# What is the problem with FV?



## Leslie

I disagree with FV but it appears to be for reasons different than those of others in the PB, from what I can ascertain, reading other threads. What is the basic problem with FV?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

A few threads that might orient you:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/con...es-fv-differ-historical-reformed-usage-18377/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/wil...mined-rick-phillips-18274/?highlight=phillips

In a nutshell, the Scriptural position is that union with Christ is laid hold of by Evangelical faith. That is, it is born from above.

While the entire Congregation is preached to with the same promises and the same sort of injunctions, not all participate in mystical union with Christ simply by being a member of the Church.

There are several errors but chief among them is the idea that, when one is baptized into the Church, all are united to Christ and have the benefits of that union with Christ in some sense: all are in _some sense_ forgiven of their sins, have peace with God, etc. The manner in which that status is maintained is by faithfulness to the Covenant so that, in the last day, those that are finally justified are those that did not forsake Covenant membership.

I'm certain there are those that will take issue with the basic explanation but the bottom line is that our union with Christ is not simply by being _visibly_ joined to the Covenant of Grace. Baptism does not unite us to Christ. Faith does. Those that do not have faith that is born from above are in no sense forgiven of their sins. Do they hear the preaching of God and taste the heavenly gift? Are all members preached to with the expectation that all should fear lest any be found to be unbelieving? 

Yes and yes. But none are justified in some sense. It is only those that have been elect from the foundation of the world, that have been regenerated by the Gospel, and have been given Evangelical faith that are united to Christ in His death and resurrection. The fact that the congregation is preached to with the expectation that all must respond in a way that only the elect truly can does not, in turn, imply that all are able to do so _in some sense_.


----------



## Poimen

Impairing of justification by faith alone by positing a temporary justification based upon faith and works. A kind of baptismal regeneration wherein one receives temporary salvation through the administration of the sacrament, to be kept or lost on the basis of one's own faithful observance of the law and gospel. A failure to distinguish between law and gospel.

Then an assertion of eternal predestination without demonstration or elucidation of how election and reprobation work out in the covenant community coupled with deliberate obfuscation. 

Finally constant schismatic and abusive behaviour towards and in the house of God.


----------



## py3ak

I found the remarks in this post particularly helpful.


----------



## DMcFadden

The two most sucinct summaries of FV I have heard yet. Thanks, boys.


----------



## Leslie

Thanks for your thoughtful replies, especially that of Semper Fidelis. Since FV is wrong about the temporary salvation concept (and I agree they are wrong), then are not the forms for infant baptism sorely defective? I'm familiar with the CR form but presumably other forms are similar. There are all these glowing promises of God pronounced over the wee one but never is the big condition mentioned "IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE ELECT". If one should add the big condition, then how is a convenant infant different from any other infant? One can say of all infants whatsoever that God makes glowing promises if they happen to be elect, even those infants born into Buddhist families. 

Also how do Reformed people who reject the FV understand the condition of people who are born into Christian families but are finally reprobate, explicitly, by choice, no doubt about it. The author Peter DeVries comes to mind. I'd assume they were never saved in any sense whatsoever and, in retrospect, the promises and blessings pronounced in their infancies were, at best, half-truths, if not outright lies. 

Lest any misunderstand, I'm NOT a secret FV sympathizer, nor am I trying to be sarcastic or smart-alecky. I've come to faith in God relatively recently, having been a covenant baby, a reprobate most of my life, and given a new heart three years ago. I really want to understand.


----------



## kvanlaan

Gents, really appreciated those linked threads for the summaries, as well as Rich's. I don't spend much time on this subject so it is nice to get this sort of a thread on it to clarify.


----------



## Poimen

Leslie:

Not every promise and blessing of God comes apart from means. The means of faith appropriates Christ and all His benefits (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 21). In baptism we are promised salvation in its fullness; those who reject these promises incur greater wrath for their unbelief (see Hebrews 4:1-2; Romans 9:1ff.). The sacraments, are after all, the visible gospel and confirm what God has promised in His word (as signs and seals).

So it is not a lie to promise something with a condition so that if the condition is not fulfilled the promise will not come to fruition. Nor is it Arminianism because God Himself fulfills the condition in the life of the elect.

Furthermore there are many promises that are unconditional for the believer and reprobate within the covenant. "I will be your God and you will be my people." Unto the Israelites were the covenants, promises, law and adoption (Romans 9:1-4) That they rejected these things by no means makes God's promise illegitimate. His eternal covenant is established and continues with or without the faith of many of those who are covenant children. For God is faithful to a thousand generations and will always provide the seed of the woman through the seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; Psalm 105:8; Acts 2:39). 

But you are correct in stating that such never had eternal salvation though they certainly enjoyed many outward benefits of the covenant for a time (Hebrews 6:4-8). The problem with the FV is that they posit a temporary salvation which shares many components of eternal salvation and thus jeopardizes the finished work of Christ.


----------



## greenbaggins

Leslie said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful replies, especially that of Semper Fidelis. Since FV is wrong about the temporary salvation concept (and I agree they are wrong), then are not the forms for infant baptism sorely defective? I'm familiar with the CR form but presumably other forms are similar. There are all these glowing promises of God pronounced over the wee one but never is the big condition mentioned "IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE ELECT". If one should add the big condition, then how is a convenant infant different from any other infant? One can say of all infants whatsoever that God makes glowing promises if they happen to be elect, even those infants born into Buddhist families.
> 
> Also how do Reformed people who reject the FV understand the condition of people who are born into Christian families but are finally reprobate, explicitly, by choice, no doubt about it. The author Peter DeVries comes to mind. I'd assume they were never saved in any sense whatsoever and, in retrospect, the promises and blessings pronounced in their infancies were, at best, half-truths, if not outright lies.
> 
> Lest any misunderstand, I'm NOT a secret FV sympathizer, nor am I trying to be sarcastic or smart-alecky. I've come to faith in God relatively recently, having been a covenant baby, a reprobate most of my life, and given a new heart three years ago. I really want to understand.



Or, to get at it another way than Daniel does, we can say that baptism initiates us into the visible church, and it is faith that initiates us into the invisible church. These two things may be connected (in the case of some of the elect) or not (in the case of the reprobate). When one is initiated into the visible church, one receives the benefit of being treated as a believer until that person is shown otherwise. This increases the condemnation of those who apostatize and show themselves never to have been a part of the invisible church at all. The Federal Vision collapses the visible/invisible church distinction.


----------



## Ivan

As an Founders SBCer I haven't looked that closely at the FV issue. However, from what I have read in this present thread it sounds to be that Jonathan Edwards dealt with something similar in his church by in the day.


----------



## Hippo

Ivan said:


> As an Founders SBCer I haven't looked that closely at the FV issue. However, from what I have read in this present thread it sounds to be that Jonathan Edwards dealt with something similar in his church by in the day.



One of my main problems with the FV is that once you are a covenant member through baptism the call is to covenant faithfulness (which in practice is often works) rather than to conversion. Indeed conversion is almost frowned upon as an abrogation of the primacy of the external covenant. Therefore the FV would see Edwards "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" as an unwarranted demand for inner conversion which is entirely inappropriate.

The FV do not therefore in my mind preach the full Gospel. 

