# The Federal Vision, A New Threat To Baptists



## Robert Truelove

Within Presbyterian and Reformed circles the main tsunami of the Federal Vision has come and gone. These days it seems that most Presbyterian and Reformed churches know to avoid the Federal Vision and defections have slowed dramatically as more and more pastors are getting their hands around this issue.

Just when I thought the storm was passing, I am concerned that the Baptists will be the next body to be hit with this controversy and they are in some ways highly susceptible. 

That may sound like a contradiction of sorts. After all, Baptists do not hold to the underlying Reformed system of thought that the Federal Vision twists and wrangles so they should be immune, or so the thinking goes. On the one hand this is true, however, as Baptists are introduced to teachers like Doug Wilson through influential leaders like John Piper, there are worrisome implications.

The trouble is, there will be those amongst Baptists (indeed, its already happening) who become enamored with charismatic leaders like Doug Wilson through his teachings on the family and other topics. Through his influence they will move to adopt infant baptism and move in what appears to be a more Presbyterian direction. However, not being grounded in historic Reformed theology because of their Baptist roots (and I use Reformed with a capital R), many of these will flow right into the Federal Vision waters without ever being challenged with what historic Reformed theology is actually teaching.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I have a Baptist pastor friend who noted that many Seminary students at Southern were being allured by it.

I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but one of the reasons I agree that Baptists are susceptible is that it was usually Presbyterians that thought like Baptists until they encountered some Covenant Theology that were most susceptible to the FV. It was never the folks that had a mature understanding of Reformed causistry but almost always a Presbyterian that created the dilemma that it was a choice between "bare sign" and "head for head".

Those attracted to a new theology are often susceptible to extreme swings from one pole to another. In fact, as R. Scott Clark has noted, the FV shares with Baptists a view of the Covenant that conflates Covenant signification with the spiritual reality (i.e. we only baptize those that the Church determines possesses the reality).


----------



## Scott1

I'm by no means an expert in "federal vision."

It seems easy to quickly discern that federal vision either confuses or denies justification by faith alone and that's reason enough to stay away from it- because we are talking about the gospel. Neither effect (fruit) is acceptable for one who would presume to teach God's people.

One thing I've observed that might make Baptists less susceptible to this is the emphasis on and basis of covenant children that federal vision appeals to. This has come up in the context of those who believe in "paedocommunion." By and large, reformed theology is not that. Reformed theology is not child communion before a credible profession of faith.

Federal vision theology usually mean paedocommunion. A Baptist would not be as susceptible because he would not be inclined to see paedocommunion as biblical.

The federal vision theology might say something like there is no difference between the infant child of a parent believer. But reformed theology (but not federal vision) is careful to make a distinction.

The infant child is baptized based on the faith of at least one believing parent, not on the basis of his individual faith. The infant child is baptized based on promises of God's grace toward children of believers (not an absolute promise of salvation). The child is baptized to signify the thing which, by faith, is to come and into a covenant community of believers. That child's baptism acknowledges the position of privilege he has having at least one believing parent and a covenant community of believers through which, ordinarily the means of grace will come. A child outside that does not have that.

With the Lord's Supper, however, nonbelievers are told in Scripture to abstain and focus on their need for Christ. All are told to examine themselves. Hence, a child who does not have a credible profession of faith is not permitted to partake of the Lord's Supper, a way of obeying Scripture and protecting ("fencing") the Lord's Table.

Federal vision confuses or denies that distinction and goes on to say there is no difference at all unless the child proves out themselves to not be a Christian (by being apostate). Along the way, they confuse or deny the distinctions reformed theology makes between the visible and invisible church, "union with Christ" (by Baptism), and perseverance of the saints- and of course justification.

All-in-all, federal vision is a prideful, factionalized, mess that came out of very good systematized doctrine of all of Scripture. It's fruit is faction, confusion and sometimes denial of some basic parts of Christianity but always confusion.

Baptists are less likely, it would seem to me to go this way with a believer's only baptism and a believer's only basis for "visible church." 

( I could not have articulated any of this a year ago, but thanks be to God... and Puritan Board)


----------



## Herald

The threat to Baptists is real, albeit limited; or should I say that the FV has limitations that will only appeal to susceptible Baptists. Confessional Baptist churches should be capable of indentfying the signs of The FV, although there is no iron-clad guarantee against infiltration.


----------



## mvdm

It is certainly good to be cautious and aware of the potential for such influence. Yet, we can also *overestimate *the degree of influence/effect this controversy may have on the churches, being tempted to sound an alarmist note, seing an imminent threat overtaking the church. 

The URC Synodical study committee report noted this sort of distinction between "widespread discussion" and actual influence. While recounting the internet/publication discussion of the FV in the URC, the committee nonetheless said: _We do not mention these items to suggest that the FV has had a significant influence upon the understanding of many URCNA office-bearers or members._ Even the alarmists should take comfort in that statement.

In my view, a greater cause for concern arises when we see heterodoxy being taught in seminaries, as newly trained ministers then take their theological viruses into the churches.


----------



## Rich Koster

mvdm said:


> It is certainly good to be cautious and aware of the potential for such influence. Yet, we can also *overestimate *the degree of influence/effect this controversy may have on the churches, being tempted to sound an alarmist note, seing an imminent threat overtaking the church.
> 
> The URC Synodical study committee report noted this sort of distinction between "widespread discussion" and actual influence. While recounting the internet/publication discussion of the FV in the URC, the committee nonetheless said: _We do not mention these items to suggest that the FV has had a significant influence upon the understanding of many URCNA office-bearers or members._ Even the alarmists should take comfort in that statement.
> 
> In my view, a greater cause for concern arises when we see heterodoxy being taught in seminaries, as newly trained ministers then take their theological viruses into the churches.



