# Federal Vision: Good or Bad? Why?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 24, 2005)

Let's hear it. What's so bad about it? Why is it not such a big deal as everyone is making it out to be? Who is at fault? Who's in error? Why?


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 24, 2005)

I think it would be easier to say what's good about it!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 24, 2005)




----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 24, 2005)

So, have at it then ... Let's hear it!


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 24, 2005)

I think they have some good things to say. I think they need to do a better job of saying them, though. This, coupled with the fact that they try to do Biblical Theology apart from Systematic Theology is what leads to so much confusion and error. I have benefited greatly from Doug Wilson's writings in particular, and I think that if you keep yourself balanced with the writings of Calvin, Berkhof, Hodge, Reymond, Turretin, etc., then you can profit greatly from reading Wilson, Randy Booth, and others. The key, though, is discernment.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 24, 2005)

Read _The Federal Vision_ (the book). If you don't know what is wrong then, take a systematics course. Or read Tractarian stuff, or Medieval sacramental stuff. It's all the same.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Read _The Federal Vision_ (the book). If you don't know what is wrong then, take a systematics course. Or read Tractarian stuff, or Medieval sacramental stuff. It's all the same.



I've read a lot of their writings and I firmly believe they are in error on many subjects. I also find their attitude towards stirring up controversy to be, at the very least, immature.

I have taken 2 systematic courses already, thank you.  Not to mention, I've read a few full Systematic Theology volumes and 1/4 of Institutes in my spare time. Not to boast, but I feel like you find me to be ignorant on many issues, when I am not. I simply posted this thread to see people's reasonings behind either liking or not liking the FV position, while I myself am personally already opposed to it from the reading I have done concerning it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Gabriel,

I did not intend to say you were ignorant. What I meant was if someone read that material and did not find blatant errors, it would be because of a lack of understanding of systematics. My post was a "general" comment, not directed at you.

I guess the other reason is that I have probably written 400-500 posts on the Federal Vision/Auburn theology on the board, and don't really have time now to rehash them. If you do a couple of searches, you'll have reading material for a week or more.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 24, 2005)

The biggest problem with FV is that there is no real direction to it, in that the proponents are hardly monolithic. For example, Schlissel is a big NT Wright fan and Wilson does not seem to be as thrilled with Wright and NPP. One common theme that I see is the redefinition of covenant, which leads to a redefinition of justification, election, perseverance, etc.

One thing I keep hearing though is that they are looking at Scripture from a Historical/Redemptive viewpoint vs ??????


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Gabriel,
> 
> I did not intend to say you were ignorant. What I meant was if someone read that material and did not find blatant errors, it would be because of a lack of understanding of systematics. My post was a "general" comment, not directed at you.
> ...



My mistake, I saw that as directed towards me as the author of the thread. 

I realize a lot has been written on this, but there's not much about it near the top of any of our forums here. And, I've been reading a lot of disturbing writings of affirmation in regards to their teaching and Doug Wilson's teachings, and wanted to know what the general consensus on this board was regarding it.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 24, 2005)

I can tell you what the FV stuff looks like from my very Baptist perspective. I've never actually met (that I can recall) a Presbyterian in real life.  The FV stuff looks like most of the other stuff that I see posted here on a daily basis by Presbyterian members. I've seen Matt refer to Wilson and these other guys as damnable heretics, but their central teachings seem virtually indistinguishable from what many of you guys confess on this board. I do believe that the NPP is another gospel, damnable heresy. Let them be anathema. No sympathizers are here, are there? I haven't seen any. Wilson's flavor of the FV stuff, though, looks to this Baptist like consistent covenantalism. I've read a lot of Wilson (some of which is excellent like "Reforming Marriage" and much of which I don't care for like "Reformed Is Not Enough"), and I've never once read anything by him for which he could be found guilty in a church court of damnable heresy. He is cozy with damnable heretics, to be sure, and he's certainly guilty of sarcasm and arrogance and silliness. He even calls Roman Catholics brothers. I suppose I view Baptists, though, as one more step removed from Rome than Presbyterians -- "thorough Reformers" as John Q. Adams would say. As for all the heated arguments surrounding Doug Wilson and the cries of damnable heresy from the Internet community, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 24, 2005)

> *doulosChristou:*
> I don't understand what all the fuss is about.



Due, no doubt, to a lack of understanding of proper CT


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 24, 2005)

Gregory,

Matt has a critique of Wilson's _"Reformed" Is Not Enough_ here, which may clarify some of the differences.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 24, 2005)

Greg,

Most people would call Wilson erroneous and not heretical though they would not spare other FV members the razzie.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 24, 2005)

Yes, I had read that back when Matt first wrote it. Do the Presbyterians here agree with Matt that Wilson has "crossed the line from error to heresy" and is guilty of "blatant heresy" in his book _Reformed is Not Enough_? I don't see it. My guess is that a lot of you guys would say that Matt has misunderstood/mischaracterized Wilson. Has the church (PCA or OPC) condemned Wilson's book as heretical?


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 24, 2005)

I would not condemn Wilson as a heretic based on the writings I have read and statements he has made regarding his theology. Besides Paedocommunion and the RPW I'm not sure that Wilson and I disagree on much beyond the terminology we might employ.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Greg,
> 
> Most people would call Wilson erroneous and not heretical though they would not spare other FV members the razzie.