To be fair the FV would say that the modern call to conversion is an experiential approach that verges on synergistic Arminianism and they do have a point, but the answer is to reform our unbiblical practices, not to cease to preach the full Gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Leslie said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful replies, especially that of Semper Fidelis. Since FV is wrong about the temporary salvation concept (and I agree they are wrong), then are not the forms for infant baptism sorely defective? I'm familiar with the CR form but presumably other forms are similar. There are all these glowing promises of God pronounced over the wee one but never is the big condition mentioned "IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE ELECT". If one should add the big condition, then how is a convenant infant different from any other infant? One can say of all infants whatsoever that God makes glowing promises if they happen to be elect, even those infants born into Buddhist families.
> 
> Also how do Reformed people who reject the FV understand the condition of people who are born into Christian families but are finally reprobate, explicitly, by choice, no doubt about it. The author Peter DeVries comes to mind. I'd assume they were never saved in any sense whatsoever and, in retrospect, the promises and blessings pronounced in their infancies were, at best, half-truths, if not outright lies.
> 
> Lest any misunderstand, I'm NOT a secret FV sympathizer, nor am I trying to be sarcastic or smart-alecky. I've come to faith in God relatively recently, having been a covenant baby, a reprobate most of my life, and given a new heart three years ago. I really want to understand.



Excellent points by Daniel and Lane. I just want to add my own two cents.

I think what you need to understand with respect to how God brings redemption to mankind is a distinction between the Covenant of Redemption (CoR) and the Covenant of Grace (CoG). One simple way of stating it is that we are elected because of the Covenant within the Godhead to save a particular people to the glory of God to the uttermost but that CoR is worked out, in time and space, by a visible administration to people who work within the things revealed and means.

If you think about the "golden chain" it includes some things that are hidden from us as well as some things that we experience in the here and now.

Romans 8:28-30


> 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.



Our own knowledge of our salvation is not based on the things that God foreknew or upon His predestination. Rather, our knowledge is of an external and internal call, a turning from our sin and unto Christ in Evangelical faith, and then a sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that flows out of our justifcation. We don't even have experience of our glorification for it is a future hope.

But, because we know Who we believe and rest in Him for salvation, we are able to "connect the dots" and have some connection to the chain that is in the eternal decree of God and we have confidence on the basis of our trust in Christ that God is the author and finisher of our faith.

It is really inappropriate, then, to speak about God's hidden decree in a way that speculates about whether or not it was futile for men to be issued Promises within the CoG in the first place or, as part of its regular administration, to be constantly preached the Word toward the conversion of hearts or the building up of the Saints.

We live and work within the things revealed. It is actually against the Word of God to speculate and say: "What is the point of these means if somebody was never elected in the first place?"

Also, the notion that being in and among these means is pointless and a person might as well have never been a participant in the CoG if they were never truly elect is roundly rejected repeatedly by the Scriptures themselves. This anticipates your question about advantage.

Romans 3:1-4


> 1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.



This anticipates those who would even argue that people have no opportunity to respond to the Gospel and are not under any responsibility to it. When speaking of the Jews (Covenant people) who have rejected Christ, Paul states this:

Romans 10:14-21


> 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
> 
> 
> “ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,[h]
> Who bring glad tidings of good things!”_
> 
> 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”[j] 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
> 18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
> 
> 
> “ Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
> And their words to the ends of the world.”[k]
> 
> 19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:
> 
> 
> “ I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
> I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”[l]
> 20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:
> 
> “ I was found by those who did not seek Me;
> I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”[m]
> 21 But to Israel he says:
> 
> “ All day long I have stretched out My hands
> To a disobedient and contrary people.”_


_

The Christian religion and understanding of God's election is not meant to be something, ultimately, where we try to determine the point where we've arrived and, in lieu of a decision card, point to our "election card" and assume that our fear and trembling in the process of sanctification has ended. We are repeatedly enjoined to live as if we believe we have been justified and to corporately care about how everyone is progressing in sanctification and, in fact, whether or not a man might never have been converted.

We are not simply supposed to be concerned about ourselves but about the entire Body. We are to be fearful lest any be found to be unbelieving:

Hebrews 4:1-10



1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them,[a] not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:

“ So I swore in My wrath,

‘ They shall not enter My rest,’”*

although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”;[c] 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.”[d]
6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: 


“ Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”[e]

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.*

Click to expand...

*
This we will surely do because we have trusted in Christ but we never take it for granted and the Promises of God are given to us as an audible and historical act of God's utter faithfulness to save us and, by Word and Sacrament, impel us all toward His holy ends.*_


----------



## Leslie

Thanks again to Semper Fidelis. I don't have the knack of quoting previous posts, but if I understand you right, you are saying that the advantage of covenant infants in the church is analogous to the advantage of infants born into Jewish homes in the B.C. era. It is simply that they have the advantage of exposure to the corpus of teaching regarding God. From a strictly human point of view, conversion should be easier, not quite so radical as it is for a Buddhist. Yet there is also a disadvantage in this, in that the condemnation of an ultimately-reprobate covenant infant is greatly increased. I still don't understand why the CR form for the baptism of infants sounds like a FV document, promising the forgiveness of sins etc. without the mention of either "if elect" or "if later converted".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Leslie said:


> Thanks again to Semper Fidelis. I don't have the knack of quoting previous posts, but if I understand you right, you are saying that the advantage of covenant infants in the church is analogous to the advantage of infants born into Jewish homes in the B.C. era. It is simply that they have the advantage of exposure to the corpus of teaching regarding God. From a strictly human point of view, conversion should be easier, not quite so radical as it is for a Buddhist. Yet there is also a disadvantage in this, in that the condemnation of an ultimately-reprobate covenant infant is greatly increased. I still don't understand why the CR form for the baptism of infants sounds like a FV document, promising the forgiveness of sins etc. without the mention of either "if elect" or "if later converted".



I would also say that the advantage is that spiritual blessing has historically been given along geneological lines. That is to say that children are blessed to have parents that instill in them a love of God and a family that serves the Lord. The fact that the Lord grafts in wild shoots (as many of us are) does not exclude the fact that He also still blesses in great abundance geneologically.

Again, election works itself out in time according to the CoG. It is the reason why Christians don't just pop up at random and we don't see the same proportion of Christians in Muslim homes as we do in Christian homes.

Even when you interview Baptist parents, close to 100% of their kids end up making professions of faith and they are baptized. Election is not some blind force of fate where children are saved apart from means. Pagan parents tend to raise more of the same except, in God's grace, He calls some graciously into His Kingdom. But His Kingdom is still big enough to allow for His blesssing to occur in abundance within families that, by His grace, He utilizes the Church to train up _all_ her disciples - young and old.

Paul commands parents, just as Moses did, to train children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. God utilizes those means for maturation and conversion.

Again, election cannot be thought of as a concept where we try to peel back the curtain and wonder if God has elected our children. He commands us to raise them in the fear and admonition of Him. This implies discipleship and, just like older believers, _we_ all fear lest _any_ be found to be of an unbelieving spirit. Whether or not God has elected a child in my household or an adult with a mature profession is not for me to speculate. My command is to be built up together with all. And because I serve a gracious God, I assume the best of the means He provides through me toward the goal of raising up a Godly inheritance.


----------



## Poimen

Hippo said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an Founders SBCer I haven't looked that closely at the FV issue. However, from what I have read in this present thread it sounds to be that Jonathan Edwards dealt with something similar in his church by in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my main problems with the FV is that once you are a covenant member through baptism the call is to covenant faithfulness (which in practice is often works) rather than to conversion. Indeed conversion is almost frowned upon as an abrogation of the primacy of the external covenant. Therefore the FV would see Edwards "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" as an unwarranted demand for inner conversion which is entirely inappropriate.
> 
> The FV do not therefore in my mind preach the full Gospel.
> 
> To be fair the FV would say that the modern call to conversion is an experiential approach that verges on synergistic Arminianism and they do have a point, but the answer is to reform our unbiblical practices, not to cease to preach the full Gospel.
Click to expand...


This is, in my opinion, one of the problems with FV that is often overlooked. A very balanced response; thank you.


----------



## HaigLaw

The PCA at its 2007 General Assembly adopted 9 points of the "Declarations" or summaries of the findings of the PCA's Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision found on page 2235 (Section IV) of the committee report contained in the 2007 General Assembly minutes, saying FV theology was out of accord with PCA beliefs in those 9 ways. 

