# Federal Vision Spreading To Baptists? James White & Andrew Sandlin



## psycheives

Apologia Studios/Apologia Radio/Dr. James White/Jeff Durbin etc's 2019 Reformed Con seems to have booked both Federal Vision's Andrew Sandlin and Doug Wilson's Associate Pastor Toby Sumpter with his Cross Politic Podcast.

https://reformcon.org/






*R. Scott Clark's warnings and concerns are founded: *https://heidelblog.net/2019/11/just...n-of-the-federal-visionists-and-their-allies/

*Ask Doug: Could a Reformed Baptist hold to The Federal Vision?*

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 5


----------



## Elizabeth

When I listened to White's reply to the concerns on A/O, I was a bit troubled. Basically (to my ear) he seemed to say that these matters are simply adiaphora, and that by questioning Wilson (who White finds to be a brilliant fellow), one is simply being a 'fundamentalist'.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Wilson's fake-repentance a few years ago was marketing move of sheer genius.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Dachaser

Elizabeth said:


> When I listened to White's reply to the concerns on A/O, I was a bit troubled. Basically (to my ear) he seemed to say that these matters are simply adiaphora, and that by questioning Wilson (who White finds to be a brilliant fellow), one is simply being a 'fundamentalist'.


isn't a fundamentalist though merely a Baptist who upholds the essentials of the Faith, which FV is not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

You can't hold to FV and be a member of the PB so that option should not really be there so I have removed it. If this is being explained away then I'm concerned. But not sure this is any different than what is already happening or happened in the PCA.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> isn't a fundamentalist though merely a Baptist who upholds the essentials of the Faith, which FV is not?



"Fundamentalist" today is basically a derogatory term to mean "someone who is slightly more strict than I am."

Reactions: Like 9 | Informative 1 | Amen 2 | Funny 6


----------



## jw

BayouHuguenot said:


> "Fundamentalist" today is basically a derogatory term to mean "someone who is slightly more strict than I am."


That’s just something fundamentalists say, Jacob.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 7


----------



## Elizabeth

I should have added 'rabid' to "fundamentalist". That's how White was using the term, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark

It's too bad White is rubbing elbows with them and his explanation was cheesy. That said, I doubt Apologia is close to FV the way Clark implies. Most of what I see comes down to cultural conservatism, something they do rather well while other denominations don't.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

How come there's no "Not concerned" option?

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How come there's no "Not concerned" option?


Moderating. I have now added that option in place of the pro FV option I deleted as noted above.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Not concerned.

Apologia (_as Baptists_) partnering with FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues is no more concerning than Apologia (_as Baptists_) partnering with non-FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1 | Sad 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Not concerned.
> 
> Apologia (_as Baptists_) partnering with FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues is no more concerning than Apologia (_as Baptists_) partnering with non-FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues.



Except that there is a massive difference, as Federal Visionism arguably overturns justification by faith alone.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 5 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

It's hard to take Dr Clark seriously on these matters, since his articles tend to read more like a conspiracy theory web than something written by an erudite professor of theology. His bold mischaracterization of the tweet from Mr Wedgeworth alone is worth a chuckle. Mr Wedgeworth's actual viewpoint on the FV is not, as Clark incorrectly states, that the FV does not exist, but that there are at least three distinct (but related) paradigms within the FV movement. His analysis tends to be a lot more intelligent than Clark's "most things I disagree with (including Piper!) are connected to FV and all FV is basically the same."

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Except that there is a massive difference, as Federal Visionism arguably overturns justification by faith alone.



None of which has anything to do with the areas in which Apologia has partnered with certain FV leaning paedobaptists.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> None of which has anything to do with the areas in which Apologia has partnered with certain FV leaning paedobaptists.



So, partnering with people who hold dubious views on justification by faith alone does not concern you?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Rejoicing 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Reformed Covenanter said:


> So, partnering with people who hold dubious views on justification by faith alone does not concern you?



Well, James White was an elder of my church for six of the seven years I've been a member there and is also a friend of mine. He's actually also debated Doug Wilson on this topic and his point of view on this matter couldn't be more clear.

So, no. It doesn't really concern me one bit.

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Here's a much better question to ask:

WHY is Apologia "partnering" with the Wilsonites? What WORK are they accomplishing? Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?


Help me out here:

1. What area?

2. What is "heavy-lifting"?

3. What is "NOT doing it"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well, James White was an elder of my church for six of the seven years I've been a member there and is also a friend of mine.



I have followed his work on and off for 17 years, and he actually preached at my church about 18 months ago (I could not attend for health reasons). These factors make me much more concerned that he is associating with the Wilsonites. 



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> He's actually also debated Doug Wilson on this topic and his point of view on this matter couldn't be more clear.



Again, this factor is all the more reason to be concerned that he is wanting to give a platform to such people. Surely he must know how slippery and dangerous they are. 



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?



I recall years ago hearing people say that we should give the FVers/Wilsonites a pass because they do so much great work on the family and culture, which others were not doing. Maybe others could be doing more, but this approach is surely setting family and cultural issues above the gospel. Besides, there was a fair lot of legalism and "creative" exegesis going on in FV cultural commentary.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Amen 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## RamistThomist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> He's actually also debated Doug Wilson on this topic and his point of view on this matter couldn't be more clear.



I listened to it when it first came out. That was more of a "Friendly disagreement" than one of White's typical debates.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 4


----------



## Dachaser

Elizabeth said:


> I should have added 'rabid' to "fundamentalist". That's how White was using the term, in my opinion.


One can fault it's judgemental stance, but not it's theology regarding salvation.


----------



## psycheives

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How come there's no "Not concerned" option?


There was! Chris deleted it. But now added it back w/o the original FV comment attached.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

I used to love Dr. Clark’s work but his attitude of “Everything I don’t like is Federal Vision/neonomianism!” Has put me off his work unfortunately. 

The insinuation that Jeff Durbin and Dr. White are forgoing justification by Faith alone is absurd. 

It’s on the level of Pulpit and Pen conspiracy theory and six degrees of Kevin Bacon guilt by association in my opinion.

Why are people gravitating toward Wilson, Durbin, and co’s method of cultural engagement? Honestly in my opinion it’s because the church has surrendered that to the modernists and Tolerance Mafia and favored a weak method of cultural apologetic that shames any use of the serrated edge of the gospel and apologetics.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## RamistThomist

With the exception of the Revoice guys in the PCA, who in the NAPARC are abandoning the culture to the Tolerance Mafia? 

No, White isn't compromising justification by faith alone. But for him to associate with a group that "still affirms what I wrote in the FV Joint Statement" is troubling.

Reactions: Like 9 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

FV theology is similar in a lot of ways to Book of Concord Lutheranism. In some respects, like christology, the errors of Lutherans are far more severe. I'm not a Lutheran, I don't worship with Lutherans if there's a Reformed Church around, and I pray that Lutherans would come to a better understanding of the truth, but if I were to see that a Lutheran were speaking at a conference, I wouldn't sound the alarm, and I wouldn't condemn others for associating with them, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing moderate FV types treated more like Lutherans and less like Arians. Sure, they shouldn't be able to teach their errors in Reformed Churches, but moderation in rhetoric and charity in judgments would be good in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> No, White isn't compromising justification by faith alone. But for him to associate with a group that "still affirms what I wrote in the FV Joint Statement" is troubling.



 and I would also agree that R. Scott Clark goes a bit overboard in asserting that anyone who disagrees with him is pro-Federal Vision. Sadly, though, this tendency is nothing new. Back when theonomy was still a hot topic, many of us got frustrated with him on this very point as it was harming the anti-FV case to yoke all the theonomists with the FV. Now, that is not to say that there was not a link at all between the theonomy movement and the FV, but it should have been more clearly acknowledged that one could be a theonomist without being an FVer. 

That said, for those who oppose the FV to be giving a platform to someone who still upholds FV theology - even if they have abandoned the label - is a serious cause for concern and they should be kindly admonished to give up these associations.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> With the exception of the Revoice guys in the PCA, who in the NAPARC are abandoning the culture to the Tolerance Mafia?
> 
> No, White isn't compromising justification by faith alone. But for him to associate with a group that "still affirms what I wrote in the FV Joint Statement" is troubling.



Has the former PCA RE in Houston who ran on a pro sodomite, pro abortion ticket been church disciplined? If not why not? Why has everyone just forgotten all about that? 

Why can P&R publishing publish a book that denies historic Reformed teaching on men and women, have it endorsed by big names, and anyone who disagrees is labeled as a sympathizer of DW and Vision Forum?

This type of thing is a symptom of a systemic issue in the PCA and NAPARC. It shows that we’re far more affected by the culture and it’s benevolent Enlightenment secular humanism than we realize. 

Young people see this and they’re far more perceptive then we realize and far more susceptible to people who will promise them a way out of all that. Until we get folks willing to be straight up and uncompromising like the Crosspolitic, DW folks, we’ll see younger people gravitate to this more of a no holds barred engagement with the root and branch of the Militant Secularism engulfing our nation. 


This entire thing belies one big issue though,
Don’t Baptists deny the objectivity of the Covenant and therefore it’s impossible for them to be FV?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Charles Johnson said:


> FV theology is similar in a lot of ways to Book of Concord Lutheranism. In some respects, like christology, the errors of Lutherans are far more severe. I'm not a Lutheran, I don't worship with Lutherans if there's a Reformed Church around, and I pray that Lutherans would come to a better understanding of the truth, but if I were to see that a Lutheran were speaking at a conference, I wouldn't sound the alarm, and I wouldn't condemn others for associating with them, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing moderate FV types treated more like Lutherans and less like Arians. Sure, they shouldn't be able to teach their errors in Reformed Churches, but moderation in rhetoric and charity in judgments would be good in my opinion.



I agree with this. Among the strains of FV the quasi Lutheran ones can be made peace with.


----------



## BottleOfTears

Charles Johnson said:


> FV theology is similar in a lot of ways to Book of Concord Lutheranism. In some respects, like christology, the errors of Lutherans are far more severe. I'm not a Lutheran, I don't worship with Lutherans if there's a Reformed Church around, and I pray that Lutherans would come to a better understanding of the truth, but if I were to see that a Lutheran were speaking at a conference, I wouldn't sound the alarm, and I wouldn't condemn others for associating with them, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing moderate FV types treated more like Lutherans and less like Arians. Sure, they shouldn't be able to teach their errors in Reformed Churches, but moderation in rhetoric and charity in judgments would be good in my opinion.


I wasn't aware Lutherans were in the business of denying/undermining justification by faith alone.

Also, Lutherans are very clear that they are Lutherans, FV people claim to be Reformed, and are a lot more vague in what they believe. That's why its more of an issue, people read Doug Wilson for his cultural commentary and such, and this other stuff gets stuck in under the radar. It's a lot harder to parse the good from the bad in those situations.

Another thing is, even if James White was right that Baptists can't be FV so him and his crew are safe from such errors, does he not realise lots of non-baptists listen/watch his material? Is he fine with just exposing them to heresy?

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1 | Amen 3 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BottleOfTears said:


> I wasn't aware Lutherans were in the business of denying/undermining justification by faith alone.
> 
> Also, Lutherans are very clear that they are Lutherans, FV people claim to be Reformed, and are a lot more vague in what they believe. That's why its more of an issue, people read Doug Wilson for his cultural commentary and such, and this other stuff gets stuck in under the radar. It's a lot harder to parse the good from the bad in those situations.
> 
> Another thing is, even if James White was right that Baptists can't be FV so him and his crew are safe from such errors, does he not realise lots of non-baptists listen/watch his material? Is he fine with just exposing them to heresy?



When you say FV you have to differentiate. DW has put out hours and reams of material defending justification by faith alone and attacking Rome. 

There are some FVists who have put out reams of material that sound blatantly Romanist.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Has the former PCA RE in Houston who ran on a pro sodomite, pro abortion ticket been church disciplined? If not why not? Why has everyone just forgotten all about that?
> 
> Why can P&R publishing publish a book that denies historic Reformed teaching on men and women, have it endorsed by big names, and anyone who disagrees is labeled as a sympathizer of DW and Vision Forum?
> 
> This type of thing is a symptom of a systemic issue in the PCA and NAPARC. It shows that we’re far more affected by the culture and it’s benevolent Enlightenment secular humanism than we realize.
> 
> Young people see this and they’re far more perceptive then we realize and far more susceptible to people who will promise them a way out of all that. Until we get folks willing to be straight up and uncompromising like the Crosspolitic, DW folks, we’ll see younger people gravitate to this more of a no holds barred engagement with the root and branch of the Militant Secularism engulfing our nation.
> 
> 
> This entire thing belies one big issue though,
> Don’t Baptists deny the objectivity of the Covenant and therefore it’s impossible for them to be FV?


What do you mean that we deny the objectivity?


----------



## Dachaser

Charles Johnson said:


> FV theology is similar in a lot of ways to Book of Concord Lutheranism. In some respects, like christology, the errors of Lutherans are far more severe. I'm not a Lutheran, I don't worship with Lutherans if there's a Reformed Church around, and I pray that Lutherans would come to a better understanding of the truth, but if I were to see that a Lutheran were speaking at a conference, I wouldn't sound the alarm, and I wouldn't condemn others for associating with them, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing moderate FV types treated more like Lutherans and less like Arians. Sure, they shouldn't be able to teach their errors in Reformed Churches, but moderation in rhetoric and charity in judgments would be good in my opinion.


I thought Luther now agreed with The Rome view on faith and good works now?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Grant Jones said:


> Help me out here:
> 
> 1. What area?
> 
> 2. What is "heavy-lifting"?
> 
> 3. What is "NOT doing it"?



Mostly with abortion abolitionism and other attempts to “reclaim” the culture. Apologia is decidedly postmillennial and they truly believe they will end abortion through their efforts. I certainly applaud the attempt, but I am a bit skeptical about the outcome.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol

Bill The Baptist said:


> Mostly with abortion abolitionism and other attempts to “reclaim” the culture. Apologia is decidedly postmillennial and they truly believe they will end abortion through their efforts. I certainly applaud the attempt, but I am a bit skeptical about the outcome.


I figured as much. However, I just don't like the assumption that unless you are doing what apologia and DW are doing regarding abortion, then you must be "NOT doing it". This is far from the truth.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Susan777

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well, James White was an elder of my church for six of the seven years I've been a member there and is also a friend of mine. He's actually also debated Doug Wilson on this topic and his point of view on this matter couldn't be more clear.
> 
> So, no. It doesn't really concern me one bit.