When you have a congregation without mature, discerning people in place, this is a surefire recipe for disaster.


----------



## Sven

Before the FV was a threat the New Perspective(s) on Paul (NPP) has infiltrated baptist circles. I say this because the FV and the NPP are similar in some aspects. I was a bit disappointed when I saw Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary giving N T Wright's new book a favorable report. Sam Waldron wrote an excellent book regarding the departure from sola fide within evangelical circles here:
Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide - Reformation Heritage Books


----------



## Scott1

mvdm said:


> It is certainly good to be cautious and aware of the potential for such influence. Yet, we can also *overestimate *the degree of influence/effect this controversy may have on the churches, being tempted to sound an alarmist note, seing an imminent threat overtaking the church.
> 
> The URC Synodical study committee report noted this sort of distinction between "widespread discussion" and actual influence. While recounting the internet/publication discussion of the FV in the URC, the committee nonetheless said: _We do not mention these items to suggest that the FV has had a significant influence upon the understanding of many URCNA office-bearers or members._ Even the alarmists should take comfort in that statement.
> 
> In my view, a greater cause for concern arises when we see heterodoxy being taught in seminaries, as newly trained ministers then take their theological viruses into the churches.



The good news is almost every single biblical reformed denomination has written a good study paper explaining the serious error of this theology.

The work has already been done!


----------



## toddpedlar

I would think that Arminian Baptist congregations would be particularly susceptible given a) their theological stance that genuine salvation may be lost through disobedience and b) the teaching that only those who truly are believers have been baptized and are members of the local church. Each of these concepts resonates very strongly with the FV core messages.


----------



## Wannabee

I think Todd's observation are sound. Recently I presented what was taught in regard to FV to a friend who had never heard of it. He's very solid theologically and recognized error immediately. I would submit that it has more to do with good, in-depth, solid biblical understanding than with being Baptist, by a long shot.


----------



## brandonadams

Aside from the issue of baptism, I think the primary concern should be the necessary confusion over justification that will result when someone like Piper, who is at least unclear on justification, sympathizes and ministers with others who teach an even more distorted view of justification.


----------



## Robert Truelove

What I was trying to state in my post was that Federal Vision is a threat to Baptists who initially come over to the Reformed/Presbyterian view on baptism through the influence of Federal Vision proponents. 



Scott1 said:


> I'm by no means an expert in "federal vision."
> 
> It seems easy to quickly discern that federal vision either confuses or denies justification by faith alone and that's reason enough to stay away from it- because we are talking about the gospel. Neither effect (fruit) is acceptable for one who would presume to teach God's people.
> 
> One thing I've observed that might make Baptists less susceptible to this is the emphasis on and basis of covenant children that federal vision appeals to. This has come up in the context of those who believe in "paedocommunion." By and large, reformed theology is not that. Reformed theology is not child communion before a credible profession of faith.
> 
> Federal vision theology usually mean paedocommunion. A Baptist would not be as susceptible because he would not be inclined to see paedocommunion as biblical.
> 
> The federal vision theology might say something like there is no difference between the infant child of a parent believer. But reformed theology (but not federal vision) is careful to make a distinction.
> 
> The infant child is baptized based on the faith of at least one believing parent, not on the basis of his individual faith. The infant child is baptized based on promises of God's grace toward children of believers (not an absolute promise of salvation). The child is baptized to signify the thing which, by faith, is to come and into a covenant community of believers. That child's baptism acknowledges the position of privilege he has having at least one believing parent and a covenant community of believers through which, ordinarily the means of grace will come. A child outside that does not have that.
> 
> With the Lord's Supper, however, nonbelievers are told in Scripture to abstain and focus on their need for Christ. All are told to examine themselves. Hence, a child who does not have a credible profession of faith is not permitted to partake of the Lord's Supper, a way of obeying Scripture and protecting ("fencing") the Lord's Table.
> 
> Federal vision confuses or denies that distinction and goes on to say there is no difference at all unless the child proves out themselves to not be a Christian (by being apostate). Along the way, they confuse or deny the distinctions reformed theology makes between the visible and invisible church, "union with Christ" (by Baptism), and perseverance of the saints- and of course justification.
> 
> All-in-all, federal vision is a prideful, factionalized, mess that came out of very good systematized doctrine of all of Scripture. It's fruit is faction, confusion and sometimes denial of some basic parts of Christianity but always confusion.
> 
> Baptists are less likely, it would seem to me to go this way with a believer's only baptism and a believer's only basis for "visible church."
> 
> ( I could not have articulated any of this a year ago, but thanks be to God... and Puritan Board)


----------



## Scott1

> *Robert Truelove*
> What I was trying to state in my post was that Federal Vision is a threat to Baptists who initially come over to the Reformed/Presbyterian view on baptism through the influence of Federal Vision proponents.



So are you particularly concerned about Baptists who study, for example Doug Wilson, and then go into a PCA or OPC church (rather than going into Mr. Wilson's "Confederation" denomination)?


----------



## 5solasmom

As a former RB, I actually spoke (initially unknowingly) to another FVist about infant baptism when I had questions. This person was a Presbyterian and I figured they would be of great help. Thankfully this person was upfront and let me know that their view was hotly contested in the reformed churches and that they fell on the FV side of things...

Because RB's see both the sacraments to follow a profession of faith, it WAS strange as a new paedobaptist to grasp the reasons behind why baptize at infancy and wait to allow communion until profession of faith. It took more questions and study to come to a better understanding, but it WAS tempting to feel as though I was somehow "not being consistent".