Point 2 of the 9, for example, found at the link below, says this about one of the points attributed to FV theology, "The view that an individual is 'elect' by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this 'election' includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his 'election' if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards."

I discuss this report in my Xanga blog of the Louisiana Presbytery (LaP) meeting of today.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Quite a change of events I would say. Thanks for the update.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Succinct*



greenbaggins said:


> Or, to get at it another way than Daniel does, we can say that baptism initiates us into the visible church, and it is faith that initiates us into the invisible church. These two things may be connected (in the case of some of the elect) or not (in the case of the reprobate). When one is initiated into the visible church, one receives the benefit of being treated as a believer until that person is shown otherwise. This increases the condemnation of those who apostatize and show themselves never to have been a part of the invisible church at all. The Federal Vision collapses the visible/invisible church distinction.



That is about as succinct and to the point as I've seen.

Thanks!


----------



## Mayflower

Leslie said:


> What is the basic problem with FV?



They sprinkle infants


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Resources for Understanding the FV*

Here is a resource page.

Here is an introductory essay.

This is a booklet addressing the FV.


----------



## Ron

Federal Vision (FV) theology borrows from Augustine at his worst while departing from Calvin and the Reformed confessions at their best. FV is correct that perseverance is a gift given to the elect alone but where the system is terribly flawed is in its doctrine of regeneration, which suggests that the reprobate can, for a season, enjoy the grace of faith and union with Christ prior to falling away. Consequently, the FV has no place to ground the assurance of salvation that is available to the regenerate because the system allows for the reprobate to receive the same measure of regeneration and faith as the elect. Assurance becomes predicated upon the secret decree of perseverance, which cannot be known being a secret! All of which stands in stark contrast to the biblical teaching, that the Holy Spirit bears witness with the believer’s spirit according to the unambiguous word of promise that all who God calls, He justifies and will glorify.

If FV has brought something new to the church that exceeds the theological precision and exhaustiveness of the Reformed confessions, then what is it that its proponents have discovered? The simple answer is that the FV movement has brought nothing new to the church but rather denies what the Reformers taught. What is most disruptive is that FV'ists claim the tradition of the Reformers only to turn around and deny what they taught, and even died for.

Ron


----------



## HaigLaw

Ron said:


> FV has no place to ground the assurance of salvation that is available to the regenerate because the system allows for the reprobate to receive the same measure of regeneration and faith as the elect. Assurance becomes predicated upon the secret decree of perseverance, which cannot be known being a secret! All of which stands in stark contrast to the biblical teaching, that the Holy Spirit bears witness with the believer’s spirit according to the unambiguous word of promise that all who God calls, He justifies and will glorify.
> Ron



Good point!


----------



## Leslie

It seems to me that the assurance of which you speak, the inner voice of the Holy Spirit is not at all unambiguous. It is entirely subjective. How can anyone know the difference between the Holy Spirit bearing witness that one belongs to God and self-deception? I've known many people who have an inner assurance of being in-covenant with God, who are evidently their own little gods, judging by their attitudes and actions. They don't see it themselves but it's evident to those around them. Granted, there may be a seed of genuine faith in some cases but it stretches credibility that everyone who claims an inner Holy Spirit witness but lives by deceitful, autonomous, self-exalting principles, is indeed of the elect. When we see others fooling themselves on what basis can we put ourselves into the category of genuine? Are we all not prone to the same depravity?

I don't agree with the FV for other reasons but it seems that in their system at least one can look at his or her current faithfulness to the covenant to determine if one is currently in relationship to God, even while being uncertain if the gift of perseverance will enable one to finish the course.


----------



## Poimen

Until my faithfulness fails. Look to Christ.


----------



## Leslie

O.k. the promise of God is objective, but how can anyone tell if he or she has the right kind of faith, is trusting in Christ alone? How can you say "faith alone?" It's certainly "grace alone" but the only place where "faith alone" is used in scripture is in James where it says "taint so!". Paul called the Gentiles to the obedience of faith.


----------



## Poimen

If one says he has faith but has no works then he has not true faith (according to James 2:14). This is a talking faith not a walking faith. The walking faith testifies to the inward work of the Spirit (which we were talking about earlier). And notice James says nothing about faith in Christ only a faith in God. (James 2:19) A monotheistic faith never saved everyone.

For it is faith in Christ _alone_ that justifies. The true talking faith is one that believes not only in words but confesses from the heart (Romans 10:9). This receives the righteousness of Christ apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:23ff; 9:32). This is the only instrument of justification by which we might be saved lest we boast (Ephesians 2:8ff).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Leslie said:


> O.k. the promise of God is objective, but how can anyone tell if he or she has the right kind of faith, is trusting in Christ alone? How can you say "faith alone?" It's certainly "grace alone" but the only place where "faith alone" is used in scripture is in James where it says "taint so!". Paul called the Gentiles to the obedience of faith.



You can tell if you have faith in Christ when you are trusting in Christ as the Scriptures reveal Him. His Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are sons of God and we cry out "Abba! Father!"

You are incorrect about James. He doesn't use the term "faith alone" and not in the sense that the idea communicates either. He talks about a faith that bears no fruit. This is what he is speaking about in terms of those who _say_ they have faith.

An evangelical faith _always_ bears fruit. If it bears no fruit then there is no evangelical faith. James is exactly like Paul in this regard as Paul speaks about our reasonable service in response to our justification in Romans 12-16. Paul also notes how the Gospel transforms us in Galatians 5-6 even after he's spent 4.5 chapters repudiating the notion that we are justified before God by our works in any sense.

Faith lays hold of Christ as our righteousness. Only a person born from above can do this. But because it is born from above that new life produces a desire for holiness on the basis of our status before God as justified. If we have no desire for holiness then we have no faith in the Son of God.

But the problem is that people turn the tree on its head. Our holiness is the fruit while justification by faith is the root. Roman Catholicism and Arminianism seek to move from producing fruit (holy living) and by that you will demonstrate that you have faith and produce a tree and roots around the fruit. The Scriptures operate the other way around where the foundation (roots) are justification and this produces fruit of righteousness.

This is how James can say that a man who _says_ he has faith (the root) but has no works (the fruit) is not justified. It is because anybody that has the root will produce the fruit. If you cannot see the fruit then there is no root and, hence, there is not justification. The root and fruit always, always, always go together but the root is always primary and the basis for everything that follows and not the other way around.


----------



## HaigLaw

Leslie said:


> It seems to me that the assurance of which you speak, the inner voice of the Holy Spirit is not at all unambiguous. It is entirely subjective. How can anyone know the difference between the Holy Spirit bearing witness that one belongs to God and self-deception? ...
> 
> I don't agree with the FV for other reasons but it seems that in their system at least one can look at his or her current faithfulness to the covenant to determine if one is currently in relationship to God, even while being uncertain if the gift of perseverance will enable one to finish the course.



These are great questions, and I see you have already gotten some good answers.

I would add two more points:

1. On your first question relating to how we can know, or have assurance, the WCOF says assurance is not of the essence of faith, that is, being in faith does not guarantee you will have assurance, but by diligent appropriation of the means of grace, one can get it. Short paraphrase.

2. On the second question about the FV offering a more tangible means of assurance, I don't read them as offering assurance on the basis you suggest. Rather, I read them as saying assurance is based on your baptism and membership in the covenant family. 

I may be wrong, and if so, I'm sure someone will correct me.