Why would anyone seek any degree of commonality with someone who has an adulterated (false) gospel. Wilson’s views were rightly condemned and that should be the end of it. No matter how “brilliant” he is, he ought not be given any platform anywhere. Sola Fides is the heart of the Gospel, not Wilson’s tired old Romish paradigm.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1 | Rejoicing 2


----------



## RamistThomist

14 years ago on PB if anyone gave these quasi-defenses of DW, they would have been banned. I am glad y'all aren't being banned. It's good for you to be here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Dachaser said:


> What do you mean that we deny the objectivity?



I don’t want to derail the thread but is the New Covenant breakable?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here is a blog post from a friend of mine on the subject.

N.B. The image in the blog is not a picture of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Delahunt

Utterly unconcerned. There may be overlap in some eschatalogical areas (I have not seen if James White has switched from amil to post-mil, last I heard was that he was an amil going to a post-mil church), but knowing James White's admiration of consistency, I could see him having some respect for his perception of consistency for a paedobaptism/paedocommunion CREC member such as DW. That said, I am not concerned that he will take on any sort of FV - a Baptist FV is really quite a contradiction in terms. I should certainly be interested to talk with a Baptist FV, much in the same way I would be interested in talking with an amil dispensationalist.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Silas22

Grant Jones said:


> I figured as much. However, I just don't like the assumption that unless you are doing what apologia and DW are doing regarding abortion, then you must be "NOT doing it". This is far from the truth.



This is a good word. 

Just because you don't see flashy/click-bait videos of NAPARC leaders doing ministry floating around on social media, doesn't mean work isn't getting done. It's easy for us to assume that the most vocal are getting the most done.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I don’t want to derail the thread but is the New Covenant breakable?


No, as it is unconditional.


----------



## RamistThomist

Quiz:

What is one of the marks of a true church?
a) True preaching of the Gospel
b) A Theology that "bites back."
c) Well, actually....
d) both (b) and (c)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Delahunt said:


> Utterly unconcerned. There may be overlap in some eschatalogical areas (I have not seen if James White has switched from amil to post-mil, l*ast I heard was that he was an amil going to a post-mil church*), but knowing James White's admiration of consistency, I could see him having some respect for his perception of consistency for a paedobaptism/paedocommunion CREC member such as DW. That said, I am not concerned that he will take on any sort of FV - a Baptist FV is really quite a contradiction in terms. I should certainly be interested to talk with a Baptist FV, much in the same way I would be interested in talking with an amil dispensationalist.



To be clear, James White has been going to Post-Mill churches for the last 30 years.

He left PRBC (a Post-Mill church) to go to Apologia (a Post-Mill church). 

He himself has been and still remains an Amill.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Josh Williamson

Should we also be concerned that R.C. Sproul had Wilson speak at his conference and that Ligonier still makes Wilson's articles and sermons available on their website?

It seems that of late Wilson has become the social-media whipping boy, with anyone who remotely appears friendly towards him being denounced etc. I wonder if for the sake of consistency Ligonier and Sproul should also be denounced?

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/teachers/douglas-wilson/?type=Conference&sort=recent

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## psycheives

Josh Williamson said:


> Should we also be concerned that R.C. Sproul had Wilson speak at his conference and that Ligonier still makes Wilson's articles and sermons available on their website? ... I wonder if for the sake of consistency Ligonier and Sproul should also be denounced



These Ligonier Conferences were in 2002 and 2003.

So a timeline might help us see how things unfolded:
2002 Jun 22, RPCUS called 4 FV to repent
2003 Jan, 4 FV speeches examined by Pipa, Robbins, Smith and Sproul Jr
2003 Aug, Knox Colloquium with the 4 FV (meeting for private correction)
2003 Aug, Sandlin, Shepherd and 4 others joined the FV movement
2004 OPC began study committee

So FV hadn't blown up and was probably still limited to the 4, who claimed they were teachable and were meeting for discussions. So not likely that Wilson was ruled out yet. FV Joint Statement didn't come until 2007. And the denominational reports against FV were as follows: 2006 OPC, 2007 PCA and URC, 2008 RPCNA, 2009 RCUS, etc

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 3


----------



## Josh Williamson

psycheives said:


> These Ligonier Conferences were in 2002 and 2003.
> 
> So a timeline might help us see how things unfolded:
> 2002 Jun 22, RPCUS called 4 FV to repent
> 2003 Jan, 4 FV speeches examined by Pipa, Robbins, Smith and Sproul Jr
> 2003 Aug, Knox Colloquium with the 4 FV (meeting for private correction)
> 2003 Aug, Sandlin, Shepherd and 4 others joined the FV movement
> 2004 OPC began study committee
> 
> So FV hadn't blown up and was probably still limited to the 4, who claimed they were teachable and were meeting for discussions. So not likely that Wilson was ruled out yet. FV Joint Statement didn't come until 2007. And the denominational reports against FV were as follows: 2006 OPC, 2007 PCA and URC, 2008 RPCNA, 2009 RCUS, etc



Yet now it has blown up, and they still sell Wilson's material and have his articles online. It seems like they stand by their speakers (I believe he spoke in 2000 & 2003). I was first introduced to Wilson via a Ligonier DVD

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Has the former PCA RE in Houston who ran on a pro sodomite, pro abortion ticket been church disciplined? If not why not? Why has everyone just forgotten all about that?
> 
> Why can P&R publishing publish a book that denies historic Reformed teaching on men and women, have it endorsed by big names, and anyone who disagrees is labeled as a sympathizer of DW and Vision Forum?
> 
> This type of thing is a symptom of a systemic issue in the PCA and NAPARC. It shows that we’re far more affected by the culture and it’s benevolent Enlightenment secular humanism than we realize.
> 
> Young people see this and they’re far more perceptive then we realize and far more susceptible to people who will promise them a way out of all that. Until we get folks willing to be straight up and uncompromising like the Crosspolitic, DW folks, we’ll see younger people gravitate to this more of a no holds barred engagement with the root and branch of the Militant Secularism engulfing our nation.
> 
> 
> This entire thing belies one big issue though,
> Don’t Baptists deny the objectivity of the Covenant and therefore it’s impossible for them to be FV?



Hi, what’s the P&R book you’re referring to? Personally, I would like to see a little more fight from orthodox Presbyterians, (but Wilson ain’t where it’s at) Thanks!


----------



## Taylor

A.Joseph said:


> Hi, what’s the P&R book you’re referring to? Personally, I would like to see a little more fight from orthodox Presbyterians, (but Wilson ain’t where it’s at) Thanks!



Look up the most recent P&R books by Aimee Byrd and Rachel Green Miller.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK

Does FV teach that I, through obedience to a covenant, can be more righteous than the other guy? Then yes, I am very concerned about my fellow Baptists.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

A.Joseph said:


> Hi, what’s the P&R book you’re referring to? Personally, I would like to see a little more fight from orthodox Presbyterians, (but Wilson ain’t where it’s at) Thanks!



Beyond Authority and Submission. I agree that NAPARC needs a little more willingness to fight. Generation Z can see it and wants it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

As someone who voted for the third option, I am genuinely alarmed both by the crude partisanship of the Particular Baptists commenting here (seeming not to wish to condemn one of their boys) and by the fact that (at the time of writing) 34% of respondents have replied that they are not concerned by these developments. Has zeal against the Federal Vision really reached such a low ebb? 

The fact that you are not concerned about Federal Visionists being given a platform by Particular Baptists when numerous Reformed churches, with whom you must largely agree with on soteriology, have condemned this teaching as heterodox is very troubling.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 9


----------



## A.Joseph

Great points, I find Miller as troubling as Wilson for reasons already expressed by others much more qualified to say so. I always saw Byrd as pretty harmless but if my good reformed brothers in Christ are concerned then count me in as well.
*review of Miller’s book https://mereorthodoxy.com/book-review-beyond-authority-and-submission/
sorry to get off topic

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

So obviously White is being seduced by a type of culture war that is always knocking at the church door looking to devour it, but I agree that we have to find a proper, better way to hold fast against the various threats. I think RC Sproul was one of the best contemporary voices taking on all these various threats with sound and consistent theology/exegesis. But there must be many strong voices speaking as one faithful body in these confusing and troubling times.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Charles Johnson

Reformed Covenanter said:


> As someone who voted for the third option, I am genuinely alarmed both by the crude partisanship of the Particular Baptists commenting here (seeming not to wish to condemn one of their boys) and by the fact that (at the time of writing) 34% of respondents have replied that they are not concerned by these developments. Has zeal against the Federal Vision really reached such a low ebb?
> 
> The fact that you are not concerned about Federal Visionists being given a platform by Particular Baptists when numerous Reformed churches, with whom you must largely agree with on soteriology, have condemned this teaching as heterodox is very troubling.


I'll try to give an apology for the skepticism. I don't think anyone doubts that _some_ or _many_ federal visionists have undermined the foundation of the Christian faith. I, for one, have no problem with disassociation from such persons or with calling others to do the same. The skepticism results from the following points:
1) The label _Federal Vision_ is not particularly descriptive. a) It's a bit of a bogeyman on the twitterverse and blogosphere, so if I see that one person has said another person has something to do with the 'federal vision', I haven't actual learned anything meaningful about the accused. It's like when internet conservatives call someone 'marxist'. Ok, they're probably not a Trump voter, but are they in the jungle fighting to overthrow Batista, or are they just a garden variety democrat? and b) even if someone calls or called themselves a federal visionist, all it actual means is that they affirm the federal vision statement, which is not _inherently_ heretical. It certainly teaches a lot of errors, like baptismal regeneration and the possibility of irrational/contradiction theology (both taught by Lutherans!), but knowing that one affirms it does not _in itself _tell me they're heretical. Are these teachers in this conference heretical? It's possible, but I'm not going to simply assume it's the case without good evidence to that effect.
2) Why should what a baptist church in Arizona does in its conference be a cause for me to lose sleep? Not only is it not my church or denomination, it's not even presbyterian/reformed. FV teachers in the PCA? That would concern me. In the OPC? That would also concern me. In a baptist church in Arizona? Let me be concerned first about the Papists. Those are definite heretics in my community. These are maybe-heretics very far away.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

A.Joseph said:


> So obviously White is being seduced by a type of culture war that is always knocking at the church door looking to devour it, but I agree that we have to find a proper, better way to hold fast against the various threats. I think RC Sproul was one of the best contemporary voices taking on all these various threats with sound and consistent theology/exegesis. But there must be many strong voices speaking as one faithful body in these confusing and troubling times.




The problem that I see is that the church in America bifurcated the role of the church and the gospel. This lead to Modernists becoming all Social Gospel and social action with no gospel or evangelism and the evangelicals becoming all evangelism with no action as a reaction against this, leading to the fear of not wanting to be the Moral Majority again and completely becoming milquetoast and surrendering to cries of hurt feelings. Meanwhile, apostate denominations send ministers to "bless" child sacrifice centers and show up in their Senator's face to demand he steal from you to pay for other people's abortions. 

Hence the church struggling to recover a proper understanding of the role of these two things and civil government that the Reformers had, but we are not comfortable with due to Enlightenment assumptions.

What's worse is many leaders in the church or people anointed as spokesmen for the church are content with losing because they have some sort of heady idealization of persecution. If we have the blessing of liberty (for now) why would we surrender it? If you told an old Russian Christian who lived under Communism that a Christian florist was being sued by the State for not decorating a venue for a gay marriage and we had the opportunity to cry out and force the government to abandon this action, but many Christians were saying she should just decorate the venue, they would be incensed. 

Younger folks see all of this going down, and are attempting to find leaders and vocabulary, but the culture loses their collective sanity on them and our leaders in the church are blissfully fighting battles from 2008 or worse, bringing the culture and its doctrines into the church in some sort of misguided Church Growth Strategy. 

I agree that we want to avoid being Robert Jeffress but we can't go so far as to just say "Well we'll be Raptured anyways so who cares?"

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> but we can't go so far as to just say "Well we'll be Raptured anyways so who cares?"



I am a premillennialist and not even I am saying this. Okay, I do say it when I have had a bad day, but aside from that, no one in the Reformed world is saying it.

One of the marks of a true church is the pure preaching of the gospel. It is our contention that FV jeopardizes that. Another mark is proper church discipline, and I am fairly sure Wilson's group has torpedoed that.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Covenanter said:


> As someone who voted for the third option, I am genuinely alarmed both by the crude partisanship of the Particular Baptists commenting here (seeming not to wish to condemn one of their boys) and by the fact that (at the time of writing) 34% of respondents have replied that they are not concerned by these developments. Has zeal against the Federal Vision really reached such a low ebb?
> 
> The fact that you are not concerned about Federal Visionists being given a platform by Particular Baptists when numerous Reformed churches, with whom you must largely agree with on soteriology, have condemned this teaching as heterodox is very troubling.


Could it be due to many not even aware of what FV teaches, as never heard of it in Baptist circles until became a RB?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am a premillennialist and not even I am saying this. Okay, I do say it when I have had a bad day, but aside from that, no one in the Reformed world is saying it.



I unfortunately hear it all the time from Dispensationalists in my neck of the woods. It's baffling to me how cavalier it's said too.



BayouHuguenot said:


> One of the marks of a true church is the pure preaching of the gospel. It is our contention that FV jeopardizes that. Another mark is proper church discipline, and I am fairly sure Wilson's group has torpedoed that.



I'm not defending FV or DW. My contentions simply are thus:

1. FV is not monolithic

2. "Everything I don't like is FV and therefore worthless!" is not a good attitude. FV folks have a point when they call out thin complementarianism and tolerance for Revoice theology. Their solution in the form of their understanding of covenants are wrong yes. However not all of their practical solutions are wrong.

3. Apologia and Dr. White are not FV and are not denying Sola Fide.

4. The younger generation are seeing the NAPARC denoms (rightly or wrongly) as either totally oblivious to these concerns being addressed by Apologia and DW or actively pursuing the very theology and politics that has created these problems.

Reactions: Like 4 | Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> 4. The younger generation are seeing the NAPARC denoms (rightly or wrongly) as either totally oblivious to these concerns being addressed by Apologia and DW or actively pursuing the very theology and politics that has created these problems.