I have seen firsthand the lure of Wilson's articles/views and paedocommunion in those who are coming to a paedobaptist view. Suprisingly, I even know more than a couple of baptists who allow their young children to take communion but have not been baptized first.  

I would agree that they are vulnerable to FV theology....


----------



## Marrow Man

Semper Fidelis said:


> I have a Baptist pastor friend who noted that many Seminary students at Southern were being allured by it.
> 
> I don't mean for this to sound pejorative but one of the reasons I agree that Baptists are susceptible is that it was usually Presbyterians that thought like Baptists until they encountered some Covenant Theology that were most susceptible to the FV. It was never the folks that had a mature understanding of Reformed causistry but almost always a Presbyterian that created the dilemma that it was a choice between "bare sign" and "head for head".
> 
> Those attracted to a new theology are often susceptible to extreme swings from one pole to another. In fact, as R. Scott Clark has noted, the FV shares with Baptists a view of the Covenant that conflates Covenant signification with the spiritual reality (i.e. we only baptize those that the Church determines possesses the reality).



This has been my limited experience. The only two pastors I have personally known who bought into the FV lie came out of baptistic backgrounds but became enamored with the covenant teachings of the FV movement. It was very much the switching of poles of which Rich speaks.

Now, one of those pastors subsequently rejected FV (too "legalistic" -- his words), moved to a stronger NPP position, but now has all but completely apostatized from the faith for reasons I would not like to get into on a public board. Let's just say he is no longer a pastor in the PCA but member in the UCC. I can't say that's because of the FV, though.


----------



## Thomas2007

Ya' know, I was having a discussion with a Baptist fellow a couple of weeks ago that was giving a glowing report on Piper and his smoozing Federal Vision, he then took a look at their theology and found great commonality with it, save the paedobaptism.

I can't say I understand how he arrived at this conclusion, as he was harder to understand than the FV boys, but he seemed to identify with the FV's attempt to make the visible church communicable.


----------



## jason d

Though I am Reformed Baptist, I started studying this issue because I have close personal friends getting into NPP and FV stuff. I am thankful I studied alot of this because once news was out that Doug Wilson was going to be speaking @ Piper's Desiring God conference, many in our church became interested in this.

We've been having our own discussion on this issue here  I even got my old friend who has attended Doug Wilson's church for the past 7 years and has held to FV views for that long to help us in the dialog.

I don't think this will be that big of an issue for solid Baptist.

soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

Yo,

*I'm actually happy that Piper is having Doug Wilson come through. I've learned a lot from Douglas Wilson when it comes to Family and Infant Baptism. Not to mention he's PostMill....Ah yes... that would be great. So if Doug can persuade Baptist to put a P in front of their Sacrament of Baptism to God be the Glory for that.

However, Doug's view of Justification and infusion of the Invisible/Visible church is a definate snare and attack against the Gospel. Not to mention their assault against Historic Calvinism of the precious doctrine of Perservance of the Saints. I've yet to see them answer the question from Romans 9 where it says before the children were born in the womb doing neither good or bad God loved one and hated the other. Where's the Visibility of the Church Justification there??? Such a bunk view.

So I'm hoping the Baptist can swallow the Truth and spit out the bones.*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## RevZach

I attended a seminary that was Baptist in affiliation when I began (but then changed the word "Baptist" to "Theological" while I was attending--don't get me started in the irony there). Anyway, this was almost 10 years ago, we were 95%+ Baptist, and Federal Vision was already a byword among the brothers.


----------



## Reformed City Rockers

Here is my five cents on the issue as well as my first post here on the blog. As far as Aminian Baptists being sucked into FV is unlikely. Most Arminian Baptists are in the mold of either an Adrian Rodgers/Charles Stanley model which they will explain without really knowing or theologically systematically explaining why that you can’t lose your salvation or they are of the evangelical mega-church model which they are indifferent to any theological discussion. 

The Baptist who are risk of being sucked into FV are the ones who are on the fence they are in the process of exiting dispensational theology because they are reading Calvinists and other reformational theological books. These Baptist are predestinarian but not Calvinistic in the sense of being grounded in reformed theology and thus have no compass of a Westminster Standards or even a 1689 to direct them to a dual covenantal system of a covenant of works/covenant of grace understanding of the scriptures and thus no way of distinguishing the law from the gospel. So passages like Galatians 3; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 10:5-8 these Baptists will fumble away the ball on the 20 yard line on the opening drive. These Baptist at risk to their credit are into taking the Christian life seriously and are heavy into Christian Piety maybe for some getting a little too pietistic but rightly defending holiness in the Christian life. They Champion Lordship salvation and are followers of the writings John MacArthur and John Piper (more on Piper); and even take the Lordship of Christ into other spheres of thinking and thus are more of a cultural transformation rather than the traditional reformed understanding of two-kingdom theology. Most of these Baptists who are at risk are probably new to presupposition apologetics but were won over by the theistic transcendental apologetics of Greg Bahnsen especially after hearing the Stine debate. Most of these Baptists four favorite theologians are probably: MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, and Bahnsen. So when you say the words covenant of works or the active obedience of Christ outside of some exposure to R C Sproul most of these Baptists are clueless on what you’re talking about. 

