather strongly that you don't even have a source that proves this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lane, I’ve come back here to see you’ve headed down your usual path. I debated whether to respond, but your charging me with prevarication necessitates a response. So let’s look back. When I told you to do your homework, I was hoping you’d be reminded of Dr. Kloosterman’s paper entitled “For the Sake of Accuracy” that translated from the Dutch evidence of Schilder’s legal/vital distinction.
> 
> “For the Sake of Accuracy” was posted in a thread here on the Puritanboard back in 2009.
> 
> That thread was started by, and that paper was posted by, none other than…….. Lane Keister.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/index.php/t-47351.html.
> 
> In that thread, you indicated you hadn’t read the Schilder material cited in the Kloosterman piece, but without giving any reason, stated you still weren’t convinced by the paper’s evidence.
> 
> So back then, I asked you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do either of those works of Schilder that you read address the internal/external or legal/vital distinction? If so, please cite some excerpts to show support for your charge that Schilder should be lumped with the FV.
> If not, then perhaps you could tell us upon what source you base your claim, and why you are not convinced by Kloosterman who, unlike you, has read the Dutch work in the original language.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answered.
> 
> Then, literate-in-Dutch Rev. Wes Bredenhof of the Can RC chimed in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the Kloosterman piece and, also having read a bit of Schilder (in Dutch and English), I think it's a fair and balanced description of where KS stood. I don't think KS should be regarded as a precursor to FV in any meaningful way. The situation is somewhat analogous to the way in which theonomists have tried to appropriate Calvin as a precursor.
> 
> When Schilder says "alles of niets" (all or nothing) when it comes to the covenant, it seems to me that he is speaking of the vital aspect. Either you have a vital relation to God through Christ in the covenant of grace, or you don't. All or nothing.
> 
> From my reading of Schilder, he (and other Vrijgemaakt/liberated theologians) recognize that there are two ways of relating to the covenant of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that was not evidence enough, Rev. Bredenhof has since published his own book on the FV, in which he defends Schilder against the misappropriation by the FV folks. You can find it at the Reformed Fellowship publishing site. I’ve also spoken to another Dutch fluent pastor familiar with Schilder who would agree with Bredenhof’s conclusion.
> 
> I understand your reliance on a certain illiterate-in-Dutch partisan polemicist who sought to damage closer URC/CanRC relations, but you might consider a better approach is rather than ceding Schilder to the FV, you could argue against their misappropriation, leaving them hanging out to dry even further than they already are.
> 
> So while I might be tempted to say it is *you* who prevaricates when you peddle the line that there is *no proof *Schilder made a legal/vital distinction- even when you had known otherwise- I’ll prefer to just chalk it up to faulty memory.
Click to expand...


Several points. 1. Your derogative slur of "your usual path" is quite unnecessary, and rather insulting. Kindly refrain from such condescending remarks in future. 2. The link to Kloosterman's piece is no longer active. I have spent about an hour trying to find it somewhere (including wayback machine website), but no such luck (my emails with Kloosterman also no longer exist). If you know of a place where it exists online, I will be happy to read it again. 3. I did not post the Kloosterman essay, nor did I start the thread. It was started and posted by Dearly Bought. So, what do you mean when you say that "That thread was started by, and that paper was posted by, none other than…….. Lane Keister." Are you trying to use this as a knock-out punch? If so, your punch went rather wide. 4. The conversation between Scott Clark and Bredenhof was, unfortunately, never finished. The points from Clark's reading of KS's "The Main Points of the Doctrine of the Covenant" were not answered by Bredenhof, in my view. The last post in the series seems to be one of clarification, rather than debate.


