# Objection to the use of "Federal"



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 2, 2007)

Greetings:



They call themselves "Federal Visionists" but there is nothing specifically Covenantal or "Federal" about their position. That some of them hold to paedo-communion is a hyper-federal view. They have taken the good name of "Federal" and have perverted it to hide their errors.

I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.

Blessings on this Lord's Day,

-CH


----------



## Stephen (Dec 3, 2007)

Great observation. They certainly are not federal. How did this term "federal vision" originate? I like the term John Robbins uses, "neolegalism." Perhaps hyper-covenantalism is a good term also.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 3, 2007)

The original FVists chose it for the title of their book of lectures, didn't they?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 3, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The original FVists chose it for the title of their book of lectures, didn't they?



Is there not the collection of essays not a collection of essays (which they contributed to) called _The Federal Vision: Pros and Cons_.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 3, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You could refer to it as the "Auburn Avenue Theology" which Doug Wilson seems happy enough with.


----------



## KMK (Dec 3, 2007)

Next thing you know they will call it "Consistent Confessional Vision"


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.
> 
> Blessings on this Lord's Day,
> 
> -CH



New Perspective and FV are more like "kissing cousins" than identical theologies. It isn't really accurate to label FV as New Perspective. Now, if you wanted to be more specific, you could say "New Perspective on Reformed Covenantal Thought." 

But NPP has different tenets and emphases than FV. Of course, there are no logical contradictions between the two and the adherent of FV could easily adhere to NPP, but they are not identical. The developed (at least at first) independently of one another. In fact, Doug Wilson has about 70 blog posts critiquing aspects of NPP. Now, whether they are really critiques of substance is beside the point. The point is that if they were identical, then he would be critiquing himself!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.
> ...



1. I agree that FV and NPP are not identical, nor are the movements monolithic.
2. I'm not sure about the last point though. It's kind of funny reading Van Til's _New Modernism_ where he opens a double barrelled machine gun at Barth and Brunner and his basic conclusion is that they're much closer than either would want to admit. Sometimes there are formal differences that cause deep divisions between folks that have substantive agreements. It's part of the reason, incidentally, why some in the FV end up in Rome.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > CalvinandHodges said:
> ...



Agreed.


----------