Here is the problem: Piper’s influence is mono-covenantal. Piper studied under Daniel Fuller at Fuller Theological seminary. Daniel Fuller was basically the Norman Shepherd of the Baptist world, enough said! Bahnsen is a theonomist which already confuses law and gospel and theonomy is a one way freeway to FV theology. Bahnsen was also mono-covenantal taking John Murray’s recasting of covenant theology to its logical conclusion along with Norman Shepherd (I just read T. David Gordon’s essay in the book The Law is Not of Faith, ed. by Brian Estelle, John Fesko and David VanDrunen). If you read Piper’s Future grace it is spooky stuff it reads like Norman Shepherd’s Call of Grace and Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins and Peter Leithert’s writings. So yeah non confessional Baptists are totally at risk of Federal Vision. This Federal Vision war aint over by a long shot!!! If you’re a confessional Baptist and you’re getting bamboozled into FV then shame on you! You have the 1689 London Baptist Confession so use you confessional covenantal compass that your big brothers from the Westminster Divines gave you.


----------



## Hungus

Reformed City Rockers said:


> theonomy is a one way freeway to FV theology.



This in my observation has been the biggest inroad. Theonomy is basically Fundamentalism + Reformed Theology (as with any combo there is not a 100% transference). So if you are a Baptist who is already a fundamentalist and you come to some modicum of Reformed theology theonomy is an easy place to end up. Then, they discover the Vision Forums and things really go downhill. It also seems to be more palatable for the typical 1/2 2 dispensation other 1/2 new covenant model that many Baptists seem to have (no it is not consistent, just persistent) to go into postmillenial ideas than amil.


----------



## Herald

sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> Yo,
> 
> *I'm actually happy that Piper is having Doug Wilson come through. I've learned a lot from Douglas Wilson when it comes to Family and Infant Baptism. Not to mention he's PostMill....Ah yes... that would be great. So if Doug can persuade Baptist to put a P in front of their Sacrament of Baptism to God be the Glory for that.
> 
> However, Doug's view of Justification and infusion of the Invisible/Visible church is a definate snare and attack against the Gospel. Not to mention their assault against Historic Calvinism of the precious doctrine of Perservance of the Saints. I've yet to see them answer the question from Romans 9 where it says before the children were born in the womb doing neither good or bad God loved one and hated the other. Where's the Visibility of the Church Justification there??? Such a bunk view.
> 
> So I'm hoping the Baptist can swallow the Truth and spit out the bones.*
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> seal



Why in the world would you recommend someone who, according to your own words, creates a snare and attack against the gospel? You end your post by hoping that Baptists can swallow the truth and spit out the bones. That's kind of like saying, "There's a million dollars at the other end of that field, but the field is covered with buried land mines. I sure hope you can cross the field without being blown up." If a preacher is not completely orthodox about the doctrine of justification he is a hidden land mine, no matter how right he is on any other point of doctrine.


----------



## TimV

Very few properly educated theonomists went over to the FV, since the FV doesn't use historic Reformed definitions of words like election and perseverance. In fact, many of the strongest opponents of the FV are theonomists.

In fact, while we're at in facts, there were never many FVers in the first place, and now we're down to what, 20 or 30 people who can intelligently write a paragraph? My current observation is that the FV is largely confined to conspiracy nuts who latch on to it for that very reason; that there are so few who follow it.


----------



## Herald

Reformed City Rockers said:


> Here is my five cents on the issue as well as my first post here on the blog. As far as Aminian Baptists being sucked into FV is unlikely. Most Arminian Baptists are in the mold of either an Adrian Rodgers/Charles Stanley model which they will explain without really knowing or theologically systematically explaining why that you can’t lose your salvation or they are of the evangelical mega-church model which they are indifferent to any theological discussion.
> 
> The Baptist who are risk of being sucked into FV are the ones who are on the fence they are in the process of exiting dispensational theology because they are reading Calvinists and other reformational theological books. These Baptist are predestinarian but not Calvinistic in the sense of being grounded in reformed theology and thus have no compass of a Westminster Standards or even a 1689 to direct them to a dual covenantal system of a covenant of works/covenant of grace understanding of the scriptures and thus no way of distinguishing the law from the gospel. So passages like Galatians 3; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 10:5-8 these Baptists will fumble away the ball on the 20 yard line on the opening drive. These Baptist at risk to their credit are into taking the Christian life seriously and are heavy into Christian Piety maybe for some getting a little too pietistic but rightly defending holiness in the Christian life. They Champion Lordship salvation and are followers of the writings John MacArthur and John Piper (more on Piper); and even take the Lordship of Christ into other spheres of thinking and thus are more of a cultural transformation rather than the traditional reformed understanding of two-kingdom theology. Most of these Baptists who are at risk are probably new to presupposition apologetics but were won over by the theistic transcendental apologetics of Greg Bahnsen especially after hearing the Stine debate. Most of these Baptists four favorite theologians are probably: MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, and Bahnsen. So when you say the words covenant of works or the active obedience of Christ outside of some exposure to R C Sproul most of these Baptists are clueless on what you’re talking about.
> 
> Here is the problem: Piper’s influence is mono-covenantal. Piper studied under Daniel Fuller at Fuller Theological seminary. Daniel Fuller was basically the Norman Shepherd of the Baptist world, enough said! Bahnsen is a theonomist which already confuses law and gospel and theonomy is a one way freeway to FV theology. Bahnsen was also mono-covenantal taking John Murray’s recasting of covenant theology to its logical conclusion along with Norman Shepherd (I just read T. David Gordon’s essay in the book The Law is Not of Faith, ed. by Brian Estelle, John Fesko and David VanDrunen). If you read Piper’s Future grace it is spooky stuff it reads like Norman Shepherd’s Call of Grace and Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins and Peter Leithert’s writings. So yeah non confessional Baptists are totally at risk of Federal Vision. This Federal Vision war aint over by a long shot!!! If you’re a confessional Baptist and you’re getting bamboozled into FV then shame on you! You have the 1689 London Baptist Confession so use you confessional covenantal compass that your big brothers from the Westminster Divines gave you.