----------



## MW

Schilder's theses on the church are available in English. I have not seen the translation brought into question and therefore accept them as I read them. Therein I read that the visible-invisible church distinction is not valid. I cannot say what that means in the Dutch confessional heritage, but I know the rejection of this important distinction in the Scots Presbyterian heritage would require a revised understanding of federal theology. The so-called "FV" is one example of a group which reworks the doctrine of the church in this systematic fashion.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that legal/vital was in the sources you gave me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did not claim it was in that source. I provided that source when you asked for the written material for the colloquium. Read more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do your homework. Look for reliable sources that know how to read Dutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mark, you made the claim that Schilder makes the distinction between legal and vital. You have not provided one single source to back that up. Since YOU made the claim, I do not have to prove your claim false. You have to prove it true. Show me the source. Your prevarication on this issue suggests to me rather strongly that you don't even have a source that proves this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lane, I’ve come back here to see you’ve headed down your usual path. I debated whether to respond, but your charging me with prevarication necessitates a response. So let’s look back. When I told you to do your homework, I was hoping you’d be reminded of Dr. Kloosterman’s paper entitled “For the Sake of Accuracy” that translated from the Dutch evidence of Schilder’s legal/vital distinction.
> 
> “For the Sake of Accuracy” was posted in a thread here on the Puritanboard back in 2009.
> 
> That thread was started by, and that paper was posted by, none other than…….. Lane Keister.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/index.php/t-47351.html.
> 
> In that thread, you indicated you hadn’t read the Schilder material cited in the Kloosterman piece, but without giving any reason, stated you still weren’t convinced by the paper’s evidence.
> 
> So back then, I asked you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do either of those works of Schilder that you read address the internal/external or legal/vital distinction? If so, please cite some excerpts to show support for your charge that Schilder should be lumped with the FV.
> If not, then perhaps you could tell us upon what source you base your claim, and why you are not convinced by Kloosterman who, unlike you, has read the Dutch work in the original language.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answered.
> 
> Then, literate-in-Dutch Rev. Wes Bredenhof of the Can RC chimed in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the Kloosterman piece and, also having read a bit of Schilder (in Dutch and English), I think it's a fair and balanced description of where KS stood. I don't think KS should be regarded as a precursor to FV in any meaningful way. The situation is somewhat analogous to the way in which theonomists have tried to appropriate Calvin as a precursor.
> 
> When Schilder says "alles of niets" (all or nothing) when it comes to the covenant, it seems to me that he is speaking of the vital aspect. Either you have a vital relation to God through Christ in the covenant of grace, or you don't. All or nothing.
> 
> From my reading of Schilder, he (and other Vrijgemaakt/liberated theologians) recognize that there are two ways of relating to the covenant of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that was not evidence enough, Rev. Bredenhof has since published his own book on the FV, in which he defends Schilder against the misappropriation by the FV folks. You can find it at the Reformed Fellowship publishing site. I’ve also spoken to another Dutch fluent pastor familiar with Schilder who would agree with Bredenhof’s conclusion.
> 
> I understand your reliance on a certain illiterate-in-Dutch partisan polemicist who sought to damage closer URC/CanRC relations, but you might consider a better approach is rather than ceding Schilder to the FV, you could argue against their misappropriation, leaving them hanging out to dry even further than they already are.
> 
> So while I might be tempted to say it is *you* who prevaricates when you peddle the line that there is *no proof *Schilder made a legal/vital distinction- even when you had known otherwise- I’ll prefer to just chalk it up to faulty memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several points. 1. Your derogative slur of "your usual path" is quite unnecessary, and rather insulting. Kindly refrain from such condescending remarks in future. 2. The link to Kloosterman's piece is no longer active. I have spent about an hour trying to find it somewhere (including wayback machine website), but no such luck (my emails with Kloosterman also no longer exist). If you know of a place where it exists online, I will be happy to read it again. 3. I did not post the Kloosterman essay, nor did I start the thread. It was started and posted by Dearly Bought. So, what do you mean when you say that "That thread was started by, and that paper was posted by, none other than…….. Lane Keister." Are you trying to use this as a knock-out punch? If so, your punch went rather wide. 4. The conversation between Scott Clark and Bredenhof was, unfortunately, never finished. The points from Clark's reading of KS's "The Main Points of the Doctrine of the Covenant" were not answered by Bredenhof, in my view. The last post in the series seems to be one of clarification, rather than debate.
Click to expand...


Take a deep breath, brother. You brought up several sidebar points, but you really didn't address the main indisputable point: that there are in fact Dutch trained sources who posit evidence that Schilder makes a 'legal/vital" distinction/ differentiates covenant membership. 

Is that really so hard for you to acknowledge?


----------



## mvdm

MW said:


> Schilder's theses on the church are available in English. I have not seen the translation brought into question and therefore accept them as I read them. Therein I read that the visible-invisible church distinction is not valid. I cannot say what that means in the Dutch confessional heritage, but I know the rejection of this important distinction in the Scots Presbyterian heritage would require a revised understanding of federal theology. The so-called "FV" is one example of a group which reworks the doctrine of the church in this systematic fashion.



While I am not convinced of Schilder's reasoning for rejecting the terms "visible/invisible", his description of legal/vital ends up substantively landing in the same place, with 2 different ways of relating to the covenant of grace. The FV ran with Schilder's rejection of the terms "visible/invisible" to support an undifferentiated relationship to the covenant, but left out Schilder's alternative of "legal/vital."


----------



## greenbaggins

Mark, you regard your factual errors as "sidebar points?" Furthermore, they are not sidebar points. I am trying to get hold of Kloosterman's sources, which surely is the central point, is it not? I had read the article before, and was not convinced by his arguments, by the way. Just because Kloosterman can read Dutch and I can't doesn't mean he is correct. You ask me to acknowledge something I haven't seen yet, while you are unwilling to acknowledge factual errors in your post. This method of argumentation does not commend your position very well.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> Mark, you regard your factual errors as "sidebar points?" Furthermore, they are not sidebar points. I am trying to get hold of Kloosterman's sources, which surely is the central point, is it not? I had read the article before, and was not convinced by his arguments, by the way. Just because Kloosterman can read Dutch and I can't doesn't mean he is correct. You ask me to acknowledge something I haven't seen yet, while you are unwilling to acknowledge factual errors in your post. This method of argumentation does not commend your position very well.



Lane, no problem. It is plain that I misread who started the thread and posted the piece. Sorry about that. My eyes saw your avatar as the first entry, when it was the second. 

But back to the main point, is also plain that you participated in the thread, read the "For the Sake of Accuracy" piece, and read Bredenhof's assessment of it.

Now, to be VERY clear to you one last time: I'm not asking you to acknowledge the *accuracy* of their assessment, but to acknowledge that such Dutch- literate assessments of Schilder ACTUALLY DO EXIST. You leveling the charge of prevarication was on the question of their existence.