----------



## wsw201

HaigLaw said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the assurance of which you speak, the inner voice of the Holy Spirit is not at all unambiguous. It is entirely subjective. How can anyone know the difference between the Holy Spirit bearing witness that one belongs to God and self-deception? ...
> 
> I don't agree with the FV for other reasons but it seems that in their system at least one can look at his or her current faithfulness to the covenant to determine if one is currently in relationship to God, even while being uncertain if the gift of perseverance will enable one to finish the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are great questions, and I see you have already gotten some good answers.
> 
> I would add two more points:
> 
> 1. On your first question relating to how we can know, or have assurance, the WCOF says assurance is not of the essence of faith, that is, being in faith does not guarantee you will have assurance, but by diligent appropriation of the means of grace, one can get it. Short paraphrase.
> 
> 2. On the second question about the FV offering a more tangible means of assurance, I don't read them as offering assurance on the basis you suggest. Rather, I read them as saying assurance is based on your baptism and membership in the covenant family.
> 
> I may be wrong, and if so, I'm sure someone will correct me.
Click to expand...




The only thing I would add is what has already been said regarding staying in!! ie; coventant faithfulness. 

Of course covenant faithfulness only goes so far if you get short changed by the Holy Spirit, in that per FV all covenant members are regenerated, justified, santified but unfortunately you may not get the gift of perserverance and wind up on the outside looking in with your Final Justification!


----------



## shackleton

After reading through this thread I can see why Federal Vision is usually linked with NPP. The basic concepts seem to have a thread of similarity. Both seem to be founded upon a hyper view that the "church" and the sacraments save, and works keep one saved. It is similar to what the RCC believes and some liberal churches. 
I can also see why anyone not covenantal in their theology would not find this appealing since dispsensationalism is about salvation of the individual and apart from the workings of the church or the sacraments. They do not have that high a view of the church. (Let the reader understand)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

shackleton said:


> After reading through this thread I can see why Federal Vision is usually linked with NPP. The basic concepts seem to have a thread of similarity. Both seem to be founded upon a hyper view that the "church" and the sacraments save, and works keep one saved. It is similar to what the RCC believes and some liberal churches.
> I can also see why anyone not covenantal in their theology would not find this appealing since dispsensationalism is about salvation of the individual and apart from the workings of the church or the sacraments. They do not have that high a view of the church. (Let the reader understand)



 Exactly.

The FV like to say that "...at least the minister can say _objectively_ to the person that they are at least, right this moment, in union with Christ". Since covenant = union with Christ (though not perseveringly), they can escape all the icky issues of those revivalists.

I've stated before: the truth is not the polar opposite of a particular error. If we look at the morass of neo-Gnostic "He walks with me and He talks with me, Jesus is my boyfriend that I've invited into my heart" Christianity and conclude, rightly, that it is un-Scriptural, then the solution isn't to look at the error and find the truth by studying the error and saying exactly the opposite of everyting it teaches.

Just because most Christians (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) boil Christianity down to a personal relationship with Christ doesn't mean there is no personal nature to it. Just because most Christians (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) don't think the Covenant promises require anything of parents and election is a cosmic crapshoot doesn't mean that parents save their kids by their faithful parenting. Just because many Christian parents (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) don't think much of their children's participation in the CoG doesn't mean that we have to treat infants like adults in the Church and shove bread and wine into their mouths before they can even say their parents' names. Just because many Christians (and, sadly, many "Reformed" Christians) treat the Sacraments as bare signs doesn't mean that they have saving power by the working of the works.

I could go on but I think everybody gets the point.

Some people simply amaze me that would say: "Ah, well, I only give up perseverance."

What?! If you understand perseverance, you understand the Gospel. If you think that perseverance is a negotiable aspect of what it means that God is the author and finisher of our faith then the Gospel has not been understood. You're the "dutiful", elder son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son who can't understand how the younger received an inheritance that he didn't deserve.

I've stated over and over in other criticisms of Arminianism that I cannot conceive of any motivation that a true Christian would give up the absolute certainty of salvation for those who have Evangelical faith to jettison that in favor of a conditional salvation that rests in the shifting sands of man's affections.

I understand all too well what the FV is. If I thought for a moment that the FV was correct with respect to these isssues of conditional election then I would simply go back to my childhood faith of Roman Catholicism and it's false Gospel. At least they have all the dogmatics worked out rather than being a disjointed movement propogated by a few self-appointed re-interpreters of Reformed Confessions who have a band of angry young Turks that follow them around that quote our Reformed forebears as if the 9th Commandment were never written. Perhaps when the cult of the FV has fully formed they will take time to actually write their dogmatics and find they can just copy the homework of the RCC as they interpreted Augustine since the Middle Ages.


----------



## shackleton

After coming to a complete understanding of how God saves, (It has all been decided prior to the foundation of the world, we are now just following his perfect plan), perseverance naturally falls into place, it is a given, we can't help but be preserved. 

I know a lot of people who claim to be Calvinists because all they ascribe to is perseverance, but they fail to understand, or believe, how they are preserved.


----------



## HaigLaw

shackleton said:


> After coming to a complete understanding of how God saves, (It has all been decided prior to the foundation of the world, we are now just following his perfect plan), perseverance naturally falls into place, it is a given, we can't help but be preserved.
> 
> I know a lot of people who claim to be Calvinists because all they ascribe to is perseverance, but they fail to understand, or believe, how they are preserved.



Somehow, this sounds like fatalism to me. 

Otoh, the Confession speaks of God using ordinary means, and sometimes beyond or against ordinary means -- rough paraphrase.

God's sovereignty is the overarching cause, but our decisions and stumblings are all part of the outworking.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Ron

Fatalism would entail God saving (or hardening) in spite of a proper use (or rejection) of the means of grace. Accordingly, Calvinism does not ignore secondary causes but rather recognizes their true necessity in the bringing to pass of that which God intends.

Ron


----------



## toddpedlar

Leslie said:


> I don't agree with the FV for other reasons but it seems that in their system at least one can look at his or her current faithfulness to the covenant to determine if one is currently in relationship to God, even while being uncertain if the gift of perseverance will enable one to finish the course.



If one honestly looks at one's "current faithfulness" as the standard, then one will always find flaws in that faithfulness, and see that he is failing to meet God's standard of "covenant faithfulness". We are not saved, nor are we kept, by our "current faithfulness", thanks be to God, because it always, ALWAYS falls short! If I am looking at my own "faithfulness", and since I truly do want to be saved, I'll always be willing to brush little things under the rug here and there, and declare myself, in the main, to be making the grade.

That, my friend, is called SELF DECEPTION. When "covenant faithfulness" is the standard, you'll either be lying to yourself, and lowering the bar of the expected righteousness of God, or you'll never feel as though you measure up. Either way, you're missing the point - the righteousness of a saved sinner is Christ's righteousness, down to the last penny; 100%. No additives of personal contribution, no "me and Jesus". Christ only - there can be no substitutes.


----------



## queenknitter

I haven't figured out how to "thank" particular post(er)s yet, so I'll do it the old-fashioned way. Thanks for this thread! It's a very coherent critique, and I appreciate that!

C


----------



## HaigLaw

queenknitter said:


> I haven't figured out how to "thank" particular post(er)s yet, so I'll do it the old-fashioned way. Thanks for this thread! It's a very coherent critique, and I appreciate that!
> 
> C



Well, thanks to you too. I think you have to post a minimum of 50 or 100 comments before the "thanks" feature pops up and you can thank people with a click. Then there's also a limit of around 5 per day, one of the administrators told me. I've asked, but I don't think these kinds of rules are written down anywhere.


----------



## queenknitter

HaigLaw said:


> I think you have to post a minimum of 50 or 100 comments before the "thanks" feature pops up and you can thank people with a click.



Ah! Gotcha!! I figured it was something like that but still wanted to give a thumbs-up where I could!!



