# Rev. Bredenhof's Article on the Federal Vision and the CanRC



## Dearly Bought (Sep 6, 2011)

Apparently Reformed Fellowship is planning to offer an online subscription to _The Outlook_ in the future. As a precursor, they are offering the July/August issue for free at their website (link). I was very interested to read Rev. Bredenhof's analysis of the Federal Vision from a "Liberated" Dutch Reformed (Canadian Reformed) context on pages 29-32. I know that we've had this discussion before, but I would be interested to hear any responses to Rev. Bredenhof's evaluation of Schilder's thought in relation to the Federal Vision. I think he makes a pretty compelling case that we must not concede the "Liberated" tradition to the FV men.


----------



## MW (Sep 6, 2011)

Dearly Bought said:


> I think he makes a pretty compelling case that we must not concede the "Liberated" tradition to the FV men.



He certainly makes a good case by drawing attention to the distinction between promise and thing promised. That suffices to show there is a radical difference between the two strains of teaching. I'm not sure, however, to what degree the difference between promise and thing equates to the legal-vital distinction. Are they are one and the same? Does "promise" equate to "legal" and "thing promised" to "vital?" My preference is for the traditional external-internal distinction.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 7, 2011)

Helpful article which adequately answers the irresponsible charges of some in my federation who, while having no access or understanding of the Dutch primary sources, sought to smear the Canadian Reformed with the FV label just as the URC was seeking closer ecumencial ties with the Can Ref.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 12, 2011)

Not to get off topic but what is a "liberated" Dutch Reformed position?


----------



## Dearly Bought (Oct 2, 2011)

James, I just saw your question, so I'll try to offer some summary myself. The Reformed Churches (liberated) in the Netherlands were formed in the midst of World War II out of the Reformed Churches that most may know by association with Abraham Kuyper. To my knowledge, the split was primarily over the imposition of some of Kuyper's distinctive doctrines of presumptive regeneration and covenant membership by the synod. Klaas Schilder is the foundational theologian for their tradition.

"Liberated" covenant theology must always be understood against the background of Kuyper's covenant theology. Even many years later, Canadian Reformed works on the subject tend to frame things around the 1944 controversy and Kuyper's doctrine. In marked contrast with the Protestant Reformed Churches, Canadian Reformed theologians have emphasized a separation between covenant and election instead of a close identity. Covenant is about promises conditioned on faith in the recipient of the promises, not presumption of election or regeneration. "Promise" and "faith" are perhaps the key terms in such covenant theology. CanRC theologians tend to be wary of too much introspection regarding one's salvation. The emphasis is on the covenant promises and the exhortation to believe. This also affects the teaching on the sacraments, which are not conceived of as signs of a reality already possessed, but rather promises which call us to faith.

From what I have read, one might see similarities with the Federal Vision in that both movements do emphasize an "objective" covenant while minimizing introspection. However, the differences also seem great in my opinion. CanRC writers are concerned to separate election, regeneration, and covenant! The sort of baptismal regeneration common in FV circles, along with the pronouncement of saving benefits to all church members seems antithetical to the distinctives of "liberated" Reformed theology!

For more reading from one of the most prominent "liberated" theologians published in English, check out "The Confessional History of the Canadian Reformed Churches" by Dr. Jelle Faber.

(_This is all from someone outside of the CanRC. Please chime in and correct me if needed, Rev. Bredenhof!_)


----------