Ever thought that this is due to the fact that now you can only be widely "accepted" by the christian culture if you engage in Social Media Platform Wars? Faithful pastors should not feel as if they are "silent" or "irrelevant" just because they are not screaming on Social Media, Documentaries, podcasts, and Conferences. Faithful Church is sitting under the regular and faithful means of grace and trusting in the power of hearing that gospel and drawing others to its power. Joyfully abiding in and being obedient to that Word. Loving your neighbors and seeking ways to bring them under that Preached Word. This is how nations are changed. Nehemiah 8-9 gives us a good example of this power.

NKJV - Nehemiah 8 & 9


> 1 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel.
> 2 So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly of men and women and all who could hear with understanding on the first day of the seventh month.
> 3 Then he read from it in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate from morning until midday, before the men and women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.
> 4 So Ezra the scribe stood on a platform of wood which they had made for the purpose; and beside him, at his right hand, stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Urijah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah; and at his left hand Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.
> 5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up.
> 6 And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. Then all the people answered, "Amen, Amen!" while lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground.
> 7 Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law; and the people stood in their place.
> 8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.
> 9 And Nehemiah, who was the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, "This day is holy to the Lord your God; do not mourn nor weep." For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the Law.
> 10 Then he said to them, "Go your way, eat the fat, drink the sweet, and send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not sorrow, for the joy of the Lord is your strength."
> 11 So the Levites quieted all the people, saying, "Be still, for the day is holy; do not be grieved."
> 12 And all the people went their way to eat and drink, to send portions and rejoice greatly, because they understood the words that were declared to them.
> 13 Now on the second day the heads of the fathers' houses of all the people, with the priests and Levites, were gathered to Ezra the scribe, in order to understand the words of the Law.
> 14 And they found written in the Law, which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast of the seventh month,
> 15 and that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, "Go out to the mountain, and bring olive branches, branches of oil trees, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of leafy trees, to make booths, as it is written."
> 16 Then the people went out and brought them and made themselves booths, each one on the roof of his house, or in their courtyards or the courts of the house of God, and in the open square of the Water Gate and in the open square of the Gate of Ephraim.
> 17 So the whole assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and sat under the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun until that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great gladness.
> 18 Also day by day, from the first day until the last day, he read from the Book of the Law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day there was a sacred assembly, according to the prescribed manner.
> 
> *9*
> 1 Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, in sackcloth, and with dust on their heads.
> 2 Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners; and they stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers.
> 3 And they stood up in their place and read from the Book of the Law of the Lord their God for one-fourth of the day; and for another fourth they confessed and worshiped the Lord their God.
> 4 Then Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani stood on the stairs of the Levites and cried out with a loud voice to the Lord their God.
> 5 And the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said: "Stand up and bless the Lord your God Forever and ever! "Blessed be Your glorious name, Which is exalted above all blessing and praise!
> 6 You alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, The heaven of heavens, with all their host, The earth and everything on it, The seas and all that is in them, And You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You.
> 7 "You are the Lord God, Who chose Abram, And brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, And gave him the name Abraham;
> 8 You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give the land of the Canaanites, The Hittites, the Amorites, The Perizzites, the Jebusites, And the Girgashites-- To give it to his descendants. You have performed Your words, For You are righteous.
> 9 "You saw the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, And heard their cry by the Red Sea.
> 10 You showed signs and wonders against Pharaoh, Against all his servants, And against all the people of his land. For You knew that they acted proudly against them. So You made a name for Yourself, as it is this day.
> 11 And You divided the sea before them, So that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; And their persecutors You threw into the deep, As a stone into the mighty waters.
> 12 Moreover You led them by day with a cloudy pillar, And by night with a pillar of fire, To give them light on the road Which they should travel.
> 13 "You came down also on Mount Sinai, And spoke with them from heaven, And gave them just ordinances and true laws, Good statutes and commandments.
> 14 You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, And commanded them precepts, statutes and laws, By the hand of Moses Your servant.
> 15 You gave them bread from heaven for their hunger, And brought them water out of the rock for their thirst, And told them to go in to possess the land Which You had sworn to give them.
> 16 "But they and our fathers acted proudly, Hardened their necks, And did not heed Your commandments.
> 17 They refused to obey, And they were not mindful of Your wonders That You did among them. But they hardened their necks, And in their rebellion They appointed a leader To return to their bondage. But You are God, Ready to pardon, Gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, Abundant in kindness, And did not forsake them.
> 18 "Even when they made a molded calf for themselves, And said, 'This is your god That brought you up out of Egypt,' And worked great provocations,
> 19 Yet in Your manifold mercies You did not forsake them in the wilderness. The pillar of the cloud did not depart from them by day, To lead them on the road; Nor the pillar of fire by night, To show them light, And the way they should go.
> 20 You also gave Your good Spirit to instruct them, And did not withhold Your manna from their mouth, And gave them water for their thirst.
> 21 Forty years You sustained them in the wilderness, They lacked nothing; Their clothes did not wear out And their feet did not swell.
> 22 "Moreover You gave them kingdoms and nations, And divided them into districts. So they took possession of the land of Sihon, The land of the king of Heshbon, And the land of Og king of Bashan.
> 23 You also multiplied their children as the stars of heaven, And brought them into the land Which You had told their fathers To go in and possess.
> 24 So the people went in And possessed the land; You subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, The Canaanites, And gave them into their hands, With their kings And the people of the land, That they might do with them as they wished.
> 25 And they took strong cities and a rich land, And possessed houses full of all goods, Cisterns already dug, vineyards, olive groves, And fruit trees in abundance. So they ate and were filled and grew fat, And delighted themselves in Your great goodness.
> 26 "Nevertheless they were disobedient And rebelled against You, Cast Your law behind their backs And killed Your prophets, who testified against them To turn them to Yourself; And they worked great provocations.
> 27 Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their enemies, Who oppressed them; And in the time of their trouble, When they cried to You, You heard from heaven; And according to Your abundant mercies You gave them deliverers who saved them From the hand of their enemies.
> 28 "But after they had rest, They again did evil before You. Therefore You left them in the hand of their enemies, So that they had dominion over them; Yet when they returned and cried out to You, You heard from heaven; And many times You delivered them according to Your mercies,
> 29 And testified against them, That You might bring them back to Your law. Yet they acted proudly, And did not heed Your commandments, But sinned against Your judgments, 'Which if a man does, he shall live by them.' And they shrugged their shoulders, Stiffened their necks, And would not hear.
> 30 Yet for many years You had patience with them, And testified against them by Your Spirit in Your prophets. Yet they would not listen; Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.
> 31 Nevertheless in Your great mercy You did not utterly consume them nor forsake them; For You are God, gracious and merciful.
> 32 "Now therefore, our God, The great, the mighty, and awesome God, Who keeps covenant and mercy: Do not let all the trouble seem small before You That has come upon us, Our kings and our princes, Our priests and our prophets, Our fathers and on all Your people, From the days of the kings of Assyria until this day.
> 33 However You are just in all that has befallen us; For You have dealt faithfully, But we have done wickedly.
> 34 Neither our kings nor our princes, Our priests nor our fathers, Have kept Your law, Nor heeded Your commandments and Your testimonies, With which You testified against them.
> 35 For they have not served You in their kingdom, Or in the many good things that You gave them, Or in the large and rich land which You set before them; Nor did they turn from their wicked works.
> 36 "Here we are, servants today! And the land that You gave to our fathers, To eat its fruit and its bounty, Here we are, servants in it!
> 37 And it yields much increase to the kings You have set over us, Because of our sins; Also they have dominion over our bodies and our cattle At their pleasure; And we are in great distress.
> 38 "And because of all this, We make a sure covenant, and write it; Our leaders, our Levites, and our priests seal it."
> l. The host of heaven worships You.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 3


----------



## Smeagol

*If* Doug Wilson or his affiliates do in fact teach "faith/plus something else" for Justification, then that would seem to rise to the biblical categorical level of a false teacher. If such is the case, then one should look to the book of Jude for discernment of the idea/decision to bring that individual before Christians to teach anything:

Jude 1: 12-13 (NKJV):

_12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; 
13 raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. 
_
P.S. Jude seemed a little bit more than "not concerned" with association with false teachers that *are* in our very midst (locally and nationally).__

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Smeagol

I voted for Option 3 BTW, as this seems to be the most gracious yet least blinded option. The most dangerous lies for the flock can be the ones that sound closest to the truth.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Grant Jones said:


> Ever thought that this is due to the fact that now you can only be widely "accepted" by the christian culture if you engage in Social Media Platform Wars? Faithful pastors should not feel as if they are "silent" or "irrelevant" just because they are not screaming on Social Media, Documentaries, podcasts, and Conferences. Faithful Church is sitting under the regular and faithful means of grace and trusting in the power of hearing that gospel and drawing others to its power. Joyfully abiding in and being obedient to that Word. This is how nations are changed. Nehemiah 8-9 gives us a good example of this power.
> 
> NKJV - Nehemiah 8 & 9


 

I would agree social media amplifies problems but in our modern context we’re not going to escape the discipleship machine that is our technology or society and it’s institutions. I would agree that the means of grace are primary. No one is denigrating faithful pastors who don’t have conferences, podcasts, etc. 

However TGC and other groups and leaders with outsized platforms, large churches, and outsized influence do exactly what I pointed out in my quoted post and it trickles down to people in the pews and it ultimately affects the denominations. 

Hence my question earlier on in this thread, what ever happened to that pro-homosexual marriage and agenda, pro abortion PCA elder who ran for civil magistrate? The answer is ultimately, nothing. 

At some point it needs to be addressed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

I can't say I'm well informed about other FVers, but Doug Wilson, let it not be forgotten, is a man who elevated himself to a pastoral role by improper means. He ought not to be thought of as a legitimate pastor; he should properly be condemned as a false teacher.

I'm disappointed and concerned that this man is still being given a serious hearing. And for what? That he holds (seemingly) the right views on social issues?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Sadly, it just goes to show that pink elephants in the room, become less obvious and problematic over time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant Jones said:


> *If* Doug Wilson or his affiliates do in fact teach "faith/plus something else" for Justification, then that would seem to rise to the biblical categorical level of a false teacher. If such is the case, then one should look to the book of Jude for discernment of the idea/decision to bring that individual before Christians to teach anything:
> 
> Jude 1: 12-13 (NKJV):
> 
> _12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots;
> 13 raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
> _
> P.S. Jude seemed a little bit more than "not concerned" with association with false teachers that *are* in our very midst (locally and nationally).__


We Baptists are fighting among ourselves regarding spiritual gifts, Cal or non cal, free will or Lordship salvation, do not need to add FV to the list.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> FV is not monolithic



To a degree. Nonetheless, DW still supports the FV vision statement. 


EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> "Everything I don't like is FV and therefore worthless!" is not a good attitude. FV folks have a point



I worshiped at AAPC for years. I know most of these guys. I had first-hand access to Canon Press literature before anyone else. 


EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> 3. Apologia and Dr. White are not FV and are not denying Sola Fide.



Good. Wilson, though, still affirms the opposite in the Joint-FV statement.


EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> 4. The younger generation are seeing the NAPARC denoms (rightly or wrongly) as either totally oblivious to these concerns being addressed by Apologia and DW or actively pursuing the very theology and politics that has created these problems.



What are the marks of a true church? Look into Wilson's (non) ordination history. Whether gospel or lawfully ordained, he doesn't have any marks.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Does anyone remember the Baptist Don Garlington who became a little wobbly in his theology? The Federal vision had many different strains. The main issue most seemed to have against the FV was concerning the New Paul Perspective that infiltrated the Church. 

Maybe this is a good thing so that we can revisit this issue. Sola Fide was totally under attack. It still is.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark

It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports. 

Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA _et al_) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists. 

Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.

Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, _in this life_ but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).

Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation. 

Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.

Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)

Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.

Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.

Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson

Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.

Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.

Reactions: Like 10 | Informative 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Dachaser

R. Scott Clark said:


> It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports.
> 
> Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA _et al_) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists.
> 
> Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.
> 
> Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, _in this life_ but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).
> 
> Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation.
> 
> Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.
> 
> Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)
> 
> Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.
> 
> Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.
> 
> Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson
> 
> Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.
> 
> Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.


FV theology in regards to justification seems aligned to that of NT Wright in NPP to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> FV theology in regards to justification seems aligned to that of NT Wright in NPP to me.


Many FV are fanboys of NT Wright and almost exclusively follow his Pauline exegesis or lack thereof. The NPP suffers from a covenant overload, where its the buzzword for just about everything and as a result becomes meaningless. The FV have capitalized on the the NPP redefinition of justification as being in the covenant so as to smuggle in neonomianism dressed in reformed and covenant theology garb, in the backdoor.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

R. Scott Clark said:


> It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports.
> 
> Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA _et al_) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists.
> 
> Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.
> 
> Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, _in this life_ but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).
> 
> Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation.
> 
> Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.
> 
> Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)
> 
> Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.
> 
> Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.
> 
> Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson
> 
> Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.
> 
> Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.



With no disrespect Dr. Clark you’ve called Confessional Presbyterian teaching on faith and works Neonomianism and linked Sheologians and Dr. White to teaching FV as well as implicated other men in neonomianism by logical conclusion. I respectfully submit that you’re unbalanced on this.

You’ve also enabled RGM to undermine Confessional teaching on men and women and labeled lots of folks who disagree as sympathetic to the excesses of DW and FV “patriarchalism”. I think that’s also harmful to this discussion. I don’t think anyone is endorsing abuse, rape, oppression, or anything like that.

I would submit that yes, you could implicate me as thinking that in some aspects DW, Apologia, and others have done better work on cultural engagement than the Escondido 2K theology, TGC, etc. has but I may be biased as I lean toward Puritan Postmillenialism.

With respect I think you should evaluate Steven Wedgeworth’s analysis of FV more as he’s largely correct in my opinion.

I used to love your work and I still do to some extent.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article.


Remember Dr. Clark this discussion went two ways and there was over reacting from a few different Schools of thought that opposed each other. People allow their convictions to emanate from their definition of the gospel. A faulty understanding of the gospel has caused both of the extreme opposing sides to miss the mark. There are dangers on both sides. Don't forget that.

I hope you remember the Republication discussions that took place over the years. Radical Two Kingdom discussions were prevalent and those who were espoused to the R2K position had a common ground. The OPC responded to it.

https://www.opc.org/GA/republication.html

Reactions: Rejoicing 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Remember Dr. Clark this discussion went two ways and there was over reacting from a few different Schools of thought that opposed each other. People allow their convictions to emanate from their definition of the gospel. A faulty understanding of the gospel has caused both of the extreme opposing sides to miss the mark. There are dangers on both sides. Don't forget that.
> 
> I hope you remember the Republication discussions that took place over the years. Radical Two Kingdom discussions were prevalent and those who were espoused to the R2K position had a common ground. The OPC responded to it.
> 
> https://www.opc.org/GA/republication.html




Mr. Moderator thank you for saying this. This is what I’ve been trying to say largely.


