# The Federal Vision



## AV1611 (Apr 6, 2008)

...


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 6, 2008)

Two of my friends who like the FV wound up going Anglican, as the FV fits nicely within its doctrinal parameters.

To be honest, however, considering all the problems the CoE has within its ranks, the FV is fairly low on list. Might even be an improvement for some theologians in it, which is an unnerving thought.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 6, 2008)

> There also appears to be a general belief in our *final justification or judgment by our works, but not meritoriously*, for these works are the gifts of God’s grace, produced by his Spirit in those who have faith in the Son of God, which is, after all, God’s new covenant promise to his people, writing his laws on our hearts and causing us to walk in his ways. judgment on the basis of what we have done in this life, is after all, what the New Testament says -see for example Revelation 20.12. The place our good works have is taught in (among other passages) John 15.1-8: the Father looks at the branches (the disciples) of the vine (Christ) for fruit and if they don’t bear fruit, they are cut off and thrown away into the fire. The disciples bear fruit because they abide in Christ, and apart from him they can do nothing. By bearing much fruit, the disciples prove to be Christ’s disciples.



The highlighted bit is damnable heresy. Just because they say they do not believe in merit does not mean that they do not believe in merit. This is clearly implying that good works are of the essence of faith - not the fruit of faith. On this basis, we are ultimately saved by *our* works of covenantal obedience, and not by the imputation of Christ's active obedience.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 6, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Two of my friends who like the FV wound up going Anglican, as the FV fits nicely within its doctrinal parameters.
> 
> To be honest, however, considering all the problems the CoE has within its ranks, the FV is fairly low on list. Might even be an improvement for some theologians in it, which is an unnerving thought.



Anything which teaches damnable heresy - under the pretext of being Reformed - is most certainly a grave danger. At least you definitely know the Liberals are not orthodox. These guys are more slippery.


----------



## Herald (Apr 6, 2008)

You know, the FV really hasn't caught on in Baptist circles that I can tell. Maybe I'm just not looking in the "right" areas. Obviously it's a Presbyterian thing but I'm sure it has legs and is only a time before it makes it's way to some Reformed Baptist Churches. Does anyone know whether that's already happened?


----------



## Hippo (Apr 6, 2008)

The FV may be "slippery" but it leads to error rather than necessarily being error in itself. Most of the confusion comes from a refusal of the FV to debate on confessional terms, not due to actual heresy itself. 

I would agree with Gryphonette that if the C of E went FV it would be a move in the right direction. The majority of the C of E do not even believe in biblical authority.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> You know, the FV really hasn't caught on in Baptist circles that I can tell. Maybe I'm just not looking in the "right" areas. Obviously it's a Presbyterian thing but I'm sure it has legs and is only a time before it makes it's way to some Reformed Baptist Churches. Does anyone know whether that's already happened?



Given FV's major emphasis on paedobaptism and covenant theology, it is doubtful you will see many FVers in Baptist churches. Despite the boogeymen erected on Reformed blogs, it really is only a tiny subset of the Reformed church.


----------



## HaigLaw (Apr 6, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Two of my friends who like the FV wound up going Anglican, as the FV fits nicely within its doctrinal parameters.
> 
> To be honest, however, considering all the problems the CoE has within its ranks, the FV is fairly low on list. Might even be an improvement for some theologians in it, which is an unnerving thought.









Confused, but still believe the Bible, many seem to be.


----------



## HaigLaw (Apr 6, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The highlighted bit is damnable heresy. Just because they say they do not believe in merit does not mean that they do not believe in merit. This is clearly implying that good works are of the essence of faith - not the fruit of faith. On this basis, we are ultimately saved by *our* works of covenantal obedience, and not by the imputation of Christ's active obedience.



So you feel it's an entirely different gospel, then?


----------



## Craig (Apr 6, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> You know, the FV really hasn't caught on in Baptist circles that I can tell. Maybe I'm just not looking in the "right" areas. Obviously it's a Presbyterian thing but I'm sure it has legs and is only a time before it makes it's way to some Reformed Baptist Churches. Does anyone know whether that's already happened?



You might see former baptists go from credo immediately to FV...but I don't think there's much chance of it spilling into Baptist circles.

One of my best friends went from baptist to paedo...based partly on discussions I had with him...but mostly from the writings of FV (James Jordan especially)...and now he's Roman Catholic.


----------



## HaigLaw (Apr 6, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Given FV's major emphasis on paedobaptism and covenant theology, it is doubtful you will see many FVers in Baptist churches. Despite the boogeymen erected on Reformed blogs, it really is only a tiny subset of the Reformed church.