That you still won't acknowledge the plain fact that there exist Dutch-literate theologians who've read Schilder and posit he maintains a "legal/vital" distinction does not commend your method as very rational, brother.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, you regard your factual errors as "sidebar points?" Furthermore, they are not sidebar points. I am trying to get hold of Kloosterman's sources, which surely is the central point, is it not? I had read the article before, and was not convinced by his arguments, by the way. Just because Kloosterman can read Dutch and I can't doesn't mean he is correct. You ask me to acknowledge something I haven't seen yet, while you are unwilling to acknowledge factual errors in your post. This method of argumentation does not commend your position very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lane, no problem. It is plain that I misread who started the thread and posted the piece. Sorry about that. My eyes saw your avatar as the first entry, when it was the second.
> 
> But back to the main point, is also plain that you participated in the thread, read the "For the Sake of Accuracy" piece, and read Bredenhof's assessment of it.
> 
> Now, to be VERY clear to you one last time: I'm not asking you to acknowledge the *accuracy* of their assessment, but to acknowledge that such Dutch- literate assessments of Schilder ACTUALLY DO EXIST. You leveling the charge of prevarication was on the question of their existence.
> 
> That you still won't acknowledge the plain fact that there exist Dutch-literate theologians who've read Schilder and posit he maintains a "legal/vital" distinction does not commend your method as very rational, brother.
Click to expand...


And your seemingly deliberate misreading of my claim seems to prove to me that you are not reading me very carefully at all. I was never making a claim that no one thought Schilder made the distinction. I was claiming that I wasn't convinced that Schilder himself actually made such a distinction, and that I had not seen a convincing argument so far that was based on original sources. I greatly respect Bredenhof, but his conclusions do not match what I remember of _Always Obedient_. What I have seen of Kloosterman's arguments are a bit piece-meal. That is to say that the stuff he has was atomistic, to the best of my recollection. With regard to the phrase "Alles of niets," Bredenhof made a counter-claim, but one that had no original source support. So you, Bredenhof, and Kloosterman argue that Schilder is not properly read as a forerunner of the FV on covenantal membership. I have always understood this, Mark, contrary to your assertion. I never claimed otherwise. Clark has provided original source material (in English, but not a contested translation, from what I currently understand), which I also have read, that seriously undermines the collective arguments of you, Bredenhof, and Kloosterman. It might be helpful for you to provide an analysis of "The Main Points" that I linked to above, and argue why Schilder's formulations do not undermine a differentiated covenantal membership. 

In my book, decoupling covenant from election (which Schilder obviously, emphatically, and unarguably does in the piece) is enough in and of itself to prove the point. If the substance of the covenant is not made with the elect, then it is alles of niets. Everyone participates equally in the covenant. This is no different from what the FV claims. If you claim that Schilder says that people can be "vitally" connected with the covenant, presumably referring to the elect, those who have been regenerated, then you have reintroduced election as the substance of the covenant, something Schilder categorically REFUSED to do.


----------



## JimmyH

..........................


----------



## Vox Oculi

A little over my head at the present time.


----------



## greenbaggins

In thinking this through last night, a "third option" presented itself to me. Here are the options as I see them: 1. On the issue of covenantal membership (and that ONLY), Schilder's formulations anticipate the FV's formulations; 2. Schilder's views do not anticipate the FV's views, or 3. Schilder himself was confused on the topic. For the sake of argument, if Schilder makes a distinction between legal and vital ways of belonging to the covenant, that would not be in harmony with his rejection of election as the substance of the covenant of grace. The third option is the more possible because so many people find his statements difficult to understand and confusing. His Dutch is apparently exceedingly difficult to read. I still hold to the first option, but I am willing to consider the third. The second option is not possible in my mind at the moment, because of his statements in the piece about the main points of the covenant.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> Mark, you made the claim that Schilder makes the distinction between legal and vital. You have not provided one single source to back that up. Since YOU made the claim, I do not have to prove your claim false. You have to prove it true. Show me the source. Your prevarication on this issue suggests to me rather strongly that you don't even have a source that proves this point.






greenbaggins said:


> I was never making a claim that no one thought Schilder made the distinction. I was claiming that I wasn't convinced that Schilder himself actually made such a distinction,



Could be I have as much difficulty reading you as most folks do reading Schilder.

At least now I see you *clearly* acknowledge that there are Dutch-literate sources who've read Schilder and posit he has makes a "legal/vital" distinction, which of course would run contrary to any blanket claim that he nowhere differentiates covenant membership. Yes, confusion or inconsistency on his part based on his other writings is certainly an option. 

But another option for a responsible theologian is that with so much of his work untranslated, it would be wise to tread more cautiously in making blanket claims on the man's work and its relation to some contemporary errors.


----------



## greenbaggins

> At least now I see you *clearly* acknowledge that there are Dutch-literate sources who've read Schilder and posit he has makes a "legal/vital" distinction, *which of course would run contrary to any blanket claim that he nowhere differentiates covenant membership.* Yes, confusion or inconsistency on his part based on his other writings is certainly an option.



That people _claim_ a legal/vital distinction does not prove that _Schilder_ held to it. You seem to be making the leap (in the bolded words)from what scholars say to what the original source says. This is not a legitimate leap. Secondary sources are divided on the question. I have Clark and Gleason on my side. You have Bredenhof and Kloosterman on your side. Secondary sources will not solve the issue.