----------



## A.Joseph

A modern case can be made, will we remain on the side of Machen? Theological consistency trumps everything, while social media seems to be exacerbating various controversies. I’m an very grateful for these exchanges. I was heavy into the Crosspolitic guys for a little while, but I was ultimately left empty. I’m not saying there is no place for them, but I want to maintain my foundation above all else. It’s easy to allow the enemy to set our emphasis. Sometimes heresy can help us reset but if we are bogged down by a multitude of heresies (new, reworked and retweaked) in an already hostile world, we are being led away from our life source. I do believe the preeminence of culture war results in a subtle sacrificing of sound doctrine.

I am looking forward to that ‘Enemies in the Church’ documentary. That could be a useful tool if it doesn’t simply focus on the fringes of faith which has been featured in some of the trailers. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports.
> 
> Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA _et al_) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists.
> 
> Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.
> 
> Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, _in this life_ but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).
> 
> Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation.
> 
> Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.
> 
> Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)
> 
> Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.
> 
> Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.
> 
> Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson
> 
> Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.
> 
> Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Many FV are fanboys of NT Wright and almost exclusively follow his Pauline exegesis or lack thereof. The NPP suffers from a covenant overload, where its the buzzword for just about everything and as a result becomes meaningless. The FV have capitalized on the the NPP redefinition of justification as being in the covenant so as to smuggle in neonomianism dressed in reformed and covenant theology garb, in the backdoor.


If the FV agrees with NT Wright that Pauline Justification is not penal substitutionary, they teach another Gospel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Excuse my ignorance, but what is neonomianism? I feel like I should know, but the meaning escapes me at the moment.


arapahoepark said:


> Many FV are fanboys of NT Wright and almost exclusively follow his Pauline exegesis or lack thereof. The NPP suffers from a covenant overload, where its the buzzword for just about everything and as a result becomes meaningless. The FV have capitalized on the the NPP redefinition of justification as being in the covenant so as to smuggle in neonomianism dressed in reformed and covenant theology garb, in the backdoor.


----------



## Phil D.

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I don’t think anyone is endorsing abuse, rape, oppression, or anything like that.



No, but I for one am not a fan of engaging people surrounded by these kinds of not entirely resolved scandals in a public coffee clutch and theological chit-chat. It would seem better to simply make reference to any relevant points of theirs that may have merit in the overall discussion. Add to that the fact that Wilson still holds out against the core doctrine that the true Christian faith turns on (JBFA) and I have to ask, why amicably engage and publicly broadcast him at all? If one maintains Wilson and his ilk are the only ones addressing certain aspects of societal behavior, then why not encourage other more godly men to step into that role, or even do so themselves. Psalms 26:4 ESV; Prov. 14:7 ESV; 1 Cor. 15:33 ESV

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A.Joseph said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but what is neonomianism? I feel like I should know, but the meaning escapes me at the moment.


Short but sweet....
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/neonomism.51412/



> Page 118 has an excellent article: John _Brown of Wamphray, Richard Baxter and the Justification Controversy._ By Bruce R. Backensto
> 
> In a nutshell, Baxter taught that the faith that justifies is one that is perfected and completed - a faithfulness that has been lived out and demonstrated itself. In a sense, the faithfulness itself is seen as fulfilling the NC requirements for the Law. John Brown of Wamphray battled against this error upholding the Confessional (read Biblical) principle that the faith that justifies is always a begging and simple laying hold of Christ's righteousness. Faith itself is not the grounds for our justification but the Person and work of Christ is. Conversely, neonomianism includes the faithfulness and perfected faith of the individual as the grounds for justification. The fact is that the most perfected Saint can never offer his faith or faithfulness to God as something "Law fulfilling".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I don’t think anyone is endorsing abuse, rape, oppression, or anything like that.



Sitler's family would disagree.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sitler's family would disagree.



So Apologia and Dr. White are doing this? Anyone who disagrees with thin complementarianism is doing this? I wouldn’t say so. Even if they have commended something that DW is correct on. Yes, even those in error can be correct on certain things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> So Apologia and Dr. White are doing this? Anyone who disagrees with thin complementarianism is doing this? I wouldn’t say so. Even if they have commended something that DW is correct on. Yes, even those in error can be correct on certain things.



No, but they are partnering with people who:
a) are still associated with sexually deviant scandals which aren't quite cleared.
b) still affirm the FV Joint Statement, which has been formally condemned by NAPARC.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Charles Johnson said:


> It's hard to take Dr Clark seriously on these matters, since his articles tend to read more like a conspiracy theory web than something written by an erudite professor of theology. His bold mischaracterization of the tweet from Mr Wedgeworth alone is worth a chuckle. Mr Wedgeworth's actual viewpoint on the FV is not, as Clark incorrectly states, that the FV does not exist, but that there are at least three distinct (but related) paradigms within the FV movement. His analysis tends to be a lot more intelligent than Clark's "most things I disagree with (including Piper!) are connected to FV and all FV is basically the same."


Thank you for this. I guess Fake News is not always political. 

BTW, I will be over in your neck of the woods possibly Friday. Going to Rantoul to visit a father figure in my life. He is dealing with incurable cancer.


----------



## Charles Johnson

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thank you for this. I guess Fake News is not always political.
> 
> BTW, I will be over in your neck of the woods possibly Friday. Going to Rantoul to visit a father figure in my life. He is dealing with incurable cancer.


That is quite close to Champaign. I haven't been around much since graduating from the university in the spring. I'm sorry to hear about the suffering of your friend. I'll be sure to keep both of you in my prayers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Except that there is a massive difference, as Federal Visionism arguably overturns justification by faith alone.


They seem to view it about same way those in the NPP do, as both groups seem to see none can be certain of justification until their final vindication in final judgment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy

Rich Pierce (AOMin) (on Twitter) and James White (on DL @ 1:25 in link below) say that FV is a logical outworking of paedobaptism. 

Alpha and Omega Ministries: David Allen on Romans 8 Fully Examined; Fundie Calvinists http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1029191328156871

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser

Kinghezy said:


> Rich Pierce (AOMin) (on Twitter) and James White (on DL @ 1:25 in link below) say that FV is a logical outworking of paedobaptism.
> 
> Alpha and Omega Ministries: David Allen on Romans 8 Fully Examined; Fundie Calvinists http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1029191328156871


They are saying that type of theology would logically end in FV?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They are saying that type of theology would logically end in FV?



Yes. That's also why most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Phil D.

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's also why most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal.



Please elaborate...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I thought it was Paedobaptism leads to FV, not paedocommunion? I am a former Reformed Baptist and I am not FV. Nor do I hold to paedocommunion. Most of the paedocommunion guys I know were former Presbyterian who went FV.


----------



## RamistThomist

Phil D. said:


> Please elaborate...



Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I thought it was Paedobaptism leads to FV, not paedocommunion? I am a former Reformed Baptist and I am not FV. Nor do I hold to paedocommunion. Most of the paedocommunion guys I know were former Presbyterian who went FV.



FV reject the inner/outer distinction of the Covenant. Baptists are somewhat similar since everyone who is elect is in the New Covenant simpliciter.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> FV reject the inner/outer distinction of the Covenant. Baptists are somewhat similar since everyone who is elect is in the New Covenant simpliciter.


Isn't that how the FV came to the conclusion of Baptismal regeneration?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.



That's too simplistic and a _non sequitur_, as witnessed by the fact that the vast, vast majority of baptists are not PC (are there any?), while virtually all PC are peadobaptists, regardless of any former affiliations. To even begin to establish your claim it would have to be statistically substantiated that "most" PC are in fact former baptists. Then it would further need to be established that your proposed rationale was indeed the basis for those particular PB's reasoning on the matter. You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB here (starting with question 2).


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Isn't that how the FV came to the conclusion of Baptismal regeneration?



Sort of, but the difference between the FV definition of Baptismal Regeneration and the Reformed Baptist definition of Baptismal Regeneration is like the difference between creamy peanut butter and sour cream.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

BayouHuguenot said:


> Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.



That is most certainly not a Baptist position.

The "Standard Baptist Position" on the Lord's Supper and who should get it is pretty much the same as the non-FV Presbyterian position:

1. Baptized person who is
2. capable of self-examination.

If that is NOT the non-FV Presbyterian view of who should take the Supper, please correct me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phil D. said:


> That's too simplistic and a _non sequitur_, as witnessed by the fact that the vast, vast majority of baptists are not PC (are there any?), while virtually all PC are peadobaptists, regardless of any former affiliations. To even begin to establish your claim it would have to be statistically substantiated that "most" PC are in fact former baptists. Then it would further need to be established that your proposed rationale was indeed the basis for those particular PB's reasoning on the matter. You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB here (starting with question 2).


Did you understand his response to you? Both Baptists and PC advocates say something very similar, at least on the surface: Give the Supper to all the baptized. Referencing a PC advocate arguing that there's logic to his position (as flowing from PB) is merely confirmatory.

There is not one single historic Reformed or Presbyterian Confession that advocates PC. Ipso facto, there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists. There's no stampede of PBs to "get consistent" (because it isn't, actually). The position (and hermeneutic) of the PC community is the Baptist position "flipped."

On the basis of that (shared) hermeneutic, FV appears to some Baptist as the proper and logical endgame of such "flipping."

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That is most certainly not a Baptist position.
> 
> The "Standard Baptist Position" on the Lord's Supper and who should get it is pretty much the same as the non-FV Presbyterian position:
> 
> 1. Baptized person who is
> 2. capable of self-examination.
> 
> If that is NOT the non-FV Presbyterian view of who should take the Supper, please correct me.


We allow those who have been saved and walking in the light with the Lord, having confessed their sins, to partake of the ordinance with us. Believers Baptism required for membership, but not to partake at the Lords Supper.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Sort of, but the difference between the FV definition of Baptismal Regeneration and the Reformed Baptist definition of Baptismal Regeneration is like the difference between creamy peanut butter and sour cream.


there is no Baptist view on BR, as we would all deny it as being in the scriptures.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Phil D.

Contra_Mundum said:


> Did you understand his response to you? Both Baptists and PC advocates say something very similar, at least on the surface: Give the Supper to all the baptized. Referencing a PC advocate arguing that there's logic to his position (as flowing from PB) is merely confirmatory.



Perhaps I didn't. I took the interaction to be as follows:

1 The original assertion was "most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal."
2. I asked for elaboration, assuming a response would pertain to *both aspects of the assertion*, *which in my reading seem to be connected* - 1) those who hold the position (mostly former baptists) and 2) why they hold the position (per the response, *because* they follow the paradigm of "giv[ing] the supper to everyone who is Baptized.")
3. Hence my response.

I'm certainly open to being shown any possible disconnects in my understanding here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Phil D. said:


> You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB



I can't access the link at my firewall at work, but if the PC is saying what I think you are saying he is saying, then it is the same thing I am saying.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phil D. said:


> Perhaps I didn't. I took the interaction to be as follows:
> 
> 1 The original assertion was "most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal."
> 2. I asked for elaboration, assuming a response would pertain to *both aspects of the assertion*, *which in my reading seem to be connected* - 1) those who hold the position (mostly former baptists) and 2) why they hold the position (per the response, *because* they follow the paradigm of "giv[ing] the supper to everyone who is Baptized.")
> 3. Hence my response.
> 
> I'm certainly open to being shown any possible disconnects in my understanding here.



I added the following above, while you were responding

There is not one single historic Reformed or Presbyterian Confession that advocates PC. Ipso facto, there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists. There's no stampede of PBs to "get consistent" (because it isn't, actually). The position (and hermeneutic) of the PC community is the Baptist position "flipped."

On the basis of that (shared) hermeneutic, FV appears to some Baptist as the proper and logical endgame of such "flipping."​So, if White or Piper or another Baptist person argues that FV (with PC) looks to them like the way PB is destined to go, there's a simple explanation for why it appears that way to them.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D.

Contra_Mundum said:


> Ipso facto, there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists.



I just don't see this as an _ipso facto _result. Your logic provides a plausible theory, and perhaps its accurate, but I guess I would need to see some substantiation of the quantitative part of the assertion. Do we really know that there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists? That's the part that's throwing me. It's a central aspect of the original assertion, but as of now it's entirely unsubstantiated.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Dachaser said:


> there is no Baptist view on BR



This is simply not true. You think Baptists are totally lacking in any kind of definition for what Baptismal Regeneration is and what it looks like???

Just because Baptists don't _hold to the doctrine_ doesn't mean we don't _have a definition for it_.

And, as an aside, you are totally not helping even one bit.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This is simply not true. You think Baptists are totally lacking in any kind of definition for what Baptismal Regeneration is and what it looks like???
> 
> Just because Baptists don't _hold to the doctrine_ doesn't mean we don't _have a definition for it_.
> 
> And, as an aside, you are totally not helping even one bit.


I agree that we have a definition of it, but you seemed to imply that we hold somehow to it. Sorry if I misunderstood you.


----------



## Beau Sutton

They all have a common interest of engaging the culture. I don't think anyone is changing anyones theology. If you listen to Cross Politic routinely and you will likely never even hear them talking about FV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phil D. said:


> I just don't see this as an _ipso facto _result. Your logic provides a plausible theory, and perhaps its accurate, but I guess I would need to see some substantiation of the quantitative part of the assertion. Do we really know that there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists? That's the part that's throwing me. It's a central aspect of the original assertion, but as of now it's entirely unsubstantiated.


If PC was actually persuasive to men with a clear and firm grasp of the historic Reformed-covenantal hermeneutic, we would have long since seen serious church splits and reconfigured Standards. Where are those examples?

PC is contra-confessional, so it necessarily involves a break from churches of historic confession in order to teach this view freely. Where is the evidence it is being taught openly or covertly in them, leading to siphoned members?

Are PC advocating bodies being led by former ministers of, and its members coming from, conservative P&R churches? What percentage of those who do come from there started off their theological journey there? I imagine there are some, inevitably; but a host?

Anecdotally, my experience is that those most drawn to PC are those with the shallowest roots in the P&R tradition. No, it isn't a uniform record; but the exceptions are noteworthy for being such. As to the logic of my theory, you may brush it off as mere rationalism. However, searching for rationales is essential to the quest for understanding.