Yes, he certainly is erroneous. From my (again, very Baptist) perspective, his errors are paedocommunion, paedobaptism, and acceptance of Roman Catholic baptisms. I disagree with Matt that he "overthrows justification by faith alone."


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One thing I keep hearing though is that they are looking at Scripture from a Historical/Redemptive viewpoint vs ??????



Wayne,

They consider their viewpoint to be redemptive-historical versus systematic. Like I said, they try to do Biblical Theology apart from Systematic Theology, or at the very least, they force Systematics to bend the knee to redemptive-historical theology. They prefer to look at salvation and Covenant Theology from the perspective of _historia salutis_ rather than the _ordo salutis_. Of course, we should not be surprised at this, because the great Reformed theologians of the last century and as far back as Geerhardus Vos have been doing the same thing. The result is that many Reformed seminaries, and in particular, Westminster in Philly, do not even really have a Systematics department anymore. ST at WTS is basically BT under systematic headings. So the Reformed church is basically reaping what it has sown in regards to the Federal Vision. 

Now, neither disciplines (BT and ST) are wrong in and of themselves. But the key is to utilize both. BT can enlighten us on Biblical themes that are sometimes missed when employing a strictly Systematic study of theology, while ST helps set the limits as to where BT can go. I really think that if the FV's would keep in mind that logic and systematics are NOT evil, but are God's gifts to the church, they would realize why some of the things they teach are so troubling (I have in mind particularly Norman Shephard here).

[Edited on 25-1-2005 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> I would not condemn Wilson as a heretic based on the writings I have read and statements he has made regarding his theology. Besides Paedocommunion and the RPW I'm not sure that Wilson and I disagree on much beyond the terminology we might employ.



Ditto
Wilson runs his mouth at times when silence is the better course of wisdom. His blog can be either very good or very bad.

[Edited on 1--25-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 24, 2005)

Wilson's problem is that he is 1) ignorant of theology, 2) ignorant of Historical theology, 3) accepts most of the tenants of the Federal vision, and 4) says he believes justificaiton as Wesmtisnter teaches it.

Put it another way, because he is "buddy buddy" with the heretics, he accepts much of what they say, while, playing it safe, he says he still follows Westminster, with certain exceptions. So, depending upon what side of his mouth he speak out of, you can get just about anything given the desire to speak out on a given issue. 

James has a term for such men:

James 1:8, "he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."

Psalm 119:113, "I hate the double-minded, but I love your law."

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## openairboy (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Let's hear it. What's so bad about it? Why is it not such a big deal as everyone is making it out to be? Who is at fault? Who's in error? Why?



It's a little bit like the end of the Cold War. The U.S. didn't really know what to do with our military might, so we start whoop'n Saddam and the Middle East. Maybe not, but I just figured i would throw that out.

Part of the problem, I believe, is that people (although one person mentioned it) often think of it as a "movement" and monolithic. 

Honestly, I think a big part of the controversy is the nature of the questions being asked and the way theology is done. I believe there is an element of a generational type gap in the discussion or "worldview". For example, the way a poet looks at the world compared to a scientist is much, much different. They can look at the same thing and come away with completely different understandings. That, I believe, is part of the difference. The scientist will scoff at the poet and declares that he is "unscientific", "a flake", "unclear", "muddled" and the poet lies in the field and wonders if the scientist has any "affections", "he's been misunderstood", etc.

It's a little like Gordon Clark and Robbins seeking to lambast Van Til.

openairboy

[Edited on 25-1-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



 Great post Eddie. Hit the nail right upon its head. Whenever Biblical Theology divorces itself from systematic theology trouble is going to brew, and viceversa. Witsius tried to remedy a big battle between BTs and STs in his time. It might help to remember that controversy in future times. In Witsius' day the BT camp was leaning in some weird directions...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 25, 2005)

I love Vos and love BT, but if you don't think of things systematically while also thinking of them in a BT context, you'll end up with weird views.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 25, 2005)

In my humble opinion, the Federal Vision is best thought of in terms of a pendulum swing that began as an effort to address real errors that had developed, but the result ends up being new errors in the opposite direction. So because faith in the modern church is too subjective, in reaction the FV errors by making the faith totally objective. Norman Shepherd correctly sees rampant antinomian-ism in the church, but the correction ends up muddying up the doctrine of sola fide. Modern Evangelicals have no clue about the efficacy of the sacraments, but to address that error they put forth what amounts to an Opus Operatum view of the sacraments. 

So the problems the FV seeks to address are real, it is just that their cure opens up more problems in the opposite direction. The key is seek a proper balance and always look for areas in our own theology where we are vulnerable to "pendulum swings" ourselves.







[Edited on 25-1-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 25, 2005)

As Richard Pratt says, "because the deck of life is always shifting, balance is nothing more than momentary synchronicity".

Boy, do I miss his lectures.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Jan 25, 2005)

*Ignorant Federal Vision*

Dear Matthew, 

Oh what a wonderful forthright response! So good to see the straightforward answer. ROTFLOL

[Edited on 25-1-2005 by CalsFarmer]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 25, 2005)

?


----------