My claim is that you have not produced an original source to prove your point. I have an original source in translation. 

Then there's your word "responsible." Do you always argue with slurs towards your debating partner? Or are you going to accuse Clark, Gleason and me of being irresponsible theologians?


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> At least now I see you *clearly* acknowledge that there are Dutch-literate sources who've read Schilder and posit he has makes a "legal/vital" distinction, *which of course would run contrary to any blanket claim that he nowhere differentiates covenant membership.* Yes, confusion or inconsistency on his part based on his other writings is certainly an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That people _claim_ a legal/vital distinction does not prove that _Schilder_ held to it. You seem to be making the leap (in the bolded words)from what scholars say to what the original source says. This is not a legitimate leap. Secondary sources are divided on the question. I have Clark and Gleason on my side. You have Bredenhof and Kloosterman on your side. Secondary sources will not solve the issue.
> 
> My claim is that you have not produced an original source to prove your point. I have an original source in translation.
> 
> Then there's your word "responsible." Do you always argue with slurs towards your debating partner? Or are you going to accuse Clark, Gleason and me of being irresponsible theologians?
Click to expand...


Ahem: Kloosterman was translating an original source. It is just one a piece of evidence to take into account when reading the original source you are pointing to.

Can you produce Gleason's translation of an original source refuting Kloosterman's translation work? 

I made no "slur" about your overall responsibility as a theologian. But that you take personal umbrage at the suggestion that it would be responsible to further study the largest portion of a man's body of work before coming to blanket conclusions-- well that doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? Just today you thought of another "option" to consider. That was responsible thinking. Then work should move forward to explore it further.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mark,

This exchange seems exceedingly odd to me. Is it not possible to produce anything that accurately translates an original source so the issue can be discerned by those who possess the capacity to read?

People disagree about Owen's Covenant theology (even when he writes in English!) but the issue isn't solved by simply making the injunction: some who read Owen insist he believes that the Mosaic is not an administration of the CoG, therefore it is wrong to contend that he actually believed the opposite!

Is your only point in this argument to note that some who read Dutch believe Schilder held to a "legal/vital" distinction? Does that settle anything of value in understanding how he might have been handled?

I might add that demonstrating that Schilder himself held to this distinction may not let him off the hook as a progenitor of a strain of thought. If his writing is obscurely or poorly worded in such a way to lead people in directions he may not have intended then there is replete evidence in history to see how disciples of some men took their thought in ways they might have not intended. Have we not witnessed, even in this thread, that some have taken Van Til's apologetic antithesis in a dogmatic direction he may have never intended? Has it not also been argued that Murray's dislike of the term "Covenant of Works" may have led his disciples into odd conclusions?


----------



## MW

I can accept there are two different confessional heritages and Schilder was dealing with intramural issues which were not directly relevant to English-speaking Presbyterian churches. Perhaps he would have been better served if his works remained in Dutch for the Dutch. But when we have his teaching espoused in Presbyterian circles we are obliged to come to some decision as to the validity of his concerns so far as they affect the Presbyterian confessional heritage. From that standpoint I find his rejection of the visible-invisible church distinction to be detrimental. Whether he taught a legal-vital distinction I am not in any place to judge, but I am in a place to know that such a distinction in and of itself does not alleviate the effects of denying the visible-invisible distinction.


----------



## mvdm

Semper Fidelis said:


> This exchange seems exceedingly odd to me.



You and me both.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Is your only point in this argument to note that some who read Dutch believe Schilder held to a "legal/vital" distinction?



Pretty much! As I worded it previously:


> that there are in fact Dutch trained sources who posit evidence that Schilder makes a 'legal/vital" distinction/ differentiates covenant membership.






Semper Fidelis said:


> Does that settle anything of value in understanding how he might have been handled?



Does it "settle it"? No, I've said that it is one piece of evidence that must be taken into account. It contradicts a certain party line that it is "settled" that Schilder posited there is NO DIFFERENTIATED relationship to covenant--which is what makes him a "pillar" of the FV. I'm pleading for the fact that much evidence remains unaddressed/untranslated, yet some want to bypass the arrest, the arraignment, the trial, and proceed to sentencing. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> might add that demonstrating that Schilder himself held to this distinction may not let him off the hook as a progenitor of a strain of thought



May be true. But it may not be a fair assessment either. And yes, subsequent followers of a line of thought can take things in directions unintended. Should we automatically blame the forbear for the subsequent generations twisting of a line of thought? Not sure there is a single theologian in history whose work has been without some error that hasn't subsequently been abused. I'd at least like us to take the care necessary in light of counter evidence to assess whether the attribution is fair or not.