There really ought to be some credence given to the lack of any PC traction in or nearby P&R churches for +400yrs. Baptists, by contrast, got traction; and there are separations and confessions that prove it. There's also identifiable hermeneutical markers that go along with Baptist distinctives.

White et al. _theorize _that FV (with PC as a hallmark) is simply PB logic pushed to extremes. Why do they think this way? Why don't their reasons resonate in the P&R world, if it is simply a matter of unpacking CT convictions all the way? If PC/FV was the telos of PB, we should find the historic trace of centuries of churches ending up there--why is it missing?

I suggest it makes sense from White's standpoint because _it actually is his own hermeneutic flipped around._ And if so (hypothesis proposed) then when the quantitative data does come in, it should show evidence that the defense of PC has the same deep architecture as White has, but reverse engineered. I.e., former Baptists validating White's thesis and embracing PC.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 3 | Amen 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Dachaser said:


> I agree that we have a definition of it, but you seemed to imply that we hold somehow to it. Sorry if I misunderstood you.



You definitely misunderstood me.


----------



## Phil D.

Contra_Mundum said:


> As to the logic of my theory, you may brush it off as mere rationalism.



How does this even accord with my saying your logic has theoretical plausibility and might even be correct? Seems a bit testy.

As I've been pointing out, the leading premise of the assertion in question remains factually unproven. That being the case, what reliable conclusions can possibly follow?

Having said all this, if the term *B*aptists hadn't been used in Jacob's original remark, I may have supposed he meant most PC are _de facto_ *b*aptists in their _thinking,_ as opposed to a literal former _affiliation_... While I would still disagree with such an assessment, as an abstract opinion it would at least be more defensible than making a factually dubious claim.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phil D. said:


> How does this even accord with my saying your logic has theoretical plausibility and might even be correct? Seems a bit testy.


I didn't mean by my language to come across as peeved. Your language seemed dismissive, largely on the basis of a lack of counted noses, doubled checked for accuracy. Empiricism vs Rationalism. Let's agree that it would be ideal to bring together reason and test data. I'll repent if you will.

Jacob has lived experience at AAPC. I have my own anecdotal engagements. So, you do have the witness of two men, that of those acquaintances we've known who have tested the PC stance or gone all in, to the degree we've known their backgrounds/trajectories most such people had not spent very long settled in confessional P&R convictions (re. sacramentology).

I know that in my case, I have been driven by the effort to make sense (to my mind) of the attractiveness some have found in PC. The sheer absence of PC plausibility on a full set of Reformed grounds led me to the hypothesis that only partially Reformed grounds form the basis of typical PC defense.

The Reformed sacramental paradigm views the first sacrament as initiation, the second as confirmation; maintaining clear distinction of those two ideas. The Baptist paradigm views both sacraments (or ordinances) as confirmation: baptism as a personal faith affirmation, just as much as it may initiate the baptized into formal membership followed by future confirmations by the LS.

The PC paradigm views both rites as administered to/for initiates, baptismal water automatically qualifying even a small child for the table (as soon as he is capable of solid food). The self-exercise of confirmatory faith and the duty of personal examination is deferred, and responsibility is referred to the child's guardian until such time as the guardian relinquishes it.

White's and similar critiques see the latter as _wrong _(quite!), but _consistent. _Why? Why would a Baptist (but not a P&R) see consistency here? If your hermeneutic already reads the sacs/ords as indivisible, then those who adopt PB *and *persist in the a priori that the sacs/ords are indivisible could reasonably come to the conclusion that _consistency _presumes the validity of PC.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Phil D.

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll repent if you will.



Well, I can't say I'm a big fan of conditional repentance, but alright... 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Jacob has lived experience at AAPC. I have my own anecdotal engagements. So, you do have the witness of two men, that of those acquaintances we've known who have tested the PC stance or gone all in, to the degree we've known their backgrounds/trajectories most such people had not spent very long settled in confessional P&R convictions (re. sacramentology).



Sure. In my own admittedly limited experience with PC (3), to my knowledge none of them were former Baptist's.



Contra_Mundum said:


> The Baptist paradigm views both sacraments (or ordinances) as confirmation: baptism as a personal faith affirmation, just as much as it may initiate the baptized into formal membership followed by future confirmations by the LS.



Typically yes. Yet as I've infamously stated here before, I personally view baptism as both an initiation/confirmation and an ordained means of grace to efficaciously strengthen the true believers' faith. With respect to taking the Lord's Supper, I think Sean's point that ultimately the qualification to participate among CB and P/R-PB is substantially the same, is important. But again, I also see the Lord's Supper as being more than just a memorial. I've always been open to being shown how my understanding on these things is unscriptural.



Contra_Mundum said:


> If your hermeneutic already reads the *sacs/ords* as indivisible, then those who adopt PB and persist in the a priori that the sacs/ords are indivisible could reasonably come to the conclusion that _consistency _presumes the validity of PC.



*Sacs/ords*... hmmm, I think you may have coined a new term... has quite a ring to it. With your permission I may adopt it to express my equally odd position! Seriously, again, I can see your point. But just out of curiosity, any thoughts on this statement by John Murray (which I've seen PC latch on to for support)?

It is objected that paedobaptists are strangely inconsistent in dispensing baptism to infants and yet refusing to admit them to the Lord’s table … At the outset it should be admitted that if paedobaptists are inconsistent in this discrimination, then the relinquishment of infant baptism is not the only way of resolving the inconsistency. It could be resolved by going in the other direction, namely, that of admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism. This will serve to point up the significance of infant baptism in the divine economy of grace. (_Christian Baptism_, P&R, 1980, pp. 73-74)​


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Phil D. said:


> It is objected that paedobaptists are strangely inconsistent in dispensing baptism to infants and yet refusing to admit them to the Lord’s table … At the outset it should be admitted that if paedobaptists are inconsistent in this discrimination, then the relinquishment of infant baptism is not the only way of resolving the inconsistency. It could be resolved by going in the other direction, namely, that of admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism. This will serve to point up the significance of infant baptism in the divine economy of grace. (_Christian Baptism_, P&R, 1980, pp. 73-74)


Well,
It is an odd statement in which to find genuine support; it is self-evidently no intentional comfort to the PC position, to have a well-regarded theologian say of it: "The best that may be said for it is how it isn't as bad as giving up the positive Scriptural injunction respecting infant baptism."

Whether, in fact, it would involve less compromise or fewer compromised factors or principles to allow PC, than to abandon PB, is a matter of debate; certainly it is no settled opinion. For my part, I find PC (in its ordinary expression today) involves more than a dozen explicit exceptions to the Westminster Standards (HT, LaneK). How many would be required to accommodate an anti-PB position by comparison, I have no idea, but 12+ is no modest divergence.

Murray wrote his Baptism treatise in 1952, before the PC issue arose as a matter of discipline over doctrine and practice in the OPC; that took place about 35yrs later. So, it is too strange to ask Prof. Murray to express himself (when defending PB) with the same precision he might have done in a sideways reference to PC _if it were a matter of equal weight in 1952 as it came to be in the 1980s.
_
That said, I believe Murray's point was to lay the greatest possible emphasis on the importance of PB in the economy of the Covenant of Grace, since in the P&R understanding it (like circumcision before it) is the first sign of the covenant; it marks the door of admission to the church. His point would be a certain _*priority*_ to baptism, and thus to abandon PB as it is no mere adjunct to the rite would be worse (after such consideration) than mistaken admittance of as-yet-unqualified persons yet members to the Table within the church.

Murray's statement examined yields none of its hypothetical-laden ground to PC advocates, who are left with no concession in it that either PB is false, or that PC is true.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## OPC'n

In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.


----------



## arapahoepark

OPC'n said:


> In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.


Covenant overload. 
Baptized? You are really united to Christ. Who cares if you believe! Well...if you don't after awhile (with works) then you lose your salvation.. Also NT Wright and the NPP is the best thing ever! Duh!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

OPC'n said:


> In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.


Duh in my other post is facetious referring to the Wright bit, not you or your ignorance of the FV beliefs. I used it for rhetorical effect.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Apologia (_as Baptists_) partnering with FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues



I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.

In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.

It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).

I'll leave it at that for now.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 12


----------



## deleteduser99

brandonadams said:


> I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.
> 
> In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. *He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. *And Boot is a baptist.
> 
> It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).
> 
> I'll leave it at that for now.



_That_ is a frightening view.


----------



## Smeagol

OPC'n said:


> In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.


Sarah,

See this for a very broad and short overview:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision


----------



## Tom Hart

brandonadams said:


> I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.
> 
> In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.
> 
> It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).


Joe Boot founded and heads the Ezra Institute in Grimsby, Ontario. Andrew Sandlin is involved with that group as a faculty member of the Evan Runner International Academy for Cultural Leadership.

Boot is known for his stances. I admit don't know a great deal about the man, but I've known people who've attended the church he pastors (and I visited once myself, though he was not preaching that week). The reputation is that of a man who stands for Christian principles. You used the word "reactionary". That would seem to fit what I know of him.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.
> 
> In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.
> 
> It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).
> 
> I'll leave it at that for now.


So they see the NC installed in Eden?


----------



## Dachaser

Grant Jones said:


> Sarah,
> 
> See this for a very broad and short overview:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision


Their view regarding election really is not biblical, as God seems to play games with certain sinners in their perspective.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just for some good reference, Pastor Lane has blogged on this issue and was very helpful to me. He also interacts with DW and others in the comment sections. It is a learning experience. 

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/an-introduction-to-the-paedo-communion-debate/

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/church-history-and-paedo-communion/

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/the-reformed-confessions-and-paedocommunion/

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/the-old-testament-evidence-concerning-paedo-communion/

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/the-key-passage-in-the-paedo-communion-debate/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The excellent post by @brandonadams further convinces me that it is our duty to work day and night until the pernicious influence of mono-covenantalism is expelled forever from all Reformed circles. To paraphrase Tony Blair, we must be tough on the Federal Vision; tough on the causes of the Federal Vision. 

It is not enough to disagree with the FVers on justification if we are not pulling up the whole erroneous superstructure by the roots. Doing so will also require us to reaffirm the position of the Westminster Standards, in opposition to certain forms of conditional covenantalism, that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect in him. The notion that more than the elect are properly in the covenant of grace also seems to feed into certain FV ideas.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The excellent post by @brandonadams further convinces me that it is our duty to work day and night until the pernicious influence of mono-covenantalism is expelled forever from all Reformed circles. To paraphrase Tony Blair, we must be tough on the Federal Vision; tough on the causes of the Federal Vision.
> 
> It is not enough to disagree with the FVers on justification if we are not pulling up the whole erroneous superstructure by the roots. Doing so will also require us to reaffirm the position of the Westminster Standards, in opposition to certain forms of conditional covenantalism, that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect in him. The notion that more than the elect are properly in the covenant of grace also seems to feed into certain FV ideas.


Does FV reject a CoW?


----------



## RamistThomist

Grant Jones said:


> Does FV reject a CoW?



Almost to a man. DW will try to get around it with pithy sayings but they all deny a works-principle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Grant Jones said:


> Does FV reject a CoW?



Yes, it is mono-covenantal in nature. The FV got off the ground owing to the toleration of this error in all too many conservative Reformed circles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> Almost to a man. DW will try to get around it with pithy sayings but they all deny a works-principle.



Doug Wilson overtly asserts mono-covenantalism in his book, _Federal Husband_.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

The classic FV essay on it is Jordan's "Merit or Maturity." Yeah, yeah I know. Not all FV. But yeah, it's the FV benchmark.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Grant Jones said:


> Does FV reject a CoW?


Yes. The Adamic Covenant to them is considered a part of the Covenant of Grace. They confuse the facts that God's reward for obedience is gracious and that his condescension is gracious as being the Covenant of Grace, as I understand them. That is not what the Covenant of Grace is in relationship to the Adamic Covenant.

I love Bavinck.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/in-the-covenant-of-grace/

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes. The Adamic Covenant to them is considered a part of the Covenant of Grace. They confuse the facts that God's reward for obedience is gracious and that his condescension is gracious as being the Covenant of Grace, as I understand them. That is not what the Covenant of Grace is in relationship to the Adamic Covenant.
> 
> I love Bavinck.
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/in-the-covenant-of-grace/


Do they seem to hold to done form of Catholic light salvation theology as NPP does, at least as held by NT Wright?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Do they seem to hold to done form of Catholic light salvation theology as NPP does, at least as held by NT Wright?


Someone else will have to answer that for you. I am not knowledgeable on what Catholic Light Salvation Theology is. I am not even acquainted with the terminology.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Someone else will have to answer that for you. I am not knowledgeable on what Catholic Light Salvation Theology is. I am not even acquainted with the terminology.


Catholics hold that one can never be sure if saved, as we need to assist God enough to merit final salvation, which to me seems a lot like the final vindication Wright and FV teach.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Catholics hold that one can never be sure if saved, as we need to assist God enough to merit final salvation, which to me seems a lot like the final vindication Wright and FV teach.



Yeah but you could just as easily accuse them of having x (insert other guy) light theology. They are pure Arminians, not Catholics. Catholics believe that grace is a semi-substance and we lose it by mortal and venial sin. For all of FV's faults, they don't believe that.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yeah but you could just as easily accuse them of having x (insert other guy) light theology. They are pure Arminians, not Catholics. Catholics believe that grace is a semi-substance and we lose it by mortal and venial sin. For all of FV's faults, they don't believe that.


NT Wright holds to one not sure of salvation until final judgment, would they agree with that?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> NT Wright holds to one not sure of salvation until final judgment, would they agree with that?



Perhaps. That doesn't make them Roman Catholic, though. That's the fallacy of the undistributed middle premise.

And many hard-core Predestinarian New England Puritans also held that we really couldn't (at least for many) be sure of our salvation until the final judgment. 

Abraham Kuyper's descendants believed something similar.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Perhaps. That doesn't make them Roman Catholic, though. That's the fallacy of the undistributed middle premise.
> 
> And many hard-core Predestinarian New England Puritans also held that we really couldn't (at least for many) be sure of our salvation until the final judgment.
> 
> Abraham Kuyper's descendants believed something similar.


Calvinists of all people should have a firm conviction on eternal life in Christ.


----------



## arapahoepark

Grant Jones said:


> Does FV reject a CoW?