Jason,

While I had a good laugh at your "big brother from the Westminster Divines" comment, you bring up a good point about recent Baptist converts to Calvinism. When I first joined this board my user name was "Baptist in Crisis." I was a Baptist Calvinist that hadn't found too many other Baptist Calvinists. I thought I was on my own and started weakening in my opposition to Presbyterian Covenant Theology. Thankfully I came across some strong confessional Baptists that helped strengthen my knowledge, but it was not without a period of crisis in my walk with Christ. Knowing my own personal history I can see how a Baptist in similar situations can get caught into the periphery of Reformed Theology, which is not always sound teaching.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

TimV said:


> Very few properly educated theonomists went over to the FV, since the FV doesn't use historic Reformed definitions of words like election and perseverance. In fact, many of the strongest opponents of the FV are theonomists.



And For what it's worth, I might add that the first public condemnation of the FV and it's proponents came from a Theonomic Denomination, the RPCUS.


----------



## Reformed City Rockers

The RPCUS is not even part of NAPARC so they don’t count. The serious contention to this poison called FV and NPP came from the GA reports of the RCUS, OPC, PCA and URCNA all provided due diligence and good sound traditional bi-covenantal framework against the mono-covenantal madness of FV theology. But the Knock out blows came from books by Guy Waters one on FV and another on NPP, John Fesko’s new book on Justification, a little book on Sola Fide ed. by Gary W L Johnson and Guy Waters, and the final blistering salvos that destroyed the FV theology in one swift stroke was the Westminster Seminary California book, Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry and the new book called The Law is not of Faith.

The RPCUS objection to FV was insipid and vacuous the guys at Bob Jones University could do a better job! When it comes defending Justification by faith alone and we little lay people are getting bullied by the Ayatollahs of FV, the guys at Westminster Seminary California (who are all NAPARC members) are the first guys I’m going to call, big brother to the rescue. They’ll throw the atomic bomb of polemics. The RPCUS response is like going into a gun fight throwing marshmallows. If I want to be confused when it comes to issues of distinguishing the law from the gospel and hop aboard a quasi fundamentalist theonomic express bus to the legalistic land of Federal Vision then I’ll hit up these small independent Theonomic Presbyterian bodies who are outside of NAPARC and give them a call.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Reformed City Rockers said:


> The RPCUS is not even part of NAPARC so they don’t count. The serious contention to this poison called FV and NPP came from the GA reports of the RCUS, OPC, PCA and URCNA all provided due diligence and good sound traditional bi-covenantal framework against the mono-covenantal madness of FV theology. But the Knock out blows came from books by Guy Waters one on FV and another on NPP, John Fesko’s new book on Justification, a little book on Sola Fide ed. by Gary W L Johnson and Guy Waters, and the final blistering salvos that destroyed the FV theology in one swift stroke was the Westminster Seminary California book, Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry and the new book called The Law is not of Faith.
> 
> The RPCUS objection to FV was insipid and vacuous the guys at Bob Jones University could do a better job! When it comes defending Justification by faith alone and we little lay people are getting bullied by the Ayatollahs of FV, the guys at Westminster Seminary California (who are all NAPARC members) are the first guys I’m going to call, big brother to the rescue. They’ll throw the atomic bomb of polemics. The RPCUS response is like going into a gun fight throwing marshmallows. If I want to be confused when it comes to issues of distinguishing the law from the gospel and hop aboard a quasi fundamentalist theonomic express bus to legalistic land of Federal Vision then I’ll hit up these small independent Theonomic Presbyterian bodies who are outside of NAPARC and give them a call.



Thank you for marginalizing both me and the denomination that I call "home".

I look forward to reading more of your enlightened views.

Blessings!


----------



## Reformed City Rockers

Hey SP I don't mean to offend you have a blessed weekend and especially blessed Lord's Day 


Peace


----------



## Prufrock

Reformed City Rockers said:


> The RPCUS is not even part of NAPARC so they don’t count. The serious contention to this poison called FV and NPP came from the GA reports of the RCUS, OPC, PCA and URCNA all provided due diligence and good sound traditional bi-covenantal framework against the mono-covenantal madness of FV theology. But the Knock out blows came from books by Guy Waters one on FV and another on NPP, John Fesko’s new book on Justification, a little book on Sola Fide ed. by Gary W L Johnson and Guy Waters, and the final blistering salvos that destroyed the FV theology in one swift stroke was the Westminster Seminary California book, Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry and the new book called The Law is not of Faith.
> 
> The RPCUS objection to FV was insipid and vacuous the guys at Bob Jones University could do a better job! When it comes defending Justification by faith alone and we little lay people are getting bullied by the Ayatollahs of FV, the guys at Westminster Seminary California (who are all NAPARC members) are the first guys I’m going to call, big brother to the rescue. They’ll throw the atomic bomb of polemics. The RPCUS response is like going into a gun fight throwing marshmallows. If I want to be confused when it comes to issues of distinguishing the law from the gospel and hop aboard a quasi fundamentalist theonomic express bus to legalistic land of Federal Vision then I’ll hit up these small independent Theonomic Presbyterian bodies who are outside of NAPARC and give them a call.



I'm not entirely sure why being or not being a part of NAPARC is what makes a church "count." I disagree with Theonomy, but this doesn't mean we just toss out everything a church court has said solely because they affirm theonomy -- _especially_ in this context. As many have drawn a connection between Theonomy and the FV, we should be rejoicing when an official ruling comes out of a theonomic church condemning the FV, not scorning their findings as worthless.