C


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with the FV for other reasons but it seems that in their system at least one can look at his or her current faithfulness to the covenant to determine if one is currently in relationship to God, even while being uncertain if the gift of perseverance will enable one to finish the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one honestly looks at one's "current faithfulness" as the standard, then one will always find flaws in that faithfulness, and see that he is failing to meet God's standard of "covenant faithfulness". We are not saved, nor are we kept, by our "current faithfulness", thanks be to God, because it always, ALWAYS falls short! If I am looking at my own "faithfulness", and since I truly do want to be saved, I'll always be willing to brush little things under the rug here and there, and declare myself, in the main, to be making the grade.
> 
> That, my friend, is called SELF DECEPTION. When "covenant faithfulness" is the standard, you'll either be lying to yourself, and lowering the bar of the expected righteousness of God, or you'll never feel as though you measure up. Either way, you're missing the point - the righteousness of a saved sinner is Christ's righteousness, down to the last penny; 100%. No additives of personal contribution, no "me and Jesus". Christ only - there can be no substitutes.
Click to expand...



Do the FV folks really teach that "Covenant faithfullness" depends on the indivdual...or...Do they teach that "Covenant faithfullness" is God's faithfullness to the covenant (and to those individuals in the covenant)?

Could anyone who has researched these things please provide me a quote or something of an FV teaching "covenant faithfullness" as the individual standard, apart from God's faithfullness to the covenant?

If the FV really do teach that "covenant keeping", by our own power and strength (apart from God's faitfullness to the covenant) is the standard,
then the FV is a much bigger problem then I originally thought.


----------



## Davidius

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with the FV for other reasons but it seems that in their system at least one can look at his or her current faithfulness to the covenant to determine if one is currently in relationship to God, even while being uncertain if the gift of perseverance will enable one to finish the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one honestly looks at one's "current faithfulness" as the standard, then one will always find flaws in that faithfulness, and see that he is failing to meet God's standard of "covenant faithfulness". We are not saved, nor are we kept, by our "current faithfulness", thanks be to God, because it always, ALWAYS falls short! If I am looking at my own "faithfulness", and since I truly do want to be saved, I'll always be willing to brush little things under the rug here and there, and declare myself, in the main, to be making the grade.
> 
> That, my friend, is called SELF DECEPTION. When "covenant faithfulness" is the standard, you'll either be lying to yourself, and lowering the bar of the expected righteousness of God, or you'll never feel as though you measure up. Either way, you're missing the point - the righteousness of a saved sinner is Christ's righteousness, down to the last penny; 100%. No additives of personal contribution, no "me and Jesus". Christ only - there can be no substitutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do the FV folks really teach that "Covenant faithfullness" depends on the indivdual...or...Do they teach that "Covenant faithfullness" is God's faithfullness to the covenant (and to those individuals in the covenant)?
> 
> Could anyone who has researched these things please provide me a quote or something of an FV teaching "covenant faithfullness" as the individual standard, apart from God's faithfullness to the covenant?
> 
> If the FV really do teach that "covenant keeping", by our own power and strength (apart from God's faitfullness to the covenant) is the standard,
> then the FV is a much bigger problem then I originally thought.
Click to expand...


Everything I've read from them says that covenant faithfulness is not the result of one's working on his own to merit his place in the covenant, but is rather dependent upon God's decree of election and perseverance for particular members of the covenant. Those who fall away did partake of the covenant, but were not elected to ultimately persevere. This maintains predestination and the need for God's gift of faith. It does _not_ posit that all members of the covenant are equal before God with respect to his decree, and must work on their own to persevere apart from the grace of God "working in them to will and do according to His good pleasure". If I'm wrong about my understanding of that, I'd like to be shown something to the contrary. I've looked at several sources in writing and in interviews and have not come away with anything other than that understanding.


----------



## Hippo

I have always found the FV to be quite defensible on a point by point basis, the Bible does use terms in different contexts to mean different things i.e. God chooses (i.e. elects) those to be part of his outward church and he also elects those to be decretely elect to salvation. On each point the FV will generally have a biblical position.

The problem comes when the FV decides that these different situations are part of a hierarchy and are at least confessionall interchangable, you have a deliberate ambiguity between what is meant when concepts such as salvation or election are being discussed. 

It is on the conflation of different concepts that the the FV builds its theological edifice, and when challanged there will be a retreat to the individual perfectly valid (and even confessional) points and a reluctance to discuss the conflation or confusion between the various individual concepts.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Are we in a time warp? Have the last 8 years not happened? Have the OPC, URCs, and PCA not spoken with one voice on this (not to mention the OCRCs and the RPCGA)? 

Why are we starting from scratch, as if there were no books, articles, and denominational documents on this matter?

Note to the Mods: I thought the PB had some sort of official position contra the FV and its promulgation on the site? Has there been a policy shift? 

It seems that the law/gospel distinction is up for grabs, so perhaps the FV is back on the table again. If so, I'd like to know about it.


----------



## Archlute

Because it is easier to roll out senselessly repetitive posts than to stop and read those books!


----------



## Davidius

Because it's a lot easier for ministers to be pithy and sarcastic with the laity whom they're supposed to be nourishing and for whom they're supposed to be setting a Christlike example than it is for them to actually talk to us like brothers in Christ who are worth a few minutes of their time and effort. Because it's easy to look down upon the theologically less-educated who aren't able to sit around reading all day on the congregation's dime. Because it's a lot easier to tell people who have already spent some time reading to just read some more than it is to answer difficult questions and have to deal with real concerns of people who are confused or want to learn, and for whom it is more helpful at a certain point to talk to a real person than it is to read a book which only says what is on the page and can't explain itself or answer questions.


----------



## MOSES

R. Scott Clark said:


> Are we in a time warp? Have the last 8 years not happened? Have the OPC, URCs, and PCA not spoken with one voice on this (not to mention the OCRCs and the RPCGA)? .



If every member of Christ was to simply follow the "official position", then we would all still be in Rome.

No matter how many "speak in one voice" it still does not make it the voice of God. . . Has this "one voice" became the new infallible head of the Church?

Personally, I'm curious to learn more about the FV...and yes, as an OPC member I have read the OPC report on Federal Vision.

Telling the members of your church to "go read" is not good enough in my opinion...

How about being patient with us slow learners....who are not so hasty in following the "one voice"


----------



## AV1611

Archlute said:


> Because it is easier to roll out senselessly repetitive posts than to stop and read those books!



In order to understand the NPP as taught by Wright you need to read his work, plus books by his detractors plus those by commentators who say that his detractors have missed the point. Then you need to read Wright's response to his detractors and their response to the commentators and Wright's response to them............All of which adds up to thousands of pages which take hours to read and digest and are not very cheap to buy. And that is just NTW!!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

MOSES said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we in a time warp? Have the last 8 years not happened? Have the OPC, URCs, and PCA not spoken with one voice on this (not to mention the OCRCs and the RPCGA)? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If every member of Christ was to simply follow the "official position", then we would all still be in Rome.
> 
> No matter how many "speak in one voice" it still does not make it the voice of God. . . Has this "one voice" became the new infallible head of the Church?
> 
> Personally, I'm curious to learn more about the FV...and yes, as an OPC member I have read the OPC report on Federal Vision.
> 
> Telling the members of your church to "go read" is not good enough in my opinion...
> 
> How about being patient with us slow learners....who are not so hasty in following the "one voice"
Click to expand...


As members of a confessional body we are held to the confessional statements of that same Church body. The Church has spoken with one voice saying that FV is heresy and a damnable one at that. You should accept the counsel of your brothers concerning this matter.


----------



## MOSES

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we in a time warp? Have the last 8 years not happened? Have the OPC, URCs, and PCA not spoken with one voice on this (not to mention the OCRCs and the RPCGA)? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If every member of Christ was to simply follow the "official position", then we would all still be in Rome.
> 
> No matter how many "speak in one voice" it still does not make it the voice of God. . . Has this "one voice" became the new infallible head of the Church?
> 
> Personally, I'm curious to learn more about the FV...and yes, as an OPC member I have read the OPC report on Federal Vision.
> 
> Telling the members of your church to "go read" is not good enough in my opinion...
> 
> How about being patient with us slow learners....who are not so hasty in following the "one voice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As members of a confessional body we are held to the confessional statements of that same Church body. The Church has spoken with one voice saying that FV is heresy and a damnable one at that. You should accept the counsel of your brothers concerning this matter.
Click to expand...