Yes. The godfather of the FV, Shepherd, wrote a book a decade ago outlining his own views. All covenants are conditional and Christ becomes merely an example. The FV all follow that model.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Yes. The godfather of the FV, Shepherd, wrote a book a decade ago outlining his own views. All covenants are conditional and Christ becomes merely an example. The FV all follow that model.


Jesus to them would then be the example how we should obey God then? Example, but not our sin substitute ?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Someone else will have to answer that for you. I am not knowledgeable on what Catholic Light Salvation Theology is. I am not even acquainted with the terminology.



Not "Catholic Light Salvation Theology" but rather "Catholic light" salvation theology.

"Catholic light" in the sense of "Bud Light", "Coors Light", etc. "A milder (lighter) version of xxxxxx".

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Tom Hart

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> "Catholic light" in the sense of "Bud Light", "Coors Light", etc.


Those monastery breweries are overrated.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Here's a perspective.

https://calvinistinternational.com/...-of-the-federal-vision-after-all-these-years/


----------



## RamistThomist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Here's a perspective.
> 
> https://calvinistinternational.com/...-of-the-federal-vision-after-all-these-years/



Wedgeworth's statements need to be qualified. If all Clark said is that this conference was playing "Seven Degrees of False Teacher Doug Wilson," then that is a fallacy. But what Clark pointed out is that Wilson still holds to everything he wrote in the Joint FV Statement. That is damning enough.

As to FV specifics today, I grant that "they've" moved on. But---do they still hold to the Joint FV Statement? That's what it comes down to.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Not "Catholic Light Salvation Theology" but rather "Catholic light" salvation theology.
> 
> "Catholic light" in the sense of "Bud Light", "Coors Light", etc. "A milder (lighter) version of xxxxxx".



Too bad the PB doesn't have an "hysterically funny" button.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Wedgeworth's statements need to be qualified. If all Clark said is that this conference was playing "Seven Degrees of False Teacher Doug Wilson," then that is a fallacy. But what Clark pointed out is that Wilson still holds to everything he wrote in the Joint FV Statement. That is damning enough.
> 
> As to FV specifics today, I grant that "they've" moved on. But---do they still hold to the Joint FV Statement? That's what it comes down to.


I am still trying to see how tha tFV could make a go into RB churches, since we would stress so much that its faith not water baptism that seals and signs us as Christians into the NC now.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I am still trying to see how tha tFV could make a go into RB churches, since we would stress so much that its faith not water baptism that seals and signs us as Christians into the NC now.



Both sides want to fight the Culture War and Baptists are now enlisting False Teachers like Wilson. Yeah, you're theology is (mostly) good but that won't last long with Wilson in the ranks.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Both sides want to fight the Culture War and Baptists are now enlisting False Teachers like Wilson. Yeah, you're theology is (mostly) good but that won't last long with Wilson in the ranks.


This do called cultural war makes me cringe, as it makes Baptists at times line up with Catholic apologists to fight that war!


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> What are the marks of a true church?



That's a good question. And if Baptists take it to its logical conclusion, it ends up with something like Landmarkism (or at least what gets denounced as that today) since Presbyterians and others don't have valid baptism and by that standard Presbyterian churches aren't true churches. Either that, or you have to say that a proper view and practice of the sacraments ultimately isn't a mark of the church--maybe esse vs bene esse.

This may be one factor why DW and at least the milder forms of FV sort of get a shrug of the shoulders from some. Some of the "old time" Baptists said the real issue with pedobaptism is actually soteriology rather than being simply a question of ecclesiology. (Some of that goes back to the days when Presbyterians didn't require a public profession of faith to become communicant members but a man could come to the table if he is "sober and ready.") But viewing one's "covenant children" as regenerate (even in a judgment of charity) is a difference of degree from FV and not one of kind to a lot of Baptists. Plus, most of the people (with the possible exception of Founders, who I haven't seen mentioned yet and who are also partnering with Apologia or Moscow or both in the production of their "cinedoc" if nothing else--I can't keep up) who are all for the DW/Apologia partnership either oppose bicovenantalism or don't really know what it is.

So questions about the marks of the church highlights all the more the problems in this case since Clark teaches that no Baptist church is a true church. I haven't been following it that closely but if he's the main one objecting, it's probably not going to be that effective. Some might argue that his ardent defense of Tullian Tchvidjian's antinomianism is evidence that he sees neo-nomianism under every rock.

I think a lot of people don't realize the extent to which Clark is viewed as maybe a little bit nicer version of John Robbins. Some of the people who don't like him may not know who John Robbins was, but the reaction is similar: "Oh, what's he on about now? That guy thinks that everyone who doesn't cross the i's and dot the t's exactly the same way he does is a heretic."

Plus, you've got Baptist theologians like Piper and Schreiner who apparently teach a form of final justification and it seems to me that they've never really gotten a whole lot of push back because of it. The main (only?) book that I know of that opposed it from a Calvinistic perspective is a slender volume by the late Steve Fernandez entitled "Free Justification" that doesn't appear to be on the publisher's website anymore. (Regardless, I think an early draft of that book, if not the final form, is available online from the church website.) Ironically, that book was endorsed (if memory serves) by John MacArthur who Clark et al accuse of not preaching a clear gospel at best.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim

When the PCA has never effectively dealt with the FV, even acquitting one of the worst proponents in Leithart a few years ago, (and one who had a long association with Moscow and who has worse views on the subject than Moscow) I don't know how realistic it is to expect Baptists to parse all of those differences when many view all Presbyterians except maybe for the explicit viper in covenant diaper types as practicing some form of baptismal regeneration. I'm not saying that Baptists _should_ be indifferent to these matters, but am speaking of what one can realistically expect. (Speaking of diapers, some of the people coming of age now were probably still in diapers when the FV controversy was raging at its hottest. I'm glad Dr. Clark is reminding us of that history.)

I'm sure the calculation goes something like this:

Which is the clear and present danger today, A) Some dodgy ecclesiology--a little more consistent or extreme practice of what Reformed pedobaptism entails or B) Critical Theory, "Gay Christianity," and being told that you're immoral and a proponent of "rape culture" (and harming sex abuse survivors) if you say that David and Bathsheba was "merely" a case of adultery rather than rape. (Allegedly the PCA's denominational seminary spews out both A and B.)

If Calvinistic Southern Baptists are fine being in a denomination with Semi-Pelagians (and with having a statement of faith that seems to allow that view) so that they can get a 50% discount at the SBC seminaries, so that they can get funding for church planting, and so that they can support what they consider to be the greatest missionary sending enterprise of all time, then Doug Wilson and Jeff Durbin don't seem to be much of a stretch. That kind of purism* when it comes to ecclesiastical associations would necessitate them leaving the SBC immediately. (I know that not all involved are SBC, but a good many are as is often the case any time some controversy with Baptists comes up. And Founders (Tom Ascol) is just about as neck deep in involvement with Moscow and Apologia as White is, and that is one source of the push back against their forthcoming cinedoc against SJWism, which Moscow and/or Apologia apparently have a hand in producing. Ascol being associated with them is more of a surprise to me than White is. Years ago, White co-wrote a book on same-sex marriage with a CREC pastor.)

*I don't knock that kind of purism. I'm all for it. But I admittedly I tend to be so much of a purist that I rarely get anything done. To add a little more to my "cred", Back in my Presbyterian days, I was accused of being a "Lone Ranger" for hesitating to join a local OPC congregation after having left a congregation that had no formal membership. But the pastor of that congregation (the one who made the Lone Ranger statement) happened to be best friends at the time with Steve Wilkins and was a former student of Norman Shepherd's who defended Shepherd to the hilt. (This man was staunchly opposed to pedocommunion and Romanizing tendencies in worship, which seemed to have been a significant factor in holding him back from fully embracing FV.) Thankfully, he eventually abandoned that, including his friendship with Wilkins, but I wasn't sure how much of it was being a good churchman following the OPC report and how much of it was a thorough repudiation of the underlying theology of FV and Shepherdism. So I eventually joined that congregation in the midst of all of that after I saw that the public ministry was mostly Vanilla Westminsterian to borrow a phrase. If you want to call that compromise, I'll merely say that literally the only other choices were to pull an Arthur Pink or to drive 2-3 hours one way in an attempt to find a church that wasn't tainted with FV. The only other choices besides Rome and liberalism were Baptists who were into 40 Days of Purpose and/or who were stridently anti-Calvinist, far out charismatics, and a charismatic EPC congregation who had an elder who was promoting a Oneness Pentecostal ministry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I would agree social media amplifies problems but in our modern context we’re not going to escape the discipleship machine that is our technology or society and it’s institutions. I would agree that the means of grace are primary. No one is denigrating faithful pastors who don’t have conferences, podcasts, etc.
> 
> However TGC and other groups and leaders with outsized platforms, large churches, and outsized influence do exactly what I pointed out in my quoted post and it trickles down to people in the pews and it ultimately affects the denominations.
> 
> Hence my question earlier on in this thread, what ever happened to that pro-homosexual marriage and agenda, pro abortion PCA elder who ran for civil magistrate? The answer is ultimately, nothing.
> 
> At some point it needs to be addressed.



When it comes to NAPARC, while we're at it, let's add OPC minister Mika Edmondson, his wife Christina (Calvin College Prof and one of the hosts of the infamous "Truth's Table" podcast) and RCUS member Bradly Mason to the mix. I'd say that's worse than Mark White, especially because they all have further reach if you assume that everything happens online these days. (And a whole lot of it does.)

If someone says, "Two thirds of those are laypeople, you can't do that!" (As far as I know, Mason is a layman.) Well, Misty Irons was a lay-person too and her writing on same-sex marriage and related issues was a big factor in her husband Lee Irons basically being forced out of the OPC, largely by theonomists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does anyone remember the Baptist Don Garlington who became a little wobbly in his theology? The Federal vision had many different strains. The main issue most seemed to have against the FV was concerning the New Paul Perspective that infiltrated the Church.
> 
> Maybe this is a good thing so that we can revisit this issue. Sola Fide was totally under attack. It still is.



There is Daniel Fuller also, who was John Piper's mentor. If memory serves, he was attempting to reject both dispensationalism and covenantalism and ended up with something worse at least with regard to soteriology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> There is Daniel Fuller also, who was John Piper's mentor. If memory serves, he was attempting to reject both dispensationalism and covenantalism and ended up with something worse at least with regard to soteriology.


But Piper didn't fall total prey to Daniel Fuller's teaching. I did listen to Piper and Fuller on a Cassette Series discuss Calvinism. It didn't appear to be too terrible. At the same time Piper did write a book defending Justification by Faith alone to combat the NPP stuff.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> I am looking forward to that ‘Enemies in the Church’ documentary. That could be a useful tool if it doesn’t simply focus on the fringes of faith which has been featured in some of the trailers.



Based on encounters with the principals on Facebook, I don't hold out a lot of hope for it. (And they have shown that they have no problem with working with Catholics and the like.) But I do hope nonetheless that it will be effective.


----------



## Pilgrim

Phil D. said:


> That's too simplistic and a _non sequitur_, as witnessed by the fact that the vast, vast majority of baptists are not PC (are there any?), while virtually all PC are peadobaptists, regardless of any former affiliations. To even begin to establish your claim it would have to be statistically substantiated that "most" PC are in fact former baptists. Then it would further need to be established that your proposed rationale was indeed the basis for those particular PB's reasoning on the matter. You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB here (starting with question 2).



The question isn't whether or not Baptists hold to some kind of baptismal regeneration or that they wish to practice pedocommunion. 

Basically, the idea is that the sacraments go together. A person who is baptized should come to the table, there is no warrant in the NT for non-communicant membership, and so on. This is one of the main factors that caused me to reject pedobaptism over a decade ago. 

There is a more biblicistic method in play with both typical Baptists and former Baptists who go over to the CREC or something similar compared to the process described by Rev. Buchanan with the confessions and centuries of Reformed witness and the idea that we should submit to that even if we don't fully understand it or agree with it. 

Most of the CREC men (i.e. FV and pedocommunion advocates) are former Baptists: Wilson, Booth, Strawbridge, and others who escape me at the moment. This phenomenon is so well known that it is axiomatic. (If most of your study of the baptism issue was on mode, as with your lengthy engagement with Dale's writing, and you weren't around or weren't engaged when the FV controversy burned at its hottest, perhaps you missed it.) Other than Sproul Jr, I think all of the FVish contributors to the P&R defense of paedobaptism edited by Strawbridge ca 2003 were former Baptists. These tend to be the culture war FV types. Then you have the progressive urban ministry high church types who are into pedocommunion, more of whom may be from a Presbyterian or pedobaptist background. 

But it would be interesting to see how many Presbyterian ministers are from a Baptistic background no matter what their theology is. From what I've seen, it has to be fairly high. But much of that is knowledge gleaned online from men who probably came online to discuss it in the first place as opposed to someone who didn't have some kind of ordeal over the issue, so maybe its less than I imagine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But Piper didn't fall total prey to Daniel Fuller's teaching. I did listen to Piper and Fuller on a Cassette Series discuss Calvinism. It didn't appear to be too terrible. At the same time Piper did write a book defending Justification by Faith alone to combat the NPP stuff.



I'm no expert on Piper. But I do know that some were surprised (and some were disappointed) to see him opposing Wright since he hadn't been that clear on imputation before. Later I understand he revised "Future Grace" to more clearly teach that. (A while back I read the new intro online where he says that friends pointed out to him passages that seemed to contradict what he taught in his books critiquing Wright.) So I think at least some of Piper's critics thought things were good until the controversy started up all over again with his statement "Salvation is not of grace alone" or whatever it was.


----------



## Pilgrim

Phil D. said:


> No, but I for one am not a fan of engaging people surrounded by these kinds of not entirely resolved scandals in a public coffee clutch and theological chit-chat. It would seem better to simply make reference to any relevant points of theirs that may have merit in the overall discussion. Add to that the fact that Wilson still holds out against the core doctrine that the true Christian faith turns on (JBFA) and I have to ask, why amicably engage and publicly broadcast him at all? If one maintains Wilson and his ilk are the only ones addressing certain aspects of societal behavior, then why not encourage other more godly men to step into that role, or even do so themselves. Psalms 26:4 ESV; Prov. 14:7 ESV; 1 Cor. 15:33 ESV



I basically agree with this and have said something similar many times. 

I think the tendency is to want to get as big of a group as possible to make a statement, and as many big names as possible so that you can attract more attention and have a bigger platform. The bigger the group, the more tendency there is to compromise.