----------



## Reformed City Rockers

Paul I understand where you’re coming from and I’m sure you have appreciated the OPC GA report as well as the PCA’s report. The point is that theonomy does not have the framework to combat FV theology when they oppose FV it is because they are abandoning the mono-covenantal ways of theonomy and borrowing capital from the traditional bi-covenantal system they once abandon. Yes I agree it is in one sense a good thing that these brothers oppose FV. If you look at the response from the Westminster seminary California guys many of who were in the GA committee regarding FV. These classical reformed guys provided a consistent rebuttal to FV as well as NPP from their system of Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology and Confessional Theology as a result the response to FV from our guys was complete detailed informative instructive and most of all devastating to the FV opposition. The RPCUS response to FV opposing that it claims to be was lackluster theologically and couldn’t go toe to toe on the biblical theological historic redemptive scale. To put it in another way the RPCUS response still would have left people in a fog about the important issues reguarding a lot things. Let’s pray that those in the RPCUS will continue to think about these issues aggressively and abandon man made traditions like theonomy and painstakingly search the scriptures I am sure they will get back up to speed with the rest of historic reformed WCF understanding of law/gospel, covenant of works/grace understanding that we always had. It’s not Lutheran, it’s biblical.

late


----------



## Prufrock

Jason, I am going to have to bow out at this point for a few reasons. 1.) I'm probably not the best person to defend a Theonomic denomination, as I have probably frequently been too hard on Theonomists in my posting here; and 2.) Having just signed up, you wouldn't have known this yet, but there is a temporary hold on debating Theonomy until a few issues are resolved, and I don't want to risk this getting too close to that. I think you just need to be a bit careful when making claims as to which churches "count" and which ones don't (honestly, I'm not entirely sure what that means), and also as to the criteria on which you make those claims (e.g., belonging to NAPARC). And do remember that there are many theonomists on this board; and so, while we may indeed be forceful and earnest in our critiques and arguments, our speech does need to be seasoned with grace if this board is to continue to function smoothly.


----------



## py3ak

*[Moderator]*
*Jason, I understand that you think theonomists don't have the necessary conceptual framework to combat the FV. Of course, strong assertions that this is the case without substantiation don't carry conviction. This isn't the thread, but in future if you are going to make such a case, back your assertions up.

However, your words about the RPCUS are over the top. Saying you had no intention of offending does not render your words unoffensive. Saying that they don't even count, and calling for prayer for them to leave their man made traditions is not a great way to introduce yourself to the board, or to guard the reputation of your neighbors.

Please take some time to get acquainted with the board atmosphere, and if you wish to level a criticism, back your assertions up with facts, and use a respectful tone.

Thanks!*
*[/Moderator]*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Furthermore, Jason, proponents of theonomy do not have to adopt a Covenantal structure any different than that which is laid out in the Confessions. The key issue for Theonomists is not the nature of the Covenant of Grace, per se, but how the general equity of the Moral Law is applied to human governments.

Consequently, it does not follow necessarily that a person's understanding of the General Equity of the Law affects Sacramentology and Eccelsiology. That is to say, that a Theonomist seeks the establishment of the Moral Law in our civil governments but civil governments have nothing to do with the headings of the visible/invisible Covenant of Grace distinction or how the Sacraments are administered.

I've hardly been known for defending Theonomy but I don't like a position (or a denomination at large) roundly trashed and condemned for something where there is no necessary connection. It frankly only reveals ignorance of the core issues of both movements to try to link the two in such a fashion.

A much more sophisticated connection needs to be made to see why _some_ Theonomists were attracted to the FV. A crass and simplistic wide brush only offends and lacks credibility.


----------



## fredtgreco

Jason,

We all show our biases in different ways. I am certainly no Theonomist (a quick PB search will show that) and I certainly am not hostile to WSC (I have great respect for those who are there). But I am not unversed in the FV issue, having led a grass roots group that urged the adoption of the PCA Study Committee Report (look me up) and as one who is good friends with Guy Waters and many others. I also am not unversed in theological controversy (having served as Secretary of the PCA's Theological Examining Committee) and the BCO (now serving on the PCA SJC).

Why do I "speak as a fool"? Because I think you are wrong about the RPCUS on this one. They started the ball rolling in ecclesiastical courts and for that I am thankful. I also think you should know that there were several instances where the critiques coming out of WSC did more damage than good to the cause of rooting out the FV. You may not believe it, but then I guess that you have not been in the ecclesiastical trenches like I have for the past decade or so.


----------



## mvdm

fredtgreco said:


> I also think you should know that there were several instances where the critiques coming out of WSC did more damage than good to the cause of rooting out the FV. You may not believe it, but then I guess that you have not been in the ecclesiastical trenches like I have for the past decade or so.



From my perspective in the URC trenches, I strongly concur with the accuracy of this assessment


----------



## Reformed City Rockers

Two things I want to respond to Semper Fidelis:

Snip


Semper Fidelis said:


> Furthermore, Jason, proponents of theonomy do not have to adopt a Covenantal structure any different than that which is laid out in the Confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A much more sophisticated connection needs to be made to see why _some_ Theonomists were attracted to the FV. A crass and simplistic wide brush only offends and lacks credibility.




1st I do wish that Theonomist would address the covenant structure of the WCF that would mean they would believe in the biblical doctrine of the covenant of works and the republication of that covenant at Sinai. But theonomists simply do not believe in the covenant of Works from Bahnsen to Rushdoony they all reject that doctrine. So Semper I am with you I hope that the recon crowd would go back to the covenant structure of the WFC or at least as you suggested they should since that’s the only covenant structure they are required to hold.