I do accept their counsel. That is why I am asking them questions about it, TO LEARN.


----------



## Archlute

Davidius said:


> Because it's a lot easier for ministers to be pithy and sarcastic with the laity whom they're supposed to be nourishing and for whom they're supposed to be setting a Christlike example than it is for them to actually talk to us like brothers in Christ who are worth a few minutes of their time and effort. Because it's easy to look down upon the theologically less-educated who aren't able to sit around reading all day on the congregation's dime. Because it's a lot easier to tell people who have already spent some time reading to just read some more than it is to answer difficult questions and have to deal with real concerns of people who are confused or want to learn, and for whom it is more helpful at a certain point to talk to a real person than it is to read a book which only says what is on the page and can't explain itself or answer questions.



Brother, I do not think that your display of resentment is very helpful for advancing your cause. It merely allows all of your fellow posters to jump on the bandwagon and show the sinful attitudes hidden in their hearts against Christ's undershepherds. 

It is not the responsibility of I, nor of any other minister, to hold your hand. If I had repeated requests to discuss a common issue, regarding which there had already been much good material recently written, I would surely direct my parishioners to those resources without expecting them to take offense. Worse, is to state that I must be some slothful, bureaucratic hog who is sinfully soaking up whatever theological trivia that interests me "on the congregations dime". Funny, but I had always thought that the congregation's money was a gift from God just as much as were His ministers.... I guess the people now own exclusive rights to them both.

We are busy with a lot of work in a lot of different areas, including putting hours of study into sermons in order to accomplish the fulfillment of your said desire to be nourished. Nourishment comes through hearing and understanding the proclamation of Christ's Word, not through hanging upon detail after detail of the latest theological argument, and becoming a disputational voyeur. I do not think that it is the "right of the laity" to spend their time in theological wrangling/posting when they should be fulfilling their many other God-given responsibilities such as furthering their vocation, their family's welfare, and the like. The reaction which you display is merely indicative of a democratized Christianity that believes there really is very little difference between the role of the minister, and that of the "every member minister".

Again, if you are really interested in sorting things out, do what I had to do (mind you, on my own time in the midst of a heavy seminary schedule - most of these books were not included in our course reading assignments), and pick up a book and read. If you cannot commit to that discipline, then I do not think that anything a minister could tell you will really be of very much long term help. We are not here to tickle your collective ears with simple statements soon forgotten.


----------



## MOSES

R. Scott Clark said:


> I thought the PB had some sort of official position contra the FV and its promulgation on the site? Has there been a policy shift? .



Sounds like a good policy.

Just curious why you brought it up though on this thread...Who is promulgating the FV on this thread. I thought this was a place to learn about its errors. How can we learn without using the word FV. Is Federal Vision a vulgar word that can't be spoken?


----------



## Archlute

MOSES said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we in a time warp? Have the last 8 years not happened? Have the OPC, URCs, and PCA not spoken with one voice on this (not to mention the OCRCs and the RPCGA)? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If every member of Christ was to simply follow the "official position", then we would all still be in Rome.
> 
> No matter how many "speak in one voice" it still does not make it the voice of God. . . Has this "one voice" became the new infallible head of the Church?
> 
> Personally, I'm curious to learn more about the FV...and yes, as an OPC member I have read the OPC report on Federal Vision.
> 
> Telling the members of your church to "go read" is not good enough in my opinion...
> 
> How about being patient with us slow learners....who are not so hasty in following the "one voice"
Click to expand...



If I remember my Church history correctly, those who initiated the break from Rome were predominantly the theologians and former priests of the Church, not the laity. In fact, if I remember rightly, the only thing that mass movements of laity accomplished during the Reformation were mob riots, and ill conceived military actions against figures of authority. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Poimen

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with the FV for other reasons but it seems that in their system at least one can look at his or her current faithfulness to the covenant to determine if one is currently in relationship to God, even while being uncertain if the gift of perseverance will enable one to finish the course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one honestly looks at one's "current faithfulness" as the standard, then one will always find flaws in that faithfulness, and see that he is failing to meet God's standard of "covenant faithfulness". We are not saved, nor are we kept, by our "current faithfulness", thanks be to God, because it always, ALWAYS falls short! If I am looking at my own "faithfulness", and since I truly do want to be saved, I'll always be willing to brush little things under the rug here and there, and declare myself, in the main, to be making the grade.
> 
> That, my friend, is called SELF DECEPTION. When "covenant faithfulness" is the standard, you'll either be lying to yourself, and lowering the bar of the expected righteousness of God, or you'll never feel as though you measure up. Either way, you're missing the point - the righteousness of a saved sinner is Christ's righteousness, down to the last penny; 100%. No additives of personal contribution, no "me and Jesus". Christ only - there can be no substitutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do the FV folks really teach that "Covenant faithfullness" depends on the indivdual...or...Do they teach that "Covenant faithfullness" is God's faithfullness to the covenant (and to those individuals in the covenant)?
> 
> Could anyone who has researched these things please provide me a quote or something of an FV teaching "covenant faithfullness" as the individual standard, apart from God's faithfullness to the covenant?
> 
> If the FV really do teach that "covenant keeping", by our own power and strength (apart from God's faitfullness to the covenant) is the standard,
> then the FV is a much bigger problem then I originally thought.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt that any FV proponent would say that our covenant faithfulness depends solely upon our own efforts. Even Rome wouldn't say that. 

The problem relates to how our covenant faithfulness contributes or is an essential part of our justification. Many of the FV proponents, for example, cite Norman Shepherd as their model or standard: justified by a (repentant, living, active) faith alone. But if faith actually includes repentance and works, 'by faith alone' has been emptied of all its meaning and we have brought works in by the back door. 

Ironically then, the slogan of the Reformation becomes, in Steve Schlissel's words, a theological shibboleth.


----------



## Poimen

R. Scott Clark said:


> Are we in a time warp? Have the last 8 years not happened? Have the OPC, URCs, and PCA not spoken with one voice on this (not to mention the OCRCs and the RPCGA)?
> 
> Why are we starting from scratch, as if there were no books, articles, and denominational documents on this matter?
> 
> Note to the Mods: I thought the PB had some sort of official position contra the FV and its promulgation on the site? Has there been a policy shift?
> 
> It seems that the law/gospel distinction is up for grabs, so perhaps the FV is back on the table again. If so, I'd like to know about it.



Scott: I don't read that anyone is promoting Federal Vision in this thread. The original author was asking questions about something that is new to her. It may also be new to many of our members who have not yet encountered it or are still new to the Reformed faith.


----------



## Poimen

MODERATOR VOICE ON

Okay this thread will probably derail very quickly if nothing is done so I am stepping in. Keep your comments on topic or else leave the thread alone. If not I will have to delete your post and possibly cite an infraction. 

In addition, let's not attribute motives to anyone. If people have questions let them ask, and if you don't like the questions then let someone else do the answering. 

