# The Federal Vision and Heresy (Mr. McMahon)



## travis

Referring to the claim of Heresy in regards to belief in Heresy, I was reading the following article on A Puritan's Mind found here and I noticed the Mr. McMahon declares that adherents to the federal vision embrace a 'damnable' heresy. He then goes on the claim that their beliefs are Lutheran and High Episcopalian. So, what I am asking is, does he believe that all who do not adhere to a reformed confession are lost?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

travis said:


> Referring to the claim of Heresy in regards to belief in Heresy, I was reading the following article on A Puritan's Mind found here and I noticed the Mr. McMahon declares that adherents to the federal vision embrace a 'damnable' heresy. He then goes on the claim that their beliefs are Lutheran and High Episcopalian. So, what I am asking is, does he believe that all who do not adhere to a reformed confession are lost?



Travis, is this what you gleaned from the article: that Dr. McMahon says FV theology is Lutheran and high Episcopalian and, therefore, heretical and damnable because it isn't Reformed?

I really think you need to re-read the article because your understanding is really far off the mark. Did you carefully read the article or skim over it?


----------



## travis

I read th article of concern. He claims that the doctrine is a damnable heresy. He then goes on to quote a person he calls their views on baptism Lutheran. All in all I am honestly just curious as to the belief on this board in general. Do most people here believe that if you do not hold to a Orthodox Reformed point of view that you are not regenerate/elect?

And please, please do not take this as an attack. I am just wanting to learn more about the whole situation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Travis,

Not an attack but just a poor summation of what the issue is. Busy right now but if nobody takes it up by tomorrow (my time), I'll explain the article to you. Read it again, though, and don't focus on the Lutherand and Anglican dealie but on the article as a whole.


----------



## travis

Okay I read it again. I have dropped the whole Luther/Anglican thing because I misread it, my apologies. However, I am still interested to know if people on this board believe that the only way one can be saved is if they hold to the 5 Solas of the Reformation.

For example, would you consider your typical American non-reformed SBC'er to be regenerate?


----------



## CDM

travis said:


> Okay I read it again. I have dropped the whole Luther/Anglican thing because I misread it, my apologies. However, I am still interested to know if people on this board believe that the only way one can be saved is if they hold to the 5 Solas of the Reformation.
> 
> For example, would you consider your typical American non-reformed SBC'er to be regenerate?



If God has regenerated him, yes. 

I deny one has to have maturation of theology (DoG) to be saved.


----------



## turmeric

In my humble opinion, the reason Matt is calling it heresy hasn't got to do iwth Calvinism per se, it's about _how_ we are saved - is it *our* good works, or is it *Jesus'* works imputed to us?

If the SBC'er is trusting Christ for his salvation, he's regenerate - but he might be woefully ignorant.


----------



## BobVigneault

I believe that Scripture tells us that the absolute bottom line is that we are saved by WHO we know and not by WHAT we know. Unfortunately that kind of statement is quickly mishandled by those who believe doctrine is cold, stale and dead. The WHO is revealed by the WHAT - Christ is only revealed through the teachings of scripture. The WHO must be consistent with the WHAT - we are saved by the biblical Christ. 

That being said, it's the WHO that does the saving.


----------



## Herald

> That being said, it's the WHO that does the saving.



And it is because of the WHO that we have a living hope (1 Peter 1:3), for the WHO is the first-born from the dead (Col. 1:18), the hope of our future resurrection (1 Cor. 15:52).

To God be the glory, great things He hath done!


----------



## tewilder

I don't know what the irreducible minimum of true belief is that is necessary for salvation. Also I don't know how much error and of what type one can hold at the same time. 

But this is not the only issue about heresy. If heresies are not opposed, and the teaching of them in the churches prohibited, the will grow. Around them practices will grow up that train people to put their faith in the wrong things, as has happened historically with the sacrifice of the mass, penances that are ordeals that expiate sin, indulgences, etc. These practices training the belief of subsequent generations. 

Some of the debate today is over what must be believed for saving faith to exist. There are those that claim, for example, that we can be justified by faith alone, by believing that Jesus saves us some how or other, and without that believing including the doctrine of justification by faith alone as part it its content. But when the church begins to teach that we are not justified by faith alone, then the people will resort to something other than faith. They will resort to works, submission to institutions, rituals, etc., placing their trust in something other than Jesus. Then the faith in Jesus, however, minimal it must be to be saving, is altogether gone.