2nd As far as making the connection between Theonomy and the super mega freeway it provides to FV one need to look no farther than the credibility and sophistication yet simplicity of the pivotal and successful work of Guy Prentiss Waters of who all of you since you say and claim you believe in sola fide against the Federal Vision then by default you will agree with his findings. Right Semper Fedelis?????? Go to Guy Prentiss Waters book The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology. On page 296-298 you will see HIS making the connection between Theonomy and FV. Now in the middle of 296 so you won’t explode Guy does say that not that all Theonomists are FVists. I’ve been saying that too it’s just that when a Theonomists goes against FV he is going against his own mono-covenantal grain.


Mr. fredtgreco,
If you think WSC did more damage than good that’s news out here in NoCal and SoCal we here on the west coast think that Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry along with The Law is not of Faith and By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification those books teamed up with Guy Waters books and the new book on Justification written by John Fesko the people in my circle say that those books were a God send. Only those who are uncomfortable with let’s say a R Scott Clark’s or Michael Horton’s presentation of Justification and let’s say are more at home with the more neo-nomian moralistic presentation of Justification by the likes of Norman Shepherd, Doug Wilson, Scott Hahn, Steve Wilkins, Peter Lieghthert, Rich Lusk et. al. Only those of the latter would see WSC contribution as unhelpful. Those who love the gospel think the WSC books on sola fide are the best thing since sliced bread or to put it in a more academic way in terms of how Joshua has posted, the WSC contrabution rocked!!!


Sola Fide 4 Life
Sola Fide 4 Ever


----------



## fredtgreco

Mr. Rivera,

You need to have some facts. First of all, the teaching that the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai is at best a minority opinion in the Reformed world. In no way could it be said that such a teaching is central to Reformed theology (the WCF would say otherwise, clearing saying that the Covenant at Sinai was a part of the Covenant of Grace) or that it did great harm to the FV. If anything, it was such overreaching that made it more difficult for plain, vanilla Westminsterianism (as opposed to modern Klineanism) to overcome legitimate objections from FV advocates and to get at their illegitimate conclusions.

I suppose the Colloquium in which Pipa, Phillips, Hutchinson et al engaged the FV had no effect? Nor O Palmer Robertson's book? Nor the work of the PCA committee? Nor men like Andy Webb?

You also assume that you know what I was referring to when I talked about unhelpful things coming out of WSC. You don't. I did not criticize those books (and certainly not in their entirety).

To be blunt - you're treading in waters (no pun intended) that are far too deep and complex for your simplistic conclusions. Theonomy has its shortcomings (in my opinion) and there is indeed often a connection between some manifestations of Theonomy and FV (e.g. Wilkins). But you could just as easily blame Exclusive Psalmody, as two of the most virulent young converts to FV were previously EP champions in RPCNA congregations. (Others: please note that I do not view this to be the case, but use this "example" to make a point.)


----------



## toddpedlar

Reformed City Rockers said:


> Two things I want to respond to Semper Fidelis:
> 
> Snip
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, Jason, proponents of theonomy do not have to adopt a Covenantal structure any different than that which is laid out in the Confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A much more sophisticated connection needs to be made to see why _some_ Theonomists were attracted to the FV. A crass and simplistic wide brush only offends and lacks credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st I do wish that Theonomist would address the covenant structure of the WCF that would mean they would believe in the biblical doctrine of the covenant of works and the republication of that covenant at Sinai. *But theonomists simply do not believe in the covenant of Works from Bahnsen to Rushdoony they all reject that doctrine. *So Semper I am with you I hope that the recon crowd would go back to the covenant structure of the WFC or at least as you suggested they should since that’s the only covenant structure they are required to hold.
Click to expand...


Back off on this comment, Jason. It's wrong. You should be very careful in using words like "never" and "all". Theonomists do not universally adopt Rushdoony's error, and those that are confessional (of which there are MANY) accept the Covenant of Works as taught in the Westminster Standards. You are painting with too broad a brush. As Rich said already, theonomy does NOT require a particular covenantal view.


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

Herald said:


> Why in the world would you recommend someone who, according to your own words, creates a snare and attack against the gospel? You end your post by hoping that Baptists can swallow the truth and spit out the bones. That's kind of like saying, "There's a million dollars at the other end of that field, but the field is covered with buried land mines. I sure hope you can cross the field without being blown up." If a preacher is not completely orthodox about the doctrine of justification he is a hidden land mine, no matter how right he is on any other point of doctrine.



*Good sir,

Should we then forbid people to read the Forefathers of the Reformation? All of them had some wacky views. What about Church History? I can recommend Doug Wilson for doctrines like the Trinity and Post Mill b/c he has good things to say. But I can be staunchly against Federal Vision.

I do the samething with NT Wright. When it comes to the affirmation of the Resurrection and his Forensic's Christ Atonement being for a Corporate Body then he's the best thing since slice bread. But His view of Justification is grotesque.

So, this is no train heading for disaster. We can however be sharpened by the teachers God has given the church. I owe a lot to the teachings of Doug Wilson in a book called "Future Men" which teaches some extremely sound and didatics on Biblical Manhood that have help change my life and marriage tremedously. But am I a federal Visionist? No. 