MODERATOR VOICE OFF


----------



## Davidius

Poimen said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one honestly looks at one's "current faithfulness" as the standard, then one will always find flaws in that faithfulness, and see that he is failing to meet God's standard of "covenant faithfulness". We are not saved, nor are we kept, by our "current faithfulness", thanks be to God, because it always, ALWAYS falls short! If I am looking at my own "faithfulness", and since I truly do want to be saved, I'll always be willing to brush little things under the rug here and there, and declare myself, in the main, to be making the grade.
> 
> That, my friend, is called SELF DECEPTION. When "covenant faithfulness" is the standard, you'll either be lying to yourself, and lowering the bar of the expected righteousness of God, or you'll never feel as though you measure up. Either way, you're missing the point - the righteousness of a saved sinner is Christ's righteousness, down to the last penny; 100%. No additives of personal contribution, no "me and Jesus". Christ only - there can be no substitutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the FV folks really teach that "Covenant faithfullness" depends on the indivdual...or...Do they teach that "Covenant faithfullness" is God's faithfullness to the covenant (and to those individuals in the covenant)?
> 
> Could anyone who has researched these things please provide me a quote or something of an FV teaching "covenant faithfullness" as the individual standard, apart from God's faithfullness to the covenant?
> 
> If the FV really do teach that "covenant keeping", by our own power and strength (apart from God's faitfullness to the covenant) is the standard,
> then the FV is a much bigger problem then I originally thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt that any FV proponent would say that our covenant faithfulness depends solely upon our own efforts. Even Rome wouldn't say that.
> 
> The problem relates to how our covenant faithfulness contributes or is an essential part of our justification. Many of the FV proponents, for example, cite Norman Shepherd as their model or standard: justified by a (repentant, living, active) faith alone. But if faith actually includes repentance and works, 'by faith alone' has been emptied of all its meaning and we have brought works in by the back door.
> 
> Ironically then, the slogan of the Reformation becomes, in Steve Schlissel's words, a theological shibboleth.
Click to expand...


If we do not adopt Gordon Clark's definition of faith, and maintain that it is merely knowledge and assent, while doing away with trust, how is it wrong to say that faith is characterized by (fill in the blank with something more than assent to propositions)? The normal formulation, as I understand it, is trust (knowledge, assent, trust). Gordon Clark says that this is the first step towards introducing works into the picture, but it appears that most of the Reformed community does not see it this way. I guess I don't see what the difference is between saying that we are justified by a repentant/living/active/trusting faith and saying "we are justified by faith a lone, but not by a faith that is alone." Or, to say it in James' terms, "faith without works is dead." Isn't this something about which we all agree?


----------



## Poimen

Davidius said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the FV folks really teach that "Covenant faithfullness" depends on the indivdual...or...Do they teach that "Covenant faithfullness" is God's faithfullness to the covenant (and to those individuals in the covenant)?
> 
> Could anyone who has researched these things please provide me a quote or something of an FV teaching "covenant faithfullness" as the individual standard, apart from God's faithfullness to the covenant?
> 
> If the FV really do teach that "covenant keeping", by our own power and strength (apart from God's faitfullness to the covenant) is the standard,
> then the FV is a much bigger problem then I originally thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt that any FV proponent would say that our covenant faithfulness depends solely upon our own efforts. Even Rome wouldn't say that.
> 
> The problem relates to how our covenant faithfulness contributes or is an essential part of our justification. Many of the FV proponents, for example, cite Norman Shepherd as their model or standard: justified by a (repentant, living, active) faith alone. But if faith actually includes repentance and works, 'by faith alone' has been emptied of all its meaning and we have brought works in by the back door.
> 
> Ironically then, the slogan of the Reformation becomes, in Steve Schlissel's words, a theological shibboleth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you adopt Gordon Clark's definition of faith, and maintain that it is merely knowledge and assent, while doing away with trust, how is it then wrong to say that faith is characterized by (fill in the blank with something more than assent to propositions)? The normal formulation, as I understand it, is trust (knowledge, assent, trust). Gordon Clark says that this is the first step towards introducing works into the picture, but it appears that most of the Reformed community does not see it this way. I guess I don't see what the difference is between saying that we are justified by a repentant/living/active/trusting faith and saying "we are justified by faith a lone, but not by a faith that is alone." Or, to say it in James' terms, "faith without works is dead." Isn't this something about which we all agree?
Click to expand...


I disagree with Gordon Clark: he is wrong. 

But if faith is characterized as being (even in part) obedient to the law in the act of justification then _sola fide_ is no longer _sola fide_. 

Please read my post again to see what I was getting at.


----------



## RamistThomist

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The Church has spoken with one voice saying that FV is heresy and a damnable one at that. You should accept the counsel of your brothers concerning this matter.



I don't mean to be smart-aleck (and I am NOT FV), but I can't help but ask:

Which church? The Western church? The Eastern church? The Church universal? Or maybe the Reformed Church all over the world? Or just in America?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church has spoken with one voice saying that FV is heresy and a damnable one at that. You should accept the counsel of your brothers concerning this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to be smart-aleck (and I am NOT FV), but I can't help but ask:
> 
> Which church? The Western church? The Eastern church? The Church universal? Or maybe the Reformed Church all over the world? Or just in America?
Click to expand...


Has not every Reformed church in the USA, except for the CREC, condemned the FV?

However, you raise a good point about multi-denominationalism wrecking the authority of the church. As Protestants we should be the TRUE Western Catholics, not ecclesiastical freelancers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Also it should be noted that the church could speak with much more authority against the FV (and other things) if it was established (i.e. if the establishment principle was upheld).


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church has spoken with one voice saying that FV is heresy and a damnable one at that. You should accept the counsel of your brothers concerning this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to be smart-aleck (and I am NOT FV), but I can't help but ask:
> 
> Which church? The Western church? The Eastern church? The Church universal? Or maybe the Reformed Church all over the world? Or just in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has not every Reformed church in the USA, except for the CREC, condemned the FV?
> 
> However, you raise a good point about multi-denominationalism wrecking the authority of the church. As Protestants we should be the TRUE Western Catholics, not ecclesiastical freelancers.
Click to expand...


Yes, so why does this issue keep coming up? There are so many threads on this issue and I am not sure the original question has been answered.


----------



## Stephen

Davidius said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the FV folks really teach that "Covenant faithfullness" depends on the indivdual...or...Do they teach that "Covenant faithfullness" is God's faithfullness to the covenant (and to those individuals in the covenant)?
> 
> Could anyone who has researched these things please provide me a quote or something of an FV teaching "covenant faithfullness" as the individual standard, apart from God's faithfullness to the covenant?
> 
> If the FV really do teach that "covenant keeping", by our own power and strength (apart from God's faitfullness to the covenant) is the standard,
> then the FV is a much bigger problem then I originally thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt that any FV proponent would say that our covenant faithfulness depends solely upon our own efforts. Even Rome wouldn't say that.
> 
> The problem relates to how our covenant faithfulness contributes or is an essential part of our justification. Many of the FV proponents, for example, cite Norman Shepherd as their model or standard: justified by a (repentant, living, active) faith alone. But if faith actually includes repentance and works, 'by faith alone' has been emptied of all its meaning and we have brought works in by the back door.
> 
> Ironically then, the slogan of the Reformation becomes, in Steve Schlissel's words, a theological shibboleth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we do not adopt Gordon Clark's definition of faith, and maintain that it is merely knowledge and assent, while doing away with trust, how is it wrong to say that faith is characterized by (fill in the blank with something more than assent to propositions)? The normal formulation, as I understand it, is trust (knowledge, assent, trust). Gordon Clark says that this is the first step towards introducing works into the picture, but it appears that most of the Reformed community does not see it this way. I guess I don't see what the difference is between saying that we are justified by a repentant/living/active/trusting faith and saying "we are justified by faith a lone, but not by a faith that is alone." Or, to say it in James' terms, "faith without works is dead." Isn't this something about which we all agree?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you have lost me on this one. What does Clark have to do with FV?


----------



## Stephen

Archlute said:


> Because it is easier to roll out senselessly repetitive posts than to stop and read those books!