----------



## Herald

T.E. - couple of different issues at play here.

First, the church _has_ made definitive statements on heresy. The early church creeds and the latter confessions (WCF and LBC as examples) have stated what is the orthodox faith. 



> But when the church begins to teach that we are not justified by faith alone, then the people will resort to something other than faith.



For the elect your statement is an impossibility. The elect _cannot_ resort to something other than faith. Those who do embrace salvation by means other than _sola fide_ are outside the faith. Jesus said:

[bible]John 10:1[/bible]


----------



## tcalbrecht

Ultimately it is for church courts to decide who is a heretic (hold undeniably heretical views) and who is not. Seminaries and individuals are not charged with that task. They may provide useful input to the ecclesiastical process, but the final judgment rests with those properly called to the task. 

If someone wishes to name someone as a heretic they need to do it by offering proper judicial charges to support their claims.

I find it particularly repugnant when folks in one denomination make changes against ministers in another denomination with which they have some sort of ecclesiastical fellowship. It tends to undermine the unity of the church by questioning the judicial integrity of the other body.


----------



## travis

I guess I was just suprised at the claim of a 'damnable heresy' for the FV. Even though I am not one myself, I do consider Wilson, Leithart, Wright and the countless others involved in this brothers in Christ.


----------



## beej6

tcalbrecht said:


> <snip>
> 
> I find it particularly repugnant when folks in one denomination make changes against ministers in another denomination with which they have some sort of ecclesiastical fellowship. It tends to undermine the unity of the church by questioning the judicial integrity of the other body.



I believe, Tom, you meant "charges." 

Matt can correct me, but I don't believe he was attacking a particular denomination.

There's certainly nothing wrong with defending doctrine, though. Especially with brothers in Christ.


----------



## beej6

To the original question: I've sometimes said that people may be saved *despite* the church they belong to, or the (errant) doctrine they believe that they believe. It's certainly too far to go to say that non-Reformed Christians are all outside the pale.


----------



## tewilder

BaptistInCrisis said:


> T.E. - couple of different issues at play here.
> 
> First, the church _has_ made definitive statements on heresy. The early church creeds and the latter confessions (WCF and LBC as examples) have stated what is the orthodox faith.



Really? So are Baptists heretics (if the WCF defines the boundaries between heresy and orthodoxy) or are the Presbyeterians heretics, if the LBC does so?



> The elect _cannot_ resort to something other than faith.



The point being?


----------



## Herald

In the area of faith's role in regeneration the WCF and the LBC are essentially in agreement. I don't see any material difference between them.

W.C.F. on saving faith:


> The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.



1689 L.B.C. on saving faith:


> The grace of faith by which the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls is the work of the Spirit in their hearts. Normally it is brought into being through the preaching of the Word. By the Word and its ministry, by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, by prayer, and also by other means appointed by God, faith is increased and strengthened.



Regarding the elect not being able to resort to something other than faith; the point is that the elect _will_ respond to the effectual call by faith. If they do not respond by faith they prove themselves not to be elect. Try as they might, enemies of _sola fide_ cannot prevail because faith is not conveyed by man, but by God.


----------



## tcalbrecht

beej6 said:


> I believe, Tom, you meant "charges."



Yes, I did.



beej6 said:


> Matt can correct me, but I don't believe he was attacking a particular denomination.



And neither was I claiming that he was directly attacking another denomination, but comments against “the Auburn Four” (“If *they *do not repent of it, *they *will be damned for believing it.”) have the effect of denigrating a denomination in which some of these ministers are members in good standing, and will remain so until such time as their courts say otherwise. It must first be impartially established that "they" believe or teach any of the things which others have claimed for them. 

By contrast, the statement from Mid-America Seminary has the distinction of tackling error without naming the “heretics” in advance.



beej6 said:


> There's certainly nothing wrong with defending doctrine, though. Especially with brothers in Christ.



All I’m suggesting is that there are proper ways of approaching the problem.


----------



## tewilder

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Regarding the elect not being able to resort to something other than faith; the point is that the elect _will_ respond to the effectual call by faith. If they do not respond by faith they prove themselves not to be elect. Try as they might, enemies of _sola fide_ cannot prevail because faith is not conveyed by man, but by God.



Therefore what?


----------



## Herald

tewilder said:


> Therefore what?