To give one example of this dynamic, despite its identification with him, from what I understand, the Statement on Social Justice a while back wasn't produced by John MacArthur, it was produced by Dr. Ascol and others who then waited for MacArthur to get on board since he has a lot bigger name than they do. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.)


----------



## Phil D.

Pilgrim said:


> I hate to be short with you, but are you leaning toward pedobaptism again?



Nope. (Now that's being short... )



Pilgrim said:


> Most of the CREC men (i.e. FV and pedocommunion advocates) are former Baptists: Wilson, Booth, Strawbridge,



Of course now there's Peter Leithart, who As far as I know was never Baptist. Outside the CREC there was also the never-Baptist RC Sproul, Jr., although I'm not sure of his present position. Besides, I wasn't necessarily limiting my assessment to leadership, but rather all of the people these men may persuaded and gained as a following as well. Whether this is a broader set than the statement I was responding to intended still hasn't been entirely clarified.


----------



## Pilgrim

Phil D. said:


> Nope. (Now that's being short... )
> 
> 
> 
> Of course now there's Peter Leithart, who As far as I know was never Baptist. Outside the CREC there was also the never-Baptist RC Sproul, Jr., although I'm not sure of his present position. Besides, I wasn't necessarily limiting my assessment to leadership, but rather all of the people these men may persuaded and gained as a following as well. Whether this is a broader set than the statement I was responding to intended still hasn't been entirely clarified.



I updated my post after thinking it over again and not remembering whether or not you actually were a pedobaptist or if you were simply a member of a Presbyterian church at one time. And I elaborated on a few more things. 

If anybody said that all of the CREC or FV men are former Baptists, obviously that's an error. (I think I was told that Steve Wilkins is a former Methodist.) But it seems that a disproportionate number of them are, especially those of the CREC variety, which is really what is in view with this thread. Even if someone said "all of them" well, Calvinists agree that all doesn't always mean all, right? 

Another connection is with the home school and family integrated movements which have taken inspiration from Wilson in the past. If and when some of them adopt pedobaptism, often they go with the Wilson variety, not knowing anything else or perhaps viewing typical Presbyterians as "weak" on cultural issues.


----------



## Pilgrim

Phil D. said:


> RC Sproul, Jr., although I'm not sure of his present position.



Hopefully his position is a repentant layman who is never to assume any position of spiritual leadership ever again. [I figure, why not throw the kitchen sink into this thread.]

For what it's worth he did practice pedocommunion, but perhaps due to his father's influence I don't know that he ever embraced the whole package of FV theology. There is a lot of overlap, to be sure, but I don't think that one _necessarily_ entails the other.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

I know I might upset some of his fans here, I don't think we should be so shocked about White here. Unless it's a frontal assault on TULIP, believers baptism, or textual criticism, I don't think he really has ever had much to say on other issues that Reformed folks fight among themselves over. The proponents of the "1689 Federalism" recovery or emphasis among Reformed Baptists have asked him where he stands on it several times and to my knowledge he has deferred for years. (To me that doesn't necessarily indicate doctrinal indifference, but it does perhaps indicate a hesitation or unwillingness to get into things in that kind of detail.) He co-wrote a book with a CREC minister years ago. If memory serves, his debate with Wilson was mainly over whether or not Rome can be said to be a true church and whether or not Romish baptism is valid baptism rather than any kind of direct debate on justification.

White is also friends with Michael L. Brown of Brownsville Revival fame, in that case also due to their shared views on cultural issues. Who has worse theology, Brown or Wilson? Is it realistic to expect White to reprobate Wilson, who is "closer" to his theology, when he embraces Brown as a Christian brother despite their manifold disagreements? (One might argue that Wilson is more dangerous than Brown precisely because he seems to be orthodox to many who would reject Brown. I lean toward agreeing with that, but nonetheless we shouldn't expect him to reject Wilson when he embraces Brown.) Or is it that he says he doesn't see anything in Wilson to get all that worked up over? If he would just say the same things in explaining his ties to Wilson as he does with his ties to Brown, he'd be better off in my opinion.

The one I'm more surprised at is Tom Ascol, whose film is allegedly being produced with help from Apologia and/or Moscow. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. But he has said that Social Justice is more important to him than Calvinism, and Calvinism is just about the only reason for Founders Ministries's existence. So when something is that important and virtually no one in your denomination with any expertise will endorse what you are trying to do, what do you do?


----------



## Susan777

Pilgrim said:


> When it comes to NAPARC, while we're at it, let's add OPC minister Mika Edmondson, his wife Christina (Calvin College Prof and one of the hosts of the infamous "Truth's Table" podcast) and RCUS member Bradly Mason to the mix. I'd say that's worse than Mark White, especially because they all have further reach if you assume that everything happens online these days. (And a whole lot of it does.)
> 
> If someone says, "Two thirds of those are laypeople, you can't do that!" (As far as I know, Mason is a layman.) Well, Misty Irons was a lay-person too and her writing on same-sex marriage and related issues was a big factor in her husband Lee Irons basically being forced out of the OPC, largely by theonomists.


Chris, I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Misty irons had nothing to do with Iron’s dismissal from the OPC. His trial concerned his doctrinal deviation from the WCF in terms of his understanding of the Law. He was not forced out by theonomists although I suppose some who sided with him would make that dubious claim.


----------



## RamistThomist

Susan777 said:


> Chris, I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Misty irons had nothing to do with Iron’s dismissal from the OPC. His trial concerned his doctrinal deviation from the WCF in terms of his understanding of the Law. He was not forced out by theonomists although I suppose some who sided with him would make that dubious claim.



I think what he was saying was that Misty's ethics reflected Lee's theology (and disclaimer, I think Lee is a fine New Testament linguist in Greek).

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Some thoughts:

a) Someone posted Wedgeworth's article on the history of FV. And just in case people are taking pictures of my posts and fwding them, I will formally say this: Steven did a good job in that history and I think he is basically right.

b) FV is over. That's true. No one is having FV conferences anymore. Leithart's doing his Theopolis thing, which isn't connected with Wilson or Wilkins.

c) Some younger guys who might have gone down the FV route are going down the Davenant Route instead. While Davenant might have problems, they are at least anchored in the scholastic tradition. James Jordan is not.

d) Unfortunately, Doug Wilson is still out there. And I think he is flanking everyone and about to bring many Reformed Baptists under his umbrella.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Phil D.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Unfortunately, Doug Wilson is still out there. And I think he is flanking everyone and about to bring many Reformed Baptists under his umbrella.


In what particular respect? FV? Paedocommunion? Paedobaptism? All of the above?


----------



## RamistThomist

Phil D. said:


> In what particular respect? FV? Paedocommunion? Paedobaptism? All of the above?



It won't be FV because that is over with. I doubt it will be paedocommunion because the average Evangelical probably gets weirded out by that. Maybe paedobaptism. Most of Wilson's "crew" were former Baptists, so it's possible.

I think it is simpler than that: they will become Wilsonites. The CREC is gracious unto Baptists and allows them to join.


----------



## Pilgrim

Susan777 said:


> Chris, I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Misty irons had nothing to do with Iron’s dismissal from the OPC. His trial concerned his doctrinal deviation from the WCF in terms of his understanding of the Law. He was not forced out by theonomists although I suppose some who sided with him would make that dubious claim.



The connection with his wife's teaching [for the uninitiated, arguing for things like some kind of civil unions for same-sex couples about 15 years ago lest something worse befall society] was cited at the time in the OPC's denominational magazine, New Horizons. I didn't dream it up. They didn't say "This is the whole reason" but it was a contributing factor in the controversy even if it wasn't the issue before the court. What she was doing was seen by some as a logical outworking of his antinomian theology. Right or wrong, the controversy was also seen by some as a battle between Klineans and theonomists who were at odds in that presbytery. That may be wrong. Some may wish to argue that all of it is wrong. Be that as it may, but others saw it differently. It seems to me that the Irons case was as controversial as the Kinnaird case was, and some of the anti-FV people thought that both went the wrong way. Kinnaird was acquitted on what were perhaps technical grounds. Rather than repent and reconsider, he then went on to with argue for Federal Visionism and Shepherdism online for years afterward, with apparent impunity. (This included posting in an unofficial OPC forum filled with OPC elders.) This was another factor in my hesitation to join an OPC congregation not long after this, which I've noted elsewhere in the thread. (I eventually did so anyway, but not without some initial reluctance with all of that swirling around in the years prior to the report that came out against FV and Shepherdism.) 

From a technical standpoint, to my recollection (which may be faulty) Irons wasn't dismissed. I think it was "What you are teaching is wrong, cut it out" and he decided to leave rather than do that, much as Wilkins left the PCA. Contrary to what many think, Wilkins was never actually disciplined and his own teaching was never directly subjected to the kind of examination (denomination-wide) that Irons was since he fled the jurisdiction. Yet PCA people will say that "Federal Vision has been dealt with" apparently relying on the report and Wilkins' withdrawal.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> d) Unfortunately, Doug Wilson is still out there. And I think he is flanking everyone and about to bring many Reformed Baptists under his umbrella.



I'm not sure how many confessional Reformed Baptists will be brought under his umbrella, especially those of the "1689 Federalism" type since they tend to identify with WSCAL more than any other "brand" of Reformed theology. (Many of their thought leaders work there or graduated from there.) But people do change theology, so you never know.

Who will be brought under Wilson's "umbrella" (largely in terms of some kind of spiritual kinship rather than some kind of official capacity) are Southern Baptists--many of whom are either not confessional or else hold to the confession rather loosely--who feel that they have nowhere else to turn since CRT, etc has been propagated under Al Mohler's watch. (I am using umbrella in the sense that some Baptists would have been under the "umbrella" of Sproul or Boice in the past.) Many of Mohler's proteges are "woke" and he is seen by many as being either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. MacArthur continues to have an influence, but he has his own problems, albeit somewhat less publicized than Wilson's. And MacArthur is no culture warrior and never has been. So you've got to look somewhere else if you want what you would consider to be incisive cultural commentary. A good many Calvinistic Baptists seem to view even MacArthur's brand of dispensationalism as being at least as big of a problem as Wilson's teaching on justification is.

EDIT: If the PCA continues to tilt leftward on things like "Gay Christianity" and egalitarianism, I wonder how many in that communion may also look favorably upon Wilson? What NAPARC denomination is free of CRT, Revoice apologists, etc?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Susan777

Pilgrim said:


> The connection with his wife's teaching [for the uninitiated, arguing for things like some kind of civil unions for same-sex couples about 15 years ago lest something worse befall society] was cited at the time in the OPC's denominational magazine, New Horizons. I didn't dream it up. They didn't say "This is the whole reason" but it was a contributing factor in the controversy even if it wasn't the issue before the court. What she was doing was seen by some as a logical outworking of his antinomian theology. Right or wrong, the controversy was also seen by some as a battle between Klineans and theonomists who were at odds in that presbytery. That may be wrong. Some may wish to argue that all of it is wrong. Be that as it may, but others saw it differently. It seems to me that the Irons case was as controversial as the Kinnaird case was, and some of the anti-FV people thought that both went the wrong way. Kinnaird was acquitted on what were perhaps technical grounds. Rather than repent and reconsider, he then went on to with argue for Federal Visionism and Shepherdism online for years afterward, with apparent impunity. (This included posting in an unofficial OPC forum filled with OPC elders.) This was another factor in my hesitation to join an OPC congregation not long after this, which I've noted elsewhere in the thread. (I eventually did so anyway, but not without some initial reluctance with all of that swirling around in the years prior to the report that came out against FV and Shepherdism.)
> 
> From a technical standpoint, to my recollection (which may be faulty) Irons wasn't dismissed. I think it was "What you are teaching is wrong, cut it out" and he decided to leave rather than do that, much as Wilkins left the PCA. Contrary to what many think, Wilkins was never actually disciplined and his own teaching was never directly subjected to the kind of examination (denomination-wide) that Irons was since he fled the jurisdiction. Yet PCA people will say that "Federal Vision has been dealt with" apparently relying on the report and Wilkins' withdrawal.


You are correct about Irons not being dismissed. He took his case to the GA and lost and then left rather than face likely dismissal for continuing to promote his (Kline’s?) ideas. Although the charges brought against him did not formally involve his wife’s activities she was certainly one of the larger elephants in the room. But I believe that his deviations from the WCF were of such magnitude that eventually he would have ended up in the same place.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not sure how many confessional Reformed Baptists will be brought under his umbrella, especially those of the "1689 Federalism" type since they tend to identify with WSCAL more than any other "brand" of Reformed theology. (Many of their thought leaders work there or graduated from there.) But people do change theology, so you never know.
> 
> Who will be brought under Wilson's "umbrella" (largely in terms of some kind of spiritual kinship rather than some kind of official capacity) are Southern Baptists--many of whom are either not confessional or else hold to the confession rather loosely--who feel that they have nowhere else to turn since CRT, etc has been propagated under Al Mohler's watch. (I am using umbrella in the sense that some Baptists would have been under the "umbrella" of Sproul or Boice in the past.) Many of Mohler's proteges are "woke" and he is seen by many as being either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. MacArthur continues to have an influence, but he has his own problems, albeit somewhat less publicized than Wilson's. And MacArthur is no culture warrior and never has been. So you've got to look somewhere else if you want what you would consider to be incisive cultural commentary. A good many Calvinistic Baptists seem to view even MacArthur's brand of dispensationalism as being at least as big of a problem as Wilson's teaching on justification is.
> 
> EDIT: If the PCA continues to tilt leftward on things like "Gay Christianity" and egalitarianism, I wonder how many in that communion may also look favorably upon Wilson? What NAPARC denomination is free of CRT, Revoice apologists, etc?


I have been a Baptist for years now, and only heard about this stuff on this board.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dachaser said:


> I have been a Baptist for years now, and only heard about this stuff on this board.



That's right. You read it here first. The PuritanBoard is where it's at, man.


----------



## A.Joseph

Pilgrim said:


> What NAPARC denomination is free of CRT, Revoice apologists, etc?


Im in the OPC, I would say to my knowledge we are, with the exception of a fringe element. Error is error. Wilson is in nowise an attractive or faithful alternative.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> Im in the OPC, I would say to my knowledge we are, with the exception of a fringe element. Error is error. Wilson is in nowise an attractive or faithful alternative.