----------



## greenbaggins

mvdm said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This exchange seems exceedingly odd to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and me both.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your only point in this argument to note that some who read Dutch believe Schilder held to a "legal/vital" distinction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much! As I worded it previously:
> 
> 
> 
> that there are in fact Dutch trained sources who posit evidence that Schilder makes a 'legal/vital" distinction/ differentiates covenant membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that settle anything of value in understanding how he might have been handled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it "settle it"? No, I've said that it is one piece of evidence that must be taken into account. It contradicts a certain party line that it is "settled" that Schilder posited there is NO DIFFERENTIATED relationship to covenant--which is what makes him a "pillar" of the FV. I'm pleading for the fact that much evidence remains unaddressed/untranslated, yet some want to bypass the arrest, the arraignment, the trial, and proceed to sentencing.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> might add that demonstrating that Schilder himself held to this distinction may not let him off the hook as a progenitor of a strain of thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May be true. But it may not be a fair assessment either. And yes, subsequent followers of a line of thought can take things in directions unintended. Should we automatically blame the forbear for the subsequent generations twisting of a line of thought? Not sure there is a single theologian in history whose work has been without some error that hasn't subsequently been abused. I'd at least like us to take the care necessary in light of counter evidence to assess whether the attribution is fair or not.
Click to expand...


Mark, if this post is true, and you have never been intending to prove what Schilder's views are, but rather to prove what some people think about Schilder, then don't you think words like "canard" and "smear" that you have used in the past are, perhaps, overstated? In order to prove that Clark and I have "smeared" Schilder with this "canard" (surely an accusation of a Ninth Commandment violation!), you would have to do _much_ more than prove that certain people disagree with us. If the issue is not settled, as you just said it was not settled, then you CANNOT claim that we are necessarily wrong. 

Secondly, Matthew Winzer and I have now both promulgated the argument about election being severed from covenant. In my opinion, this is the strongest argument in favor of my position. Let me restate it: if covenant and election are severed, then everyone is equally in the covenant of grace. If you reintroduce a "legal/vital" distinction, then you have reintroduced election back into the covenant, something which Schilder categorically refused to do. This is based on demonstrable original sources. Do you intend to answer this argument or not?


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> you have never been intending to prove what Schilder's views are, but rather to prove what some people think about Schilder,



Lane, I will try one last time. I will use caps to highlight it for you (not shouting or talking down). It is indisputable that there is PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE OF SCHILDER'S VIEWS that runs contrary to line that it is "settled" he held to no differentiation in covenant membership, hence making him a "pillar" of the FV, and by association, casts the same suspicion on the covenant theology of Can RC. 



greenbaggins said:


> if covenant and election are severed, then everyone is equally in the covenant of grace. If you reintroduce a "legal/vital" distinction, then you have reintroduced election back into the covenant,


.

Bingo. So here you admit that the legal/vital distinction would be a piece of conflicting evidence, bringing election and covenant back together. Perhaps Schilder was inconsistent or confusing (options you considered). Or maybe he developed his thought over time. Does that give one pause to think further investigation/study is warranted before making *categorical conclusions*? You say "no". I say "yes". 

I doubt I can make my argument any clearer to you. It may be the limitation of electronic communication. If you want to continue the discussion via private message or give me a tel. call, fine by me. I suspect we've reached the limit of the readers' patience.


----------



## greenbaggins

Mark, I think it is indeed fruitless to continue this discussion. The original sources you point to are either non-existent at the moment, due to faulty links, or they are things I have read in the past or the near past, and are not convincing to me that they say what you claim they say. They are too atomistic. The only contiguous original source I have seen points in my direction, a fact you seem completely unwilling to acknowledge. You don't even seem willing to acknowledge that Schilder separates covenant from election. 

I was only willing to say "for the sake of argument, suppose that the legal/vital" distinction exists (nowhere in the original sources I have seen so far does Schilder use this language, and you are unwilling/incapable of providing any original source material here). If (and only a hypothetical if) this distinction existed in Schilder, it contradicted his separation of election from covenant. 

One last point: if Schilder was confusing in his own pronouncements, then that actually favors my position, because the FV would not be misreading him then. This point of commonality at least is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: Schilder and the FV both separate covenant from election. Neither are willing to say that the covenant of grace is made with the elect. I would argue that, functionally, this is my point. If you wish to respond to this, fine, but I am done.


----------



## mvdm




----------



## Semper Fidelis

mvdm said:


> May be true. But it may not be a fair assessment either. And yes, subsequent followers of a line of thought can take things in directions unintended. Should we automatically blame the forbear for the subsequent generations twisting of a line of thought? Not sure there is a single theologian in history whose work has been without some error that hasn't subsequently been abused. I'd at least like us to take the care necessary in light of counter evidence to assess whether the attribution is fair or not.


I don't think it is at all "unfair" if a man writes in a manner which can tend to mislead, to point out that people who read him might develop a whole theology on the basis of their misunderstanding of him.

Yes, theologians are misunderstood but one can also trace a line of theology to them. Many Lutherans (and even some former PCA like Tullian) read Luther's early works and come to some antinomian convictions that the later Luther might have corrected but it cannot be claimed that those who read Luther have no basis in Luther for their faulty views.

I used the term "exceedingly odd" and I'll continue to use it regarding your position. It is apparently *NOT CLEAR* that Schilder held to a view different than many attribute to him because the only people (according to you) who have access to understand the "real Schilder" are those who are good at reading Dutch and who have access to a source that cannot be readily produced. Thus, what is available for those who wish to appeal to Schilder for their views on theology are the very things that would lead them astray since they only have access to the part of his theology that formed a pillar in their theology. Schilder may be shocked in glory that people ran with things he wrote but what he can't deny is that he wrote them.