You wrote:



> But when the church begins to teach that we are not justified by faith alone, then the people will resort to something other than faith.



What church are you talking about? It can't be the true church. The "what" you are asking about is more of a "why." Why won't the true church teach something other than faith? Because the true church is made up of God's elect, who became so because of faith.


----------



## Dagmire

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the name of *Christ depart from iniquity."


----------



## tewilder

BaptistInCrisis said:


> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> What church are you talking about? It can't be the true church. The "what" you are asking about is more of a "why." Why won't the true church teach something other than faith? Because the true church is made up of God's elect, who became so because of faith.



I am talking about the church of Jesus Christ, founded by the Apostles, which has many times fallen in errors of all sorts. You can read about some of these in the Epistles and in Revelation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK, here goes...

This thread somehow took a strange turn. It's evident that the bulk of the respondents responded to this question posed by you:


> However, I am still interested to know if people on this board believe that the only way one can be saved is if they hold to the 5 Solas of the Reformation.
> 
> For example, would you consider your typical American non-reformed SBC'er to be regenerate?



That may be an interesting dialogue (and we've had many such here) but it is really not germane to Dr. McMahon's article. Dr. McMahon's article focused on the errors of the Federal Vision proponents. His article can be summed up by the following:


> 1) The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is heresy. Reformed Theology teaches that the benefits of the covenant of grace are only efficaciously conferred by the Holy Spirit to the elect. End of story.
> 
> 2) At the same time that the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are only efficaciously conferred by the Holy Spirit to the elect, Genesis 17 is plain that Abraham presumed God’s salvation on Isaac before he was ever born. That was based on promise, not circumcision. That was by faith in the Word, not by works in circumcision.
> 
> 3) Circumcision and baptism do not save. Period. They are outward signs that are efficacious only for the elect.
> 
> 4) Christian parents do not know who the elect are. In view of this, instead of resting on pessimism, they rest on the hope of the promises to their children. The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant presumes children are saved, as Abraham did, but do not know whether they will be.
> 
> 5) The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant does not teach that infants of believers are infallibly saved.


There is a huge disconnect between what you want information on and what Dr. McMahon's article is about. If you want to see an article/discussion that centers around what your question is (and caused a maelstrom of activity and accusations, as well as board resignations) then you can view this thread: The arminian "god" is not worshippable

It's not really important to this discussion about the nature of McMahon's work: "The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant". Nevertheless, the article focuses on distinguishing between his work and what the Federal Vision teaches.

Now, it should be said, the RPCGA, of which Dr. McMahon is a member, has declared the Federal Vision to be heterodox teaching so he is not declaring something heresy on his own authority.

That aside, I'm puzzled by this question:


> I guess I was just suprised at the claim of a 'damnable heresy' for the FV. Even though I am not one myself, I do consider Wilson, Leithart, Wright and the countless others involved in this brothers in Christ.


I figured you must be ignorant of who those men were given that you asked if Dr. McMahon's work was against the "non-Reformed." Just out of curiosity, how is it that you know the above names but are unfamiliar with the controversy?

The controversy is not one between classic Arminianism and Calvinism but, rather, a peversion of Covenant theology within Reformed theology. You won't find any but paedo-baptists who are even remotely attracted to the error.

The summary by Dr. McMahon about its fundamental error is a good one. Let me break it down more fundamentally.

If I ask you: How is one saved? I hope your answer is "By grace through faith." That is, that all who are saved are gifted grace and faith by God to believe upon Christ. We abhor our sins and turn to Christ for our righteousness. Historically, the Reformed confessions have insisted that only the elect have this faith for all others are depraved and hate God. It is only by the regenerating work of the Spirit that we are able to trust in Christ and are thereby _united_ to Christ and all the benefits that accrue from that union (justification, santification, and glorification).

NOW, here is where the shell game begins so pay attention. FV people, if you're talking to them, will say I'm misrepresenting them. If they tell you that then my answer is that they are misrepresenting me.

Federal Vision proponents will claim that the Reformed Confessions do talk about election and union with Christ but they don't say everything that the Scriptures say about these subjects. The proponents claim that, when a person is baptized, he/she is really united to Christ. They deny that the person is merely joined to the visible Church but that the person is really united to Christ. While in the Church, then, the person is said to be in Christ in some way by virtue of being in Covenant. The person then remains in Christ through faith_fulness_ to the Covenant.