Yeah, paedobaptism would be a big step for any baptist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2008)

Craig said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > You know, the FV really hasn't caught on in Baptist circles that I can tell. Maybe I'm just not looking in the "right" areas. Obviously it's a Presbyterian thing but I'm sure it has legs and is only a time before it makes it's way to some Reformed Baptist Churches. Does anyone know whether that's already happened?
> ...



Are his initals "J.B."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 6, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > You know, the FV really hasn't caught on in Baptist circles that I can tell. Maybe I'm just not looking in the "right" areas. Obviously it's a Presbyterian thing but I'm sure it has legs and is only a time before it makes it's way to some Reformed Baptist Churches. Does anyone know whether that's already happened?
> ...



I think you need to clarify what you mean by stating that the FV is a "boogeyman".

It is certainly more than a "fear" that men and women in NAPARC congregations have been led astray by the error, not the least of which were personal friends of mine.

If, by the statement you only intend to note that it is relatively small group of people then that is generally accurate but it still doesn't qualify as a boogeyman when the error still infests and harms real life people in Reformed Churches that have taken great pains to investigate and condemn the error.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2008)

If there are genuine dangers then I would not want to deny them. However, I have seen some people list FV as the number one threat to Christian faith today.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 6, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> If there are genuine dangers then I would not want to deny them. However, I have seen some people list FV as the number one threat to Christian faith today.



Well, we shouldn't be party to being extreme in either direction. Just because it is an overstatement to state that it is the biggest threat to Christianity does not imply the only alternative is that it is merely a "boogeyman".


----------



## Craig (Apr 6, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Are his initals "J.B."



Yep.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 6, 2008)

*Thing is, we should battle whichever error is in front of us.*



Semper Fidelis said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > If there are genuine dangers then I would not want to deny them. However, I have seen some people list FV as the number one threat to Christian faith today.
> ...


In some denominations or churches, the FV is simply not a problem, but there might be a significant attack on the veracity of Scripture, or the divinity of Christ, or His physical resurrection, or the nature of the atonement ("cosmic child abuse"?).

If a denomination's been quite sound but an error like the FV comes sidling in, then by all means, go after it with gusto. Whup it good before it can take root.

But were I in the ECUSA I wouldn't be especially concerned about the FV....I'd worry about that lunatic woman running the show, and her clear rejection of Christ as the sole means of salvation.

Battle the tiger actually in YOUR cage, not the tiger in the cage three over.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 6, 2008)

And the "YOUR" isn't Rich or anyone in particular. The whole thing was meant as a general reflection.

Rereading it, I fear it comes across as directed at Rich, and it's not.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 7, 2008)

> Despite the boogeymen erected on Reformed blogs, it really is only a tiny subset of the Reformed church.



The problem is that the "boogeyman" is running loose in our "tiny subset", which makes it a big deal.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 7, 2008)

HaigLaw said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The highlighted bit is damnable heresy. Just because they say they do not believe in merit does not mean that they do not believe in merit. This is clearly implying that good works are of the essence of faith - not the fruit of faith. On this basis, we are ultimately saved by *our* works of covenantal obedience, and not by the imputation of Christ's active obedience.
> ...



If one believes that view of justification, then they believe another gospel.


----------



## HaigLaw (Apr 7, 2008)

*hard to dispute*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> If one believes that view of justification, then they believe another gospel.








I read their writings and see your point. Otoh, I have friends in their camp who I think don't get it the way it's taught, and probably are true believers. So I exercise charity.

Sorta like I view Dispensationalism as heresy, but I was in dispensational churches my first 8 years as a believer, 1969-77, before I discovered the Reformed Faith and the PCA, and it was just all over my head. Once I "got it," I quickly left it. I believe there are sincere believers still in it, who still don't get it, but believe what the Holy Spirit has put in their hearts, rather than what C.I. Scofield's heretical footnotes try to teach them. 

It's just another example of the wheat and the tares, growing side by side until the final reaping -- In my humble opinion.


----------



## Herald (Apr 7, 2008)

Haig, I appreciate your post. Just because a teaching is heretical doesn't mean those who claim it are heretics. The layers are many and we can never judge the heart.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 7, 2008)

HaigLaw said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > If one believes that view of justification, then they believe another gospel.
> ...



I suppose some FV people would claim not to hold the above mentioned view of justification.