Incidentally, this is exactly the reason I don't think it is ever wise for pastors or teachers to communicate in ways that confuse the issue. I think the Gospel ministry requires that we be painfully clear and, all too often, we see men being "cute" or using terms like "incarnational" or "missional" instead of communicating plainly. Perhaps Schilder ought not to be used as a pillar for an aberrant theology but, if so, let it be a warning to teachers everywhere that they too may be held accountable for those who come to faulty theological conclusions because they thought that it was better to communicate in ways that could be interpreted correctly but they didn't think it was necessary to be absolutely clear.


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> Perhaps Schilder ought not to be used as a pillar for an aberrant theology but, if so, let it be a warning to teachers everywhere that they too may be held accountable for those who come to faulty theological conclusions because they thought that it was better to communicate in ways that could be interpreted correctly but they didn't think it was necessary to be absolutely clear.



Excellent point. To a pastor, it matters little whether his flock went astray because he was in error, or because he was unclear.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Better to not defend a truth at all than do so unprofitably; wait for a more useful time. I think there's an attitude which this social media age feeds rather than corrects, that all that matters is that its a truth; nevermind if harm is done rather than good. 


KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Schilder ought not to be used as a pillar for an aberrant theology but, if so, let it be a warning to teachers everywhere that they too may be held accountable for those who come to faulty theological conclusions because they thought that it was better to communicate in ways that could be interpreted correctly but they didn't think it was necessary to be absolutely clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. To a pastor, it matters little whether his flock went astray because he was in error, or because he was unclear.
Click to expand...


----------



## TylerRay

I found this assessment of Kloosterman's article by a CanRC pastor interesting.



> Berkhof's and Vos's positions don't seem to be Schilder's either. Schilder nowhere distinguishes between the covenant as purely legal relationship and the covenant as communion of life. Kloosterman's detection of a legal/vital distinction in Schilder may be accurate, but Schilder himself never phrased it exactly that way (and certainly not in the way Berkhof or Vos did).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

NaphtaliPress said:


> Better to not defend a truth at all than do so unprofitably; wait for a more useful time. I think there's an attitude which this social media age feeds rather than corrects, that all that matters is that its a truth; nevermind if harm is done rather than good.


Did you just come up with that? It's brilliant! I'm saving that quote!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No; I can't take credit except for the paraphrasing of Durham from the MS sermon of his I'm working on. You can see a lot of his thinking that would go into his treatise on Scandal in this sermon delivered before the Glasgow synod in 1652 as the protester resolutioner fiasco was beginning. 


Semper Fidelis said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better to not defend a truth at all than do so unprofitably; wait for a more useful time. I think there's an attitude which this social media age feeds rather than corrects, that all that matters is that its a truth; nevermind if harm is done rather than good.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just come up with that? It's brilliant! I'm saving that quote!
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can edit Durham enough to post his comment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Can you get Durham to join the board so he can weigh in?!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I wish; I think he is eternally engaged in other things now. 


Semper Fidelis said:


> Can you get Durham to join the board so he can weigh in?!


----------



## mvdm

TylerRay said:


> I found this assessment of Kloosterman's article by a CanRC pastor interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berkhof's and Vos's positions don't seem to be Schilder's either. Schilder nowhere distinguishes between the covenant as purely legal relationship and the covenant as communion of life. Kloosterman's detection of a legal/vital distinction in Schilder may be accurate, but Schilder himself never phrased it exactly that way (and certainly not in the way Berkhof or Vos did).
Click to expand...


Thanks for locating this, Tyler! I had forgotten about this series answering the polemic launched against the Can RC. Here we see preserved at least some of the original source translation work upon which the differentiated covenant membership was posited:



> In the section of Schilder's writings (his monograph, Looze Kalk) Kloosterman has in mind, Schilder writes (p.44), "To be sanctified in Christ means that by our participation in the covenant we are entitled (recht hebben) to the promises of justification by Christ's blood. When by faith the baptized person accepts the promise of being washed in Christ's blood, and thereby in fact receives justification, then this implies his being washed by Christ's Spirit --- his sanctification not 'in Christ' but 'through the Spirit.' And what we have 'in Christ' (by covenantal right, as promise; Dutch: naar verbondsrecht, in belofte) is therefore the washing away of our sins and the daily renewing of our lives (what our elders called regeneration, the resurrection of the new man, etc.), which must be seen as including our conversion in principle (principieele omzetting)."



Then Rev. DeJong continues with his own observation, citing a separate Schilder work:



> Schilder makes an interesting distinction between "washing through Christ's blood" ("IN Christ") and the "washing through Christ's Spirit" (THROUGH the Spirit). In Schilder's mind, these two phrases from the Form for the Baptism of Infants mean different things, though his opponents alleged they were synonymous. The former, for Schilder, refers to the promise which belongs by right to every baptized child and the latter to the appropriation by faith of that which is promised, which only some enjoy.
> 
> In De Reformatie (18 [March 22, 1947] p.185) Schilder writes, "Participation in a promise is a right (Deelen in een belofte is een recht). He who bases himself on it . . . has a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' But participation in an active grace, a grace that is already active, is a fact (Maar deelen in een werkzame genade, een reeds werkende genade, dat is een feit). He who bases himself on it has a factual basis (een feitelijken grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' The Synodicals jump from a sure and certain statement (stellige uitspraak) which creates a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) to a presumptive fiction (onderstellende fictie), which only fantasizes a valid ground (een feitelijken grondslag)."