Now, they will say that the elect have a sure and final union with Christ but that even the non-elect, by virtue of their _baptism_, have a type of union with Christ and a type of participation in all the benefits.

Travis, this is simply sub-Christian.

First, it is disingenuous to argue that the Confessions only teach a portion of what it means to be united to Christ. The Confessions _exclude_ their position from being Biblical in terms of what it means to be united to Christ.

Second, I hope you noted what I italicized. What is the instrument of your union with Christ? I hope you don't say: my baptism. No, it is your faith. Baptism _signifies_ union but the _benefits_ of baptism only accrue to those who embrace the promise by _faith_. The idea that we are united to Christ by baptism and kept united by our faithfulness is simply wrong.

Heresy? Damnable? Not for me to say. The OPC and PCA have rejected the teaching and I am hopeful that that all ministers who are found guilty through a proper judicial process will be appropriately censured.

One thing is for certain: it is disingenuous for any man to claim that the Federal Vision is consistent with the historic Reformed Theology on the nature of baptism and the nature of our union with Christ.


----------



## travis

Thank for the well thought out response. I did not mean to imply that I am unfamiliar with the situation, because I am currently reading up on the whole discussion. I know the names of these folks because I have read their works. I plan on finishing up Against Christianity and Reformed is Not Enough in about two weeks and then picking up the critiques of it (Guy Waters and the like)

Again, thank you very much for the response. Do I believe that it is heresy? I don't know yet. I have submitted to the government of my church, a PCA church, and if they deem it so then I shall submit and drop the subject as whole. Do I consider the authors mentioned as apostates? No, I consider them brothers, as the PCA report does in it's initial statements.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Well, I'm a day late and a dollar short.

Thanks Rich for your summary. It was excellent. Travis, listen to what Rich said - he's spot on.

I'm, for the most part, a parrot of Westminsterian and Reformation theology. Don't shoot the messenger.

FV theology (not any denomination that has an FV advocate in them) is heretical. Again, that is the position of the RPCGA, but even if I was not a minister in the RPCGA I'd still think that FV is heretical. 

One of the most ridiculous aspects of the FV is that they claim to be Reformed. Not only are they _not_ Reformed, and they do not hold to the WCF or the Reformation's teaching on justification, but they teach a modified Roman Catholicism, and are Anti-Reformation (but they won't tell you that). That is why the RPCGA wasted no time in condemning it as anti-Christian. And if you have FV advocates that teach a contrary Gospel, the Scriptures, very plainly, label them as false teachers and false shepherds. 

Part of the bigger problem, is that on the surface, they sound so good to Auntie Mary and Grandfather Joe, to little Johnny and mommy Sue that sit in the pews, that people are swept away with their peddling of Romanism as Covenant Theology because it uses _Christianese_. That is what happened with Norman Shepherd and NT Wright - they taught the unsuspecting and up and coming ministers, and those unsuspecting who thought they were learning good stuff in seminary now filter it down into the pews.

*Matthew 23:15, "*Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, _you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."_

As for salvation, I think there is a grave and important distinction to be made about one's salvation, and the fruit of one's salvation.

On the Sovereign Grace side, salvation is of the Lord. He regenerates the heart, and He saves His people through the work of Christ.

*Hebrews 5:9, "*And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation..."

Christ is the complete source of salvation for His elect. He regenerates them. He saves them. 

But Hebrews makes an important point in this verse on the fruit side- *
Hebrews 5:9, "*And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who *obey* him,"

We are justified by faith alone, _but not by a faith that is alone_.

If we are elect, we will believe the Gospel, unless we are murdered in infancy, or happen to be under the frowning providence of being mentally retarded, or the like.

But if we are elect, and God is pleased to allow us to grow up into a likeness of the image of Christ with no mental impairments, then the fruits of salvation are evident - which include a belief in the one true Gospel.

Next question, which is a matter of _debate among believers on this board_, ---- What is the Gospel?

I'll leave that there for now. My answer remains here:

http://apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonSubstanceGospel.htm

and here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/McMahonArminianGodNotWorshippable.htm

and here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonComingToFaith.htm

Keep in mind the Divine's of the WCF summarize salvation here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/SumSavingKnowledge.htm

(The link above is in MHO one of the best overall treatments of answering "What is the Gospel? in print in any language _ever_ outside of the Bible.)