I've been out of the OPC for over 10 years, so I don't know what's really going on overall. But I don't know that 10,000 Twitter followers can be said to be "fringe." Any criticism of this man will be shouted down with cries of racism, I'm sure. https://twitter.com/mika_edmondson

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Pilgrim said:


> I've been out of the OPC for over 10 years, so I don't know what's really going on overall. But I don't know that 10,000 Twitter followers can be said to be "fringe." Any criticism of this man will be shouted down with cries of racism, I'm sure. https://twitter.com/mika_edmondson



Every OPC member (including a pastor) I speak to wants no part of what he’s selling. How can he have time for gospel matters and shepherding his flock when he’s so political. I guess he can have his political opinions, but he’s surely walking a fine line. What are you proposing? I wouldn’t be surprised if a good portion of his followers are political disciples.


----------



## Dachaser

A.Joseph said:


> Every OPC member (including a pastor) I speak to wants no part of what he’s selling. How can he have time for gospel matters and shepherding his flock when he’s so political. I guess he can have his political opinions, but he’s surely walking a fine line. What are you proposing? I wouldn’t be surprised if a good portion of his followers are political disciples.


Isn't what the so called Rev Wright was preaching all those years to President Obama this critical race Theology at it's logical conclusion?


----------



## A.Joseph

Dachaser said:


> Isn't what the so called Rev Wright was preaching all those years to President Obama this critical race Theology at it's logical conclusion?


I’m not following you. Can you rephrase that?


----------



## A.Joseph

Dachaser said:


> Isn't what the so called Rev Wright was preaching all those years to President Obama this critical race Theology at it's logical conclusion?


If I’m understanding you correctly, I would say Wright is the full realization of CRT. Not sure how it could ever find a home in our circles. I understand the black man’s experience is different and a form of segregation still existed just 30 to 40 years ago. But CRT is not Christian in the slightest. They could dislike trump, but it has nothing to do with our mutual faith.


----------



## Dachaser

A.Joseph said:


> I’m not following you. Can you rephrase that?


He preached whites were devil's, whites caused all evils, and that God judged USA 9 11 for evils of white persons. Seems like logical end if CR theology.


----------



## A.Joseph

Dachaser said:


> He preached whites were devil's, whites caused all evils, and that God judged USA 9 11 for evils of white persons. Seems like logical end if CR theology.


Yes, and Reformed believers who embrace CRT more closely resembles and ultimately aligns with Wrights ideology over Reformed theology. That’s just the way CRT is designed. It confounds and ultimately taints everything it touches.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> Every OPC member (including a pastor) I speak to wants no part of what he’s selling. How can he have time for gospel matters and shepherding his flock when he’s so political. I guess he can have his political opinions, but he’s surely walking a fine line. What are you proposing? I wouldn’t be surprised if a good portion of his followers are political disciples.



It's not my place to propose anything, I suppose. I'm just pointing out that it does exist in the OPC. "It can't happen here" was a major factor in Shepherdism gaining a foothold in the OPC four decades ago. And of course that kind of mentality exists pretty much everywhere and must be guarded against.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pilgrim

A decade ago, I noticed that some Southern Baptists in the seminaries were fawning over N.T. Wright and were agreeing with the NPP in at least some of the areas where it differs from Reformed theology and even what might be termed traditional Protestant and Baptist teaching on justification. And these are men who some would consider to be Calvinistic or sort of identified with it at some time. One who was a doctoral student at the time and who is now a professor told me that he was a big Piper fan but was very angry about Piper's book on Wright. These types are typically less confrontational from a cultural standpoint than the Wilson type FVers are and are perhaps more interested in academic respectability. But it was evidence that Baptists aren't as immune to that kind of thing as some may have assumed simply because they reject infant baptism.


----------



## A.Joseph

Pilgrim said:


> It's not my place to propose anything, I suppose. I'm just pointing out that it does exist in the OPC. "It can't happen here" was a major factor in Shepherdism gaining a foothold in the OPC four decades ago. And of course that kind of mentality exists pretty much everywhere and must be guarded against.


I agree. I actually think there are double minded/speaking, change-agents whose mission it is to transform, and other co-offenders whose mission it is to squash the vocal opinion of the concerned majority. I don’t do well with double-minded bs and I hate being lied to.
I also don’t understand people in leadership positions who turn the other way when they are, in fact, special positions to ensure doctrinal preservation and bring formal charges as needed. If there is a way it can be done faithfully, distinguishing CRT from a legitimate black-white issue, I believe action should have already been taken against his public sentiments that contradict our knowledge of the human condition and unmerited grace.

Seminary sponsored heresies, MLK50s, and Revoices, etc. do not go away on their own, nor does the damage done by such movements/events.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> A decade ago, I noticed that some Southern Baptists in the seminaries were fawning over N.T. Wright and were agreeing with the NPP in at least some of the areas where it differs from Reformed theology and even what might be termed traditional Protestant and Baptist teaching on justification.


In the mid to late 90's it had already creeped in by N. T. Wright's writings. Wright's teachings were being read and creeping into the Baptist Church I was a member of. It was fueled by Conferences also. Some of it was due to their attraction to eschatology and N. T. Wright was seemingly Amil and very Kingdom oriented. Reformation and Revival Journals were endorsing some of Wright's teaching concerning Luther and Justification. Wright is a very good writer. He was being lapped up like water in front of a dehydrated dog. I grew cautious when a guy I discipled (and who was a Pastor) decidedly didn't appreciate John Owen or Thomas Goodwin on Justification any longer. He is now Pastoring in a United Church of Christ. His view of scripture went south as he followed Wright and others.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Pilgrim said:


> A decade ago, I noticed that some Southern Baptists in the seminaries were fawning over N.T. Wright and were agreeing with the NPP in at least some of the areas where it differs from Reformed theology and even what might be termed traditional Protestant and Baptist teaching on justification. And these are men who some would consider to be Calvinistic or sort of identified with it at some time. One who was a doctoral student at the time and who is now a professor told me that he was a big Piper fan but was very angry about Piper's book on Wright. These types are typically less confrontational from a cultural standpoint than the Wilson type FVers are and are perhaps more interested in academic respectability. But it was evidence that Baptists aren't as immune to that kind of thing as some may have assumed simply because they reject infant baptism.


What does academic respectability have to do with having no part with heresy? Tim Keller has tons of academic respectability by today’s standards. But he is no Jonathan Edwards.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> What does academic respectability have to do with having no part with heresy? Tim Keller has tons of academic respectability by today’s standards. But he is no Jonathan Edwards.



Because what some would view as old time Bible thumping (or Calvinist quoting) when it comes to justification is sneered at in academic circles, and Baptists are already sneered at. I’m not saying it is necessarily a conscious decision. Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability in the business world and polite society isn’t always a conscious and deliberate decision either. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser

A.Joseph said:


> What does academic respectability have to do with having no part with heresy? Tim Keller has tons of academic respectability by today’s standards. But he is no Jonathan Edwards.


Is anyone? I just wish those like Both Wright's had no following in either Reformed or Baptist circles.


----------



## A.Joseph

Pilgrim said:


> Because what some would view as old time Bible thumping (or Calvinist quoting) when it comes to justification is sneered at in academic circles, and Baptists are already sneered at. I’m not saying it is necessarily a conscious decision. Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability in the business world and polite society isn’t always a conscious and deliberate decision either.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



“Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability....”

Sure it is (a conscious choice, short of willful self-deception). What is the faithfully legitimate reason for learned Christian men doing so?

Remember that talk Paul had to have with Peter?


----------



## Dachaser

A.Joseph said:


> “Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability....”
> 
> Sure it is (a conscious choice, short of willful self-deception). What is the faithfully legitimate reason for learned Christian men doing so?
> 
> Remember that talk Paul had to have with Peter?


Or the Reformers when Rome threaten to kill them off for teaching heresy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> “Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability....”
> 
> Sure it is (a conscious choice, short of willful self-deception). What is the faithfully legitimate reason for learned Christian men doing so?
> 
> Remember that talk Paul had to have with Peter?



Oh I agree that at some point it is a conscious decision. But it probably starts with something that isn't always necessarily wrong like "Well....you have to be smart and pick your battles" or "We don't want to be like Westboro or that guy in Phoenix" or "I don't want somebody to think I'm one of those fundamentalists, we need a little nuance" or whatever before it gets to outright compromise and apostasy.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> Oh I agree that at some point it is a conscious decision. But it probably starts with something that isn't always necessarily wrong like "Well....you have to be smart and pick your battles" or "We don't want to be like Westboro or that guy in Phoenix" or "I don't want somebody to think I'm one of those fundamentalists, we need a little nuance" or whatever before it gets to outright compromise and apostasy.


Agreed, as no heresy just came in full blown, as it started out usually quoting scriptures to a degree, but off in some main issues.


----------



## Herald

NaphtaliPress said:


> You can't hold to FV and be a member of the PB



Likewise, you can't hold to FV and be a Baptist. The two are antithetical. That said, I agree with @BottleOfTears that giving Doug Wilson an audience will be exposing White's audience to error.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Likewise, you can't hold to FV and be a Baptist. The two are antithetical. That said, I agree with @BottleOfTears that giving Doug Wilson an audience will be exposing White's audience to error.


FV denies Pauline Justification, so only Rome and Wright should like it.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Woke feminism in the church, which has largely been able to successfully cast the problem as one related to patriarchy, is ensconced. I praise God for those who at least attempt to raise the alarm.

Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.

Just because Scott Clark sees boogeymen everywhere doesn’t make it so.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Steward

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Here's a much better question to ask:
> 
> WHY is Apologia "partnering" with the Wilsonites? What WORK are they accomplishing? Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?


Greetings SeanPatrickCornell,

I found Dr. James White's book on Justification by Faith to be excellent.

Book Title: _*The God Who Justifies*
The Doctrine of Justification 

_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Steward said:


> Greetings SeanPatrickCornell,
> 
> I found Dr. James White's book on Justification by Faith to be excellent.
> 
> Book Title: _*The God Who Justifies*
> The Doctrine of Justification
> _


FV does not agree with his view.


----------



## Phil D.

SolaScriptura said:


> Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.


Yet if we have to rely on and thus effectively promote someone as heretical and ethically repulsive as Wilson to take the lead in the culture wars, then we're in even bigger trouble than I thought. Surely we can do better. Surely we must.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> FV does not agree with his view.


And...?


----------



## Tom Hart

SolaScriptura said:


> Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.


How far are you going to take that? I expect that you'll find, eventually, that you'll have to draw a line somewhere.

If Federal Visionists, because of their positions on social issues, are fine, then what about conservative Roman Catholics? JWs? Mormons? Muslims? We might share quite a few of the same positions with these. On the surface, at least. The foundations are very different however. A Christian is not merely a moralist; his morality is grounded in the Word. I think it quite obvious that he should think twice about partnering with anyone whose doctrine proves him an enemy of the gospel.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> How far are you going to take that? I expect that you'll find, eventually, that you'll have to draw a line somewhere.
> 
> If Federal Visionists, because of their positions on social issues, are fine, then what about conservative Roman Catholics? JWs? Mormons? Muslims? We might share quite a few of the same positions with these. On the surface, at least. The foundations are very different however. A Christian is not merely a moralist; his morality is grounded in the Word. I think it quite obvious that he should think twice about partnering with anyone whose doctrine proves him an enemy of the gospel.


That is shown to be true, whenever we partner with Catholics on pro life, and with Muslims against gay marriages then?


----------



## Tom Hart

Dachaser said:


> That is shown to be true, whenever we partner with Catholics on pro life, and with Muslims against gay marriages then?


What is shown to be true? I don't understand your comment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> What is shown to be true? I don't understand your comment.


We are siding with those against Jesus.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> That is shown to be true, whenever we partner with Catholics on pro life, and with Muslims against gay marriages then?



That raises issues of the public sphere and what a Christian's duty is in that sphere. And if we aren't theocrats, and if the public sphere isn't the Church, then the arguments against partnering with Catholics on theology wouldn't be the same ones as partnering with them against The Deep State.


----------



## Pilgrim

SolaScriptura said:


> Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.



I think the big red flag here is that the conference was under the banner of Reformed Theology, which implies that all of the participants hold to views that are at least to some degree legitimate expressions of Reformed theology. It might have been different if it was something about culture more broadly. 

Some might argue that it is even worse than Evangelicals and Catholics Together since an evangelical is still an evangelical (whatever that is) and a Catholic is still a Catholic at the end of the day, despite the doctrinal indifference (at best) of the whole endeavor. But in this case everybody is considered to be Reformed.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist




----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That raises issues of the public sphere and what a Christian's duty is in that sphere. And if we aren't theocrats, and if the public sphere isn't the Church, then the arguments against partnering with Catholics on theology wouldn't be the same ones as partnering with them against The Deep State.


As long as not theology related, but cultural, ok to stand with them?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> As long as not theology related, but cultural, ok to stand with them?



Except it isn't purely cultural. The Federal Vision view of "headship" can't be abstracted from their whole theology.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Except it isn't purely cultural. The Federal Vision view of "headship" can't be abstracted from their whole theology.


I was referring if OK to stand with Catholics and Muslims against things such as abortion and gay marriages.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Dachaser said:


> FV does not agree with his view.



No one said that it did.


----------



## alexandermsmith

There's no need to team up with the FV crowd in order to take a stand on social issues. White and Apologia have their own platforms. They should just use them to say what they want to say.

This isn't the only instance in which Apologia has allowed their pro-life activism to influence their associations. I'm concerned they have elevated being pro-life to a central mark of grace in the believer and will overlook serious shortfalls in other areas of theology because so-and-so happens to be pro-life. And it's deeply ironic considering how libertarian they are in other areas of personal conduct.

Clark doesn't help himself but he's right here and White, instead of humbly admitting his error, has done his usual and dug his heels in. They're as bad as each other.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000

This board is just poison sometimes.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor

Rutherglen1794 said:


> This board is just poison sometimes.



What do you mean?


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> What do you mean?



If they think that is poison, read some of the stories on how women tried to leave the CREC and the FVers tried to stop them.


----------



## RamistThomist

https://mirroringgrace.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-we-left-crec-part-1-engagement.html

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Username3000

Darn those Apologia Church elders, eh?


----------



## Tom Hart

Rutherglen1794 said:


> This board is just poison sometimes.


What makes you say that?


Rutherglen1794 said:


> Darn those Apologia Church elders, eh?


Who has said any such thing?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The moderators believe this thread has run its course but also has gotten out of hand. So a reminder to speak to positions in our discussions and bear in mind our responsibility to all aspects of speaking truth and seeking to edify in our engagement with each other. Review: https://www.puritanboard.com/help/9th-commandment/

Reactions: Like 3


----------