So, while I believe you over-reacted, you are entitled to your opinion.*

Grace and Peace,
seal

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 11:36:38 EST-----

*
Yo City Rocker Guy,

I am a Theonomist and I reject Federal Vision.* 

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## Reformed City Rockers

Pastor Greco, thank you for your take on the contrary I do find the colloquium at Knox Seminary very helpful and I am thankful for the contribution of those who were contra to the FV position. On the issue of the republication of the covenant of works goes I disagree with your assertion. Contrary to modern opinion; the Republication theory as some have so called this doctrine was not invented in lab back in 1979 by Meredith Kline with some help of some Lutherans, Antinomians, and Quasi Liberals. In fact republication was part of the doctrine of Thomas Boston (R. Scott Clark “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” pg 64 n. 82), Charles and A.A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Samuel Rutherford, Francis Tertian, James Buchanan, John Owen, John Calquhoun (Treatise on the Law and Gospel), J Gresham Machen, Louis Berkhof and many others. I believe if I am told correctly that Chad Van Dixhoorn’s work is bringing home the bacon so to say as documenting that the Westminster Divines mostly held to republication and that republication is the official position of the confession. The shift away from republication is novel invention that is only 60 some odd years old starting with John Murray’s great tenure at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. (Please see Introduction essay and Brenton Ferry’s essay and also T. David Gordon’s essay in “The Law is Not of Faith” ed. by Brian Estelle, John Fesko, and David VanDrunen pages 1-22 & 70-105 & 240-259). I’ll stop at this point and wait for your reply.

To Todd and Semper Fidelis, 
So to not broad brush Theonomists since many have different differing versions of theonomy ranging from whatever each individual thinks theonomy is. It would be unfair and in accurate for me to pin down any particular author or version of theonomy and apply it to all since there is no central official teaching of theonomy. I would have to go from individual to individual and apply my polemics individually. With that being said I believe that in this forum that I am free to hitch my wagon so to say on a leading reformed scholar’s findings. My question to you guys is this: If theonomy had nothing to do with FV if I believe that is what you are saying. Why does Guy Waters in his well researched and insightful accurate book; The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology; why does Guy Waters make a connection between Theonomy and FV in pages 296-298? As Guy Waters outs it. “We have seen that the hermeneutic employed by many FV proponents resonates with theonomic conceptions of covenantal continuity” (Page 296). If Guy Waters can see the connection between Theonomy and FV then why can’t you? I am not saying and neither is Guy P Waters, that all Theonomist are FVists, there are some theonomists that are against FV and praise the Lord for that we welcome your opposition to this pernicious error.  Second if theonomy is the great enemy of FV then where are the great works against FV written by theonomist? Finally if Theonomy is 100% in line with and the official position the confession then why do leading well studied academic historical theological theologians and scholars call into question with all due diligence the legitimacy of theonomy as being confessional? (I am referring to R. Scott Clark’s book; Recovering the Reformed Confessions page 61-69?) BTW this is another book and scholar and big Christian brother I am hitching my wagon on.


----------



## toddpedlar

Reformed City Rockers said:


> To Todd and Semper Fidelis,
> 
> So to not broad brush Theonomists since many have different differing versions of theonomy ranging from whatever each individual thinks theonomy is. It would be unfair and in accurate for me to pin down any particular author or version of theonomy and apply it to all since there is no central official teaching of theonomy. I would have to go from individual to individual and apply my polemics individually. With that being said I believe that in this forum that I am free to hitch my wagon so to say on a leading reformed scholar’s findings. My question to you guys is this: If theonomy had nothing to do with FV if I believe that is what you are saying.



Who said there's no connection or common threads?



> Why does Guy Waters in his well researched and insightful accurate book; The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology; why does Guy Waters make a connection between Theonomy and FV in pages 296-298? As Guy Waters outs it. “We have seen that the hermeneutic employed by many FV proponents resonates with theonomic conceptions of covenantal continuity” (Page 296). If Guy Waters can see the connection between Theonomy and FV then why can’t you?



Again, who said there isn't one? 



> I am not saying and neither is Guy P Waters, that all Theonomist are FVists, there are some theonomists that are against FV and praise the Lord for that we welcome your opposition to this pernicious error.  Second if theonomy is the great enemy of FV then where are the great works against FV written by theonomist?



Who said anything about theonomy being the great enemy of FV?



> Finally if Theonomy is 100% in line with and the official position the confession then why do leading well studied academic historical theological theologians and scholars call into question with all due diligence the legitimacy of theonomy as being confessional? (I am referring to R. Scott Clark’s book; Recovering the Reformed Confessions page 61-69?) BTW this is another book and scholar and big Christian brother I am hitching my wagon on.



Who said that Theonomy was 100% in line with the WCF? 

You're attributing LOTS of things to people who haven't said them. That's bearing false witness. Please be more careful with your claims and insinuations (and tone). Perhaps you're unaware of it, but your tone is quite insulting.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

In the interests of putting rumors to rest. 1. Per Rutherford. In Mike Brown’s piece in _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal last year, he cites Rutherford contrary to Goodwin and Owen. "Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), a Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, said, 'the law as pressed upon Israel was not a covenant of works,'" _The Covenant of Life Opened_ (Edinburgh, 1655) 60. CPJ 4, p. 157.
2. Per Chad Van Dixhoorn. I've worked with Chad, who has been very generous in his support of my squibs on things Westminster; I contacted him when I read the below as I thought it sounded strange (he's very stringent on requirements for proving intent of Westminster). He tells me he has no idea how he got enlisted for republication advocacy research. He does grant the position was held by some assembly members. But he is not working on the subject and is not remotely championing that the Westminster Assembly held any formal position on republication. 



Reformed City Rockers said:


> In fact republication was part of the doctrine of Thomas Boston (R. Scott Clark “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” pg 64 n. 82), Charles and A.A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Samuel Rutherford, Francis Tertian, James Buchanan, John Owen, John Calquhoun (Treatise on the Law and Gospel), J Gresham Machen, Louis Berkhof and many others. I believe if I am told correctly that Chad Van Dixhoorn’s work is bringing home the bacon so to say as documenting that the Westminster Divines mostly held to republication and that republication is the official position of the confession.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

bump.


----------



## fredtgreco

You mean I knew what I was talking about?

Any chance of a retraction?


----------