----------



## MW

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/SumSavingKnowledge.htm
> 
> (The link above is in MHO one of the best overall treatments of answering "What is the Gospel? in print in any language _ever_ outside of the Bible.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hey, four spiritual laws!!!


> The Sum of Saving Knowledge may be taken up in these four heads:
> 1. The woeful condition wherein all men are by nature, through breaking of the covenant of works.
> 2. The remedy provided for the elect in Jesus Christ by the covenant of grace.
> 3. The means appointed to make them partakers of this covenant.
> 4. The blessings which are effectually conveyed unto the elect by these means. Which four heads are set down each of them in some few propositions.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Hey, four spiritual laws!!!



Now we only need a campus crusade!!!


----------



## Herald

> Hey, four spiritual laws!!!


----------



## elnwood

The paper in the original post claims that baptismal regeneration is heresy. Yet, I believe that Luther's view of baptism is baptismal regeneration also, and is identical or nearly identical to the Auburn Avenue view of baptism.

So, according to McMahon, is Lutheranism also a damnable heresy? Should we regard Martin Luther as a heretic?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

You may want to make a disctinction between's Luther's views, and that of Lutheranism (which is really Melanchthonism).

Also, one needs to keep in mind the difference between the young Luther and the settled or old Luther.


----------



## Theoretical

One of the key things I see in this particular debate is the issue of how one gets to a particular doctrinal position. This is particularly the case with Lutheranism vs. FV. I think it illustrates that the ideas and doctrines assumed by a person on the way to accepting a particular doctrinal stance matters a great deal as to his/her orthodoxy. It is the difference between internal and logical inconsistencies and being deep in heresy.

While Lutheran and FV sacramentology are fairly close to each other, in terms of what they believe happens, confessionalist Lutherans (Rosenbladt types) split massively with the FVers in terms of the Law/Gospel distinction and the entire issue of Justification. After all, the FVers bash the Lutherans all the time on Law/Gospel and that Reformed people do not have the same perspective on Justification as the Lutherans do, etc...

Now of course, Lutherans in practice tend to be pretty pietistic and Arminian, while the FVers are more liturgical and proto-Catholic. Both are wrong, but in different ways.

This is also why there's a huge difference between Low-Church, Reformed-leaning and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, even though both use the 39 Articles.


----------



## elnwood

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> You may want to make a disctinction between's Luther's views, and that of Lutheranism (which is really Melanchthonism).
> 
> Also, one needs to keep in mind the difference between the young Luther and the settled or old Luther.



I'm not thoroughly knowledgeable of Lutheran historical theology. Could you make the distinction, since I'm asking for your views on the baptismal regeneration heresy? Is Lutheranism (Melanchthonism) heresy? Is young Luther a heretic? Is settled or old Luther a heretic? Please tell me how and where you draw these distinctions.


----------



## elnwood

I hate to re-post, but it's been a week, and I really want an answer from McMahon or someone else to this one.

I'm against baptismal regeneration as the next person, but I think if you declare it heresy, you declare Luther and a bunch of early church fathers, including Augustine, heretics.

Thoughts?


----------



## shackleton

Are you trying to get someone to say that one can be Arminian or believe some abberrant teachings, and still be saved?


----------



## elnwood

I want somebody to say whether or not Martin Luther is a heretic. If baptismal regeneration is a heresy, as McMahon writes, and Luther exposed baptismal regeneration, then Luther is a heretic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Don,

Why do you keep calling Dr. McMahon out? If he wanted to answer you, he would by now.

Why do you care if Dr. McMahon considers parts of Lutheran theology to be defective or even heretical? Why do you want him to either label or not label Martin Luther himself a heretic? Calvin, for instance, showed deference to Luther by disagreeing with some things that Luther taught but didn't mention him by name out of respect.

In the end, Dr. McMahon is not a Synod or a Council to declare a man inside or outside the visible Church and he is not Christ to declare who He is/isn't in union with. As a Confessional Presbyterian, he rejects the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration as profoundly deficient. If you don't like that then take it up with the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith when you get to heaven.


----------



## Sydnorphyn

"If we are elect, we will believe the Gospel, unless we are murdered in infancy, or happen to be under the frowning providence of being mentally retarded, or the like."

What is "frowning providence"?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Guys, listen - 

I am swamped at work, and we are remodeling our house. I don't have a lot of time.

One must think through this a bit more clearly.