Would be interesting to see whether someone has undertaken a translation of the full work/article in _De Reformatie _cited by DeJong, as it looks to provide further elucidation of the distinction Schilder made. 

_Ad fontes_!


----------



## TylerRay

mvdm said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found this assessment of Kloosterman's article by a CanRC pastor interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berkhof's and Vos's positions don't seem to be Schilder's either. Schilder nowhere distinguishes between the covenant as purely legal relationship and the covenant as communion of life. Kloosterman's detection of a legal/vital distinction in Schilder may be accurate, but Schilder himself never phrased it exactly that way (and certainly not in the way Berkhof or Vos did).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for locating this, Tyler! I had forgotten about this series answering the polemic launched against the Can RC. Here we see preserved at least some of the original source translation work upon which the differentiated covenant membership was posited:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the section of Schilder's writings (his monograph, Looze Kalk) Kloosterman has in mind, Schilder writes (p.44), "To be sanctified in Christ means that by our participation in the covenant we are entitled (recht hebben) to the promises of justification by Christ's blood. When by faith the baptized person accepts the promise of being washed in Christ's blood, and thereby in fact receives justification, then this implies his being washed by Christ's Spirit --- his sanctification not 'in Christ' but 'through the Spirit.' And what we have 'in Christ' (by covenantal right, as promise; Dutch: naar verbondsrecht, in belofte) is therefore the washing away of our sins and the daily renewing of our lives (what our elders called regeneration, the resurrection of the new man, etc.), which must be seen as including our conversion in principle (principieele omzetting)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Rev. DeJong continues with his own observation, citing a separate Schilder work:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schilder makes an interesting distinction between "washing through Christ's blood" ("IN Christ") and the "washing through Christ's Spirit" (THROUGH the Spirit). In Schilder's mind, these two phrases from the Form for the Baptism of Infants mean different things, though his opponents alleged they were synonymous. The former, for Schilder, refers to the promise which belongs by right to every baptized child and the latter to the appropriation by faith of that which is promised, which only some enjoy.
> 
> In De Reformatie (18 [March 22, 1947] p.185) Schilder writes, "Participation in a promise is a right (Deelen in een belofte is een recht). He who bases himself on it . . . has a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' But participation in an active grace, a grace that is already active, is a fact (Maar deelen in een werkzame genade, een reeds werkende genade, dat is een feit). He who bases himself on it has a factual basis (een feitelijken grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' The Synodicals jump from a sure and certain statement (stellige uitspraak) which creates a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) to a presumptive fiction (onderstellende fictie), which only fantasizes a valid ground (een feitelijken grondslag)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be interesting to see whether someone has undertaken a translation of the full work/article in _De Reformatie _cited by DeJong, as it looks to provide further elucidation of the distinction Schilder made.
> 
> _Ad fontes_!
Click to expand...


Here's more.



> Whether Schilder laid the groundwork for the so-called federal vision movement is debatable. Schilder is somewhat of a hero to John Barach and Barach's talk at the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference was very much in line with Schilder's emphases. In the end, I suspect that Barach's views owe more to Schilder's colleague, Benne Holwerda, and Schilder's disciple, Cornelis Trimp. I doubt that Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins know much about Schilder's covenantal theology. More significant figures in the evolution of FV would probably be: Rousas J. Rushdoony, Cornelius Van Til, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, twentieth century neo-Calvinist writers and perhaps on the periphery, John Nevin, Philip Schaff, Gordon Wenham, John Millbank, Rene Girard and a handful of others.
> 
> There are clearly areas where Schilder would disagree with FV thought. Neither Schilder nor any prominent figure in the Liberated theological tradition, so far as I know, holds to paedo-communion. Moreover, Schilder's eschatology, unlike the postmillennialism of prominent FV players, was remarkably pessimistic, almost defeatist -- as was the case for many who endured two world wars.
> 
> The FV view of the covenant of works and the invisible/visible church, though similar to Schilder's views, probably derives more from John Murray and Anthony Hoekema. The FV emphasis on the centrality of union with Christ as the matrix through which to understand aspects of salvation probably derives more from John Calvin, Richard Gaffin, Anthony Hoekema and Sinclair Ferguson. The FV liturgical emphases are informed by various Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican liturgists.
> 
> The name of Norman Shepherd has always been respected in Canadian Reformed circles. Shepherd studied at the Free University of Amsterdam (where he had prepared to write a doctoral dissertation on Zanchius) and is fluent in Dutch. His facility with Dutch gave him access to the theological literature of the Dutch Reformed and Shepherd became quite fond of S.G. De Graaf, in particular. I have a slight recollection of Shepherd telling me that his views on the covenant of works were derived in part from reading De Graaf's book on the Heidelberg Catechism, entitled, Het Ware Geloof. Shepherd prized the Liberated tradition of Schilder, Holwerda and company and was thrilled with the translation and publication of Kamphuis's An Everlasting Covenant.
> 
> When Shepherd was dismissed from Westminster Theological Seminary for political and not theological reasons, Jelle Faber wrote a series of editorials in Clarion lamenting this, defending Shepherd, but not uncritically. I suspect Shepherd's more recent books are not widely read in Canadian Reformed circles.
> 
> Though I respect Norman Shepherd a great deal, and cherish him as a Reformed father and a brother in Christ, I do demur from some of his positions. In my mind he tends to over-accentuate continuity between old and new covenants. I'm not convinced either by his arguments against the imputation of Christ's active obedience in justification. That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the theology of many of his critics either. I share with Shepherd the conviction, on exegetical grounds, that Romans 4 is not about the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I agree with Shepherd that faith is the sole instrument of justification and that faith without works is dead. I find it deeply regrettable and irresponsible that his name is so cavalierly tarnished in segments of the Reformed community.
> 
> Dr. Cornelis Van Dam, who teaches Old Testament at the Theological College, recently wrote a blurb on the back of Shepherd's new book on justification. I suspect he shares my fondness for Shepherd; I also suspect that he shares my unwillingness to endorse everything Shepherd says.