----------



## Gage Browning (Apr 7, 2008)

I visited Auburn Avenue last night (in Monroe on business) and I have to ask- Can someone please explain to me how the weight of the Federal Vision took off and caught the Reformed world by storm? I counted 100 people there last night. How does this size of a church have so much influence? Curious.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 7, 2008)

Gage Browning said:


> I visited Auburn Avenue last night (in Monroe on business) and I have to ask- Can someone please explain to me how the weight of the Federal Vision took off and caught the Reformed world by storm? I counted 100 people there last night. How does this size of a church have so much influence? Curious.



Echoing some of the posts already, I would say the Federal Vision took off and caught the Reformed world _wide web_ by storm. It is a General Assembly issue and mainly survives within the laity on blogs and message boards.


----------



## mybigGod (Jul 21, 2008)

Our understanding orthodoxy is in the reality of how we have come to understand who Christ is, what the churchs purpose is, and how we are to treat one another. How we come to understand these truths is by the words we accept as defining that truth. So that wisdom is being able to make every word that we speak as being the evidence of what we love the most, and is true of our inner character. So that our words effect the purpose we are determined to live out in the presence of those who we are worshipping with. 

Our words expose our failures in many ways. They expose our failures in what we consider is the most important quality in how we view the world, our understanding of what is a spiritual illumination as opposed to what comes from our own minds, so that what we say tells others what we love in order for us to fulfill our part in being connect to one another in the body. Our words are the only true experience of having an understanding of our covenant faithfulness with one another. What we say either destroys that connection or brings unity in the result of faithfully chosen words as an evidence of how we love God and how we love one another. Every word must be true as an evidence of our love of the truth. Thats why our words are measure by the wisdom we have, and that wisdom is from a reverence for God. So that wisdom is saying what we think about God, or thinking thoughts after God. 

So that we are required to measure each word because we know that it exposes the reality of our love for unity in the community of the saints, how we are required to view one another as well as how we know who God is. Our words can destroy that unity, by creating a divided reality in each expression of truth. James says a double minded man is unstable in all he does. Cause a double minded man shows what he loves by what he says. And every word that comes from his lips effects the reality of what he believes about the loves and hates of everyone around him.


----------



## CovenantalBaptist (Jul 21, 2008)

*Not FV, but NPP for Baptists*



Ivanhoe said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > You know, the FV really hasn't caught on in Baptist circles that I can tell. Maybe I'm just not looking in the "right" areas. Obviously it's a Presbyterian thing but I'm sure it has legs and is only a time before it makes it's way to some Reformed Baptist Churches. Does anyone know whether that's already happened?
> ...



While the FV doesn't have the same effect, there is significant penetration of the NPP (New Perspectives on Paul) into some Baptist ranks, even the Reformed Baptist camp. All the more reason to strive as pastors (whatever our affliation) to encourage Berean sensisbilities in our congregations for their profit, His glory and the protection of His church.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

Tom,

I seem to be a bit short in comprehension skills this morning (esp. since it's Monday). Would you care to elucidate your meaning in the context of this discussion?

Cheers,

Adam





mybigGod said:


> Our understanding orthodoxy is in the reality of how we have come to understand who Christ is, what the churchs purpose is, and how we are to treat one another. How we come to understand these truths is by the words we accept as defining that truth. So that wisdom is being able to make every word that we speak as being the evidence of what we love the most, and is true of our inner character. So that our words effect the purpose we are determined to live out in the presence of those who we are worshipping with.


----------



## mybigGod (Jul 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Tom,
> 
> I seem to be a bit short in comprehension skills this morning (esp. since it's Monday). Would you care to elucidate your meaning in the context of this discussion?
> 
> ...


I am going to move on here, 
I believe in justification by faith alone. We are declared righteous in the court of heaven when we are justified. Since our sins were imputed to Christ account, and not only our sins, but the guilt and the punishment of our sins as well. Christ righteousness was imputed to our account. So that we stand as completely righteous by faith alone and not by our works. 

Our good works are not able to be acceptable to Gods standard of righteousness. First because we are corrupted in all of our parts. Gods standard of righteousness is perfection. Since we are corrupted the only good act we can do is the act Christ has done on our behalf. Our part of the work is corrupted. In this way we reckon ourselves as wicked in order to have an understanding of the truth of our righteousness being acceptable to God by faith. This reckoning is essential for us to have an acceptable trust in the cause of our goodness only coming from Him. 