FV advocates RELY on a Romanistic interpretation of "justification" and church membership to be saved. (Grace Infused, not imputed). In that whole scheme of Romanistic interpretation, thier view of salvation is tainted by thier adherence to a Romanistic interpretation of church membership. That is what makes _FV _HERETICAL.

Luther, on the other hand, (let's assume he "did" believe in baptismal regeneration) would laugh at the FV advocate as much as he laughed at Erasmus for his Romanism. Luther's beliefs on justification and election FAR outwieghed Calvin's writings on the subject; i.e. Luther wrote more and thought more about imputation. In other owrds, I'm sure Elnwood, that you have not read through Luther's writings on the subject. Otherwise you would not be pressing a misunderstanding of Luther's understanding of salvation. Ecdlesiologically, Luther had some misconceptions. That does not make him heretical. His views of justification, election and salvation are not as the FV advocate.

In other words, I'd hang out with Luther and have a pint.


----------



## Poimen

elnwood said:


> I want somebody to say whether or not Martin Luther is a heretic. If baptismal regeneration is a heresy, as McMahon writes, and Luther exposed baptismal regeneration, then Luther is a heretic.



Don:

I cannot answer for Matthew but there has been some discussion (at least among the Reformed) as to whether Luther held to 'baptismal regeneration' as commonly taught by Lutherans today. Dr. Godfrey, of WSCAL, has argued for example that it is visibly absent from Luther's small catechism.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-lc


----------



## sotzo

Anyone ever feel down about how the perspecuity of the Bible seems at stake by all these precise discussions? I mean, after reading through these tedious arguments about how one is made right with God, discouragement can often set in to me. The fact that one could miss being in heaven one day with Jesus because he didn't have time to sort out FV issues and may be holding to something other than the true, precise Gospel is disturbing.

I'm all for theological discussion, but the way some men have handled this issue (sadly like Doug Wilson), they write their views on these matters as if we are talking about the latest football scores. We are talking about the wrath of God being turned away from sinners which is light years more serious that even the worst imaginable cancer diagnosis! 

Is the Bible's perspecuity, as far as one knows he/she is right with God, at stake by the very fact that we keep paying attention to all this, thereby, bringing some to doubt whether they can even trust that the Bible is relibale in how it lays out the way in which God redeems his people?


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Don,
> 
> Why do you keep calling Dr. McMahon out? If he wanted to answer you, he would by now.
> 
> Why do you care if Dr. McMahon considers parts of Lutheran theology to be defective or even heretical? Why do you want him to either label or not label Martin Luther himself a heretic? Calvin, for instance, showed deference to Luther by disagreeing with some things that Luther taught but didn't mention him by name out of respect.
> 
> In the end, Dr. McMahon is not a Synod or a Council to declare a man inside or outside the visible Church and he is not Christ to declare who He is/isn't in union with. As a Confessional Presbyterian, he rejects the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration as profoundly deficient. If you don't like that then take it up with the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith when you get to heaven.



Rich,

I think an author ought to clarify what he wrote. It is good for both the readers and the author who wishes to make his views clear.

It's not a matter of disagreeing with Luther's position because he and I both disagree with Luther's position on baptism. The question is whether Luther's view is heretical.

In this case, McMahon wrote what appeared to say that baptismal regeneration is a heresy. He wrote:



> _The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant_ does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is heresy. Reformed Theology teaches that the benefits of the covenant of grace are only efficaciously conferred by the Holy Spirit to the elect. End of story.



From his response, McMahon has said that baptismal regeneration in of itself is not heresy, but it is heretical when coupled with the FV view of justification. From what I know of his views, this is what I had thought he believed, which is why I wanted him to clarify. I don't want McMahon to be seen as believing Luther (or Lutherans) was a heretic if that is not his view.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Luther and Baptismal Regeneration?*

There is some reflection on Luther's view of baptism here.Luthe


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Fine Don. So PM him or something. If he wants to respond he will.

I also assume you know the difference between when somebody writes "Luther's view" and "the Lutheran view".

Further, this one sentence is not the sine qua non reason for the FV's error. Lutherans tend to be squishy about their theology in affirming certain things in contradiction with one another. They uphold Total Depravity on the one hand but then don't see the logical contradiction of denying limited atonement on the other.

Either way, he spoke of a single error, did not claim Luther is a heretic and, finally, he does not _have_ to clarify what he wrote if he does not desire to.


----------