----------



## TylerRay

It is interesting to see the way that Schilder's thought and that of the FV folks complement one another in De Jong's view:



> I was the first individual to go through the ordination process of the newly formed federation, then called, "The Uniting Reformed Churches in North America." I accepted a call from the Orthodox Reformed Church in Edmonton to help plant a church in Grande Prairie. Those were fabulous days, and I was happy to have Rev. Bill Pols mentor me. In my first year of ministry I wrote a monograph on the covenant which some found helpful. It was translated into a couple of languages, and eventually found its way into the hands of Scott Clark. Scott didn't care for it. It didn't help that in my preface I indicated that my understanding of the covenant was shaped largely by people like Klaas Schilder, Jelle Faber, Cornelius Vander Waal and Norman Shepherd.
> 
> One of the things I argued in that monograph was that Genesis 15:6 (quoted in Romans 4) does not refer to the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This is what Shepherd also taught, and Clark wasn't happy. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. To me, it was an unacceptable exegetical stretch to call this theological shorthand for "the imputation of Christ's righteousness." We must not impose our theological categories on the text of Scripture. To me, the text was simply saying that God reckoned Abraham as righteous through (and only through) his faith. This reading finds an elaborate defense in Dr. Gert Kwakkel's monograph, "De Gerechtigheid van Abram." Since Scott stumbled upon this paper, he hasn't thought too highly of me (which means, he has never thought too highly of me!!).
> 
> During my Grande Prairie days I was also introduced to the writings of James B. Jordan and they have revolutionized my thinking. I know of no one who knows the Bible better than Jim Jordan. My friend John Barach and I used to quip that Jim was either ON TO something or he was ON something, because some of his ideas sound outlandish initially. Jim was shaped by a lot of the same thinkers as I was (i.e., the Dutch redemptive-historical interpreters), and so his ideas resonated with me.
> 
> During my GP days I also stumbled upon the writings of N.T. Wright, and I read his column in "Bible Review" faithfully. Wright's book, "Jesus and the Victory of God" has radically altered my understanding of the New Testament. I didn't care too much for his book, "What Saint Paul Really Said" though I've found his later books on Paul much more palatable, if not helpful.
> 
> During these years a strong friendship was forged between John Barach, Tim Gallant and me --- someone apparently referred to us as Mid-America's Canadian triumvirate. We graduated in different years, but shared interests and a connection to Grande Prairie, AB. John and Tim are extraordinarily bright individuals. John's memory is photographic and Tim is brilliantly creative. There was once talk of some seminary in Mexico hiring John to teach. When it was pointed out that John didn't know Spanish, Bill Pols quipped, "That's no problem. He'll learn it on the plane on the way down."
> 
> John had become very enamored with the "Liberated" tradition in his second year at seminary. I remember him stumbling into class (he was not a morning person) saying, "I've experienced a major paradigm shift." Dr. Kloosterman taught John Dutch and soon enough John was throwing around words like "verbond" and "verkiezing." Since then John has read numerous Dutch books in the Liberated tradition and even translated a couple of them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Tyler.


----------



## mvdm

TylerRay said:


> The FV view of the covenant of works and the invisible/visible church, though similar to Schilder's views, probably derives more from John Murray and Anthony Hoekema.





TylerRay said:


> Whether Schilder laid the groundwork for the so-called federal vision movement is debatable.





TylerRay said:


> I doubt that Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins know much about Schilder's covenantal theology. More significant figures in the evolution of FV would probably be: Rousas J. Rushdoony, Cornelius Van Til, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, twentieth century neo-Calvinist writers and perhaps on the periphery, John Nevin, Philip Schaff, Gordon Wenham, John Millbank, Rene Girard and a handful of others.



Yes, very interesting, Tyler.


----------



## TylerRay

He views some of the FV folks (Barach and Shepherd) as being directly influenced by Schilder and other "Liberated" theologians, whereas he doesn't see the other FV folks as having been influenced by them directly (albeit indirectly through shepherd), but they all end up emphasizing the same things, regardless of their influences.


----------



## RamistThomist

I don't see John Milbank as being an influence on FV. Sure, Leithart did his D.Phil under Milbank, but that was more on social theory (Yes, it was on baptism but it wasn't the same views that get FV people in trouble). Wilson openly despises Milbank


----------