Now , this is very important in the application to ones experiencing a trust that is essential in understanding our veiw of God and ourselves in lite of thinking in the indicative. That is how we define who we are in the way we understand liberty of the will. Since we do not live in a world of having a righteousness by the amount of resistence we can produce in keeping us from sinning. For every effect there is a cause. Since to will is the mind being pleased with one thing over another. Because the will causing the good choice has no reason to exist, for to will is to choose one thing over another. How can a will cause a will to choose? If the will is the cause of the choice then each choice is the cause of the next choice. So that if we go back to the first choice, then there is no cause. And if we define liberty of the will as existing between two equal objects without any inclination to one or the other, that is no will at all. 

So we define liberty as the will having a cause to choose. Which brings me back to thinking in the indicative. There is no violation of a mans choosing by having a causal desire as being necessary for him choosing with complete liberty. There is no loss of liberty in being declared righteous as the cause of a man being pleased with that good object. In fact the more desire that springs from an understanding of doctrine of justification by faith apart from works is the cause of a man growing in sanctification.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jul 21, 2008)

mybigGod said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Tom,
> ...




 I'm trying really hard to understand this. The last sentence makes sense but I'm trying to connect it with your previous paragraphs. Sorry...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 21, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> I'm trying really hard to understand this. The last sentence makes sense but I'm trying to connect it with your previous paragraphs. Sorry...



Ditto! 


But, I do understand and appreciate what you said about justification!

Cheers,


----------



## Iconoclast (Jul 21, 2008)

A possible danger that could come into play with this teaching is that from what I understand Doug Wilson is very popular with homeschooling parents,and is often requested as a conference speaker.
I have been told that if you did not know of this controversy you would not know he has been involved with it, from his speaking on educational issues.
If you are going down a wrong path,it seems it would be hard to seperate truth from error consistently without the error "bleeding over "into your other topics


----------



## Davidius (Jul 21, 2008)

Iconoclast said:


> A possible danger that could come into play with this teaching is that from what I understand Doug Wilson is very popular with homeschooling parents,and is often requested as a conference speaker.
> I have been told that if you did not know of this controversy you would not know he has been involved with it, from his speaking on educational issues.
> If you are going down a wrong path,it seems it would be hard to seperate truth from error consistently without the error "bleeding over "into your other topics



Yeah, it's a shame that the CREC is at the forefront of the revolution in Christian education.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 22, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> > A possible danger that could come into play with this teaching is that from what I understand Doug Wilson is very popular with homeschooling parents,and is often requested as a conference speaker.
> ...



Some truly are legends in their own minds.

It is, in fact, "too bad" that otherwise well educated children have not been educated in the most important truth of all: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus went to the same synagogue schools as all the other kids in his neighborhood did. One of the seedbeds of the FV error was an imbalanced understanding of what parents are about in the training of their covenant children: especially a desire to have a Covenantal definition that completely obscures the distinction between the visible and invisible Church.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 22, 2008)

> While the FV doesn't have the same effect, there is significant penetration of the NPP (New Perspectives on Paul) into some Baptist ranks, even the Reformed Baptist camp. All the more reason to strive as pastors (whatever our affliation) to encourage Berean sensisbilities in our congregations for their profit, His glory and the protection of His church.



Indeed. Last year I guest lectured to group of Baptist polity students at Fuller. We were discussing ordination. When asked how they felt about some of the controversies of the day (e.g., emergent church, NPP, annihilationism, etc.), several of them gave the "wrong" answer on *all *of the above, including the NPP!!!


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 22, 2008)

Iconoclast,

if you are able to obtain it, Doug Wilson has written a book called "The Paideia of God".

If you are familiar with Nominalism, you will find it clearly portrayed in this book. There is an essay on the "Great Logic Hoax" in which you will discover, among other essays in this book, that Wilson is a mathematical nominalist. In other words, he doesn't believe in the "idea of one"; he only believes in gravel roads and apples on tables that can be counted.

This shows up elsewhere (can you say FV?) when he talks about the "historical church" but doesn't like the idea of the "invisible church." Basically, he seems to dislike the idea of Realism, though (as a paradox-ist) he would affirm and deny Realism in the same breath.

By nominalism, not only has his philosophy of math been sunk, but his ecclesiology to boot. Also, Classicism is not Christian. To admire and train children in paganism is not countenanced by Scripture, no matter how many people did it who were "Reformed."

Cheers,

Adam



Iconoclast said:


> A possible danger that could come into play with this teaching is that from what I understand Doug Wilson is very popular with homeschooling parents,and is often requested as a conference speaker.
> I have been told that if you did not know of this controversy you would not know he has been involved with it, from his speaking on educational issues.
> If you are going down a wrong path,it seems it would be hard to seperate truth from error consistently without the error "bleeding over "into your other topics


----------