Bingo!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Davidius said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the FV folks really teach that "Covenant faithfullness" depends on the indivdual...or...Do they teach that "Covenant faithfullness" is God's faithfullness to the covenant (and to those individuals in the covenant)?
> 
> Could anyone who has researched these things please provide me a quote or something of an FV teaching "covenant faithfullness" as the individual standard, apart from God's faithfullness to the covenant?
> 
> If the FV really do teach that "covenant keeping", by our own power and strength (apart from God's faitfullness to the covenant) is the standard,
> then the FV is a much bigger problem then I originally thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt that any FV proponent would say that our covenant faithfulness depends solely upon our own efforts. Even Rome wouldn't say that.
> 
> The problem relates to how our covenant faithfulness contributes or is an essential part of our justification. Many of the FV proponents, for example, cite Norman Shepherd as their model or standard: justified by a (repentant, living, active) faith alone. But if faith actually includes repentance and works, 'by faith alone' has been emptied of all its meaning and we have brought works in by the back door.
> 
> Ironically then, the slogan of the Reformation becomes, in Steve Schlissel's words, a theological shibboleth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we do not adopt Gordon Clark's definition of faith, and maintain that it is merely knowledge and assent, while doing away with trust, how is it wrong to say that faith is characterized by (fill in the blank with something more than assent to propositions)? The normal formulation, as I understand it, is trust (knowledge, assent, trust). Gordon Clark says that this is the first step towards introducing works into the picture, but it appears that most of the Reformed community does not see it this way. I guess I don't see what the difference is between saying that we are justified by a repentant/living/active/trusting faith and saying "we are justified by faith a lone, but not by a faith that is alone." Or, to say it in James' terms, "faith without works is dead." Isn't this something about which we all agree?
Click to expand...


David,

Perhaps you ought to read the posts in this thread that already answer this question. Did you bother reading the posts heretofore in this very thread that interact with that very issue?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES,

Two threads that should help you understand what is wrong with the FV are these:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/con...es-fv-differ-historical-reformed-usage-18377/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/wilkins-presbytery-exam-examined-rick-phillips-18274/


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hippo said:


> I have always found the FV to be quite defensible on a point by point basis, the Bible does use terms in different contexts to mean different things i.e. God chooses (i.e. elects) those to be part of his outward church and he also elects those to be decretely elect to salvation. On each point the FV will generally have a biblical position.
> 
> The problem comes when the FV decides that these different situations are part of a hierarchy and are at least confessionall interchangable, you have a deliberate ambiguity between what is meant when concepts such as salvation or election are being discussed.
> 
> It is on the conflation of different concepts that the the FV builds its theological edifice, and when challanged there will be a retreat to the individual perfectly valid (and even confessional) points and a reluctance to discuss the conflation or confusion between the various individual concepts.


There is absolutely nothing Biblically defensible about their definition of conditional election.


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt that any FV proponent would say that our covenant faithfulness depends solely upon our own efforts. Even Rome wouldn't say that.
> 
> The problem relates to how our covenant faithfulness contributes or is an essential part of our justification. Many of the FV proponents, for example, cite Norman Shepherd as their model or standard: justified by a (repentant, living, active) faith alone. But if faith actually includes repentance and works, 'by faith alone' has been emptied of all its meaning and we have brought works in by the back door.
> 
> Ironically then, the slogan of the Reformation becomes, in Steve Schlissel's words, a theological shibboleth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we do not adopt Gordon Clark's definition of faith, and maintain that it is merely knowledge and assent, while doing away with trust, how is it wrong to say that faith is characterized by (fill in the blank with something more than assent to propositions)? The normal formulation, as I understand it, is trust (knowledge, assent, trust). Gordon Clark says that this is the first step towards introducing works into the picture, but it appears that most of the Reformed community does not see it this way. I guess I don't see what the difference is between saying that we are justified by a repentant/living/active/trusting faith and saying "we are justified by faith a lone, but not by a faith that is alone." Or, to say it in James' terms, "faith without works is dead." Isn't this something about which we all agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you have lost me on this one. What does Clark have to do with FV?
Click to expand...


David said that unless you ascribe to Clark's definition of faith (mental assent), then you are leaning towards FV because the other definitions of faith have some kind of "works-iness" about them (my term).


----------



## HaigLaw

queenknitter said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have to post a minimum of 50 or 100 comments before the "thanks" feature pops up and you can thank people with a click.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah! Gotcha!! I figured it was something like that but still wanted to give a thumbs-up where I could!!
> 
> 
> 
> C
Click to expand...


Well, since I posted that, I found the rule, and I think it's only 15 posts, but have forgotten again between the time I found that rule and re-found your post. I've only been here 4 months and have not yet learned how to navigate around very quickly.


----------



## HaigLaw

MOSES said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the PB had some sort of official position contra the FV and its promulgation on the site? Has there been a policy shift? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good policy.
> 
> Just curious why you brought it up though on this thread...Who is promulgating the FV on this thread. I thought this was a place to learn about its errors. How can we learn without using the word FV. Is Federal Vision a vulgar word that can't be spoken?
Click to expand...


No; but new people start new threads on issues like FV that have been discussed over and over. It's in the published rules of the PB that proponents of FV are not allowed here. So, sure; people can ask questions about FV all they want; it's just that many of us have already taken the time to answer a lot of these same questions, and links to some of those prior threads have been published, for those who are interested. 

If you're looking for a back-&-forth debate over the merits of FV, you may find it in places like Greenbaggins, but not on PB.


----------



## Hippo

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always found the FV to be quite defensible on a point by point basis, the Bible does use terms in different contexts to mean different things i.e. God chooses (i.e. elects) those to be part of his outward church and he also elects those to be decretely elect to salvation. On each point the FV will generally have a biblical position.
> 
> The problem comes when the FV decides that these different situations are part of a hierarchy and are at least confessionall interchangable, you have a deliberate ambiguity between what is meant when concepts such as salvation or election are being discussed.
> 
> It is on the conflation of different concepts that the the FV builds its theological edifice, and when challanged there will be a retreat to the individual perfectly valid (and even confessional) points and a reluctance to discuss the conflation or confusion between the various individual concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing Biblically defensible about their definition of conditional election.
Click to expand...


When I have pressed the FV on this point I am told that when they talk about conditional election they are not looking at decretal election but at God choosing (i.e. electing) those to be part of the physical outward covenant (i.e. the Church), a position that can be lost.

Now I can agree that God chooses who will be outward members of the covenant, and that the greek word for God choosing is also used for election in a decretal sense, and that such membership of the external coveneant can be lost. In that sense I think that up to this point that the analysis is biblical,

The problem comes when God choosing in this context is seen as a form of election that can be conflated with decretal election and that the historic Reformed position on decretal election can be applied to a new form of election that has been taken out of context. Just because the same word is used in two different contexts does not mean that those two contexts are necessarily the same or even hierarchical.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hippo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always found the FV to be quite defensible on a point by point basis, the Bible does use terms in different contexts to mean different things i.e. God chooses (i.e. elects) those to be part of his outward church and he also elects those to be decretely elect to salvation. On each point the FV will generally have a biblical position.
> 
> The problem comes when the FV decides that these different situations are part of a hierarchy and are at least confessionall interchangable, you have a deliberate ambiguity between what is meant when concepts such as salvation or election are being discussed.
> 
> It is on the conflation of different concepts that the the FV builds its theological edifice, and when challanged there will be a retreat to the individual perfectly valid (and even confessional) points and a reluctance to discuss the conflation or confusion between the various individual concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing Biblically defensible about their definition of conditional election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have pressed the FV on this point I am told that when they talk about conditional election they are not looking at decretal election but at God choosing (i.e. electing) those to be part of the physical outward covenant (i.e. the Church), a position that can be lost.
> 
> Now I can agree that God chooses who will be outward members of the covenant, and that the greek word for God choosing is also used for election in a decretal sense, and that such membership of the external coveneant can be lost. In that sense I think that up to this point that the analysis is biblical,
> 
> The problem comes when God choosing in this context is seen as a form of election that can be conflated with decretal election and that the historic Reformed position on decretal election can be applied to a new form of election that has been taken out of context. Just because the same word is used in two different contexts does not mean that those two contexts are necessarily the same or even hierarchical.
Click to expand...


It's not that the same word "election" is utilized but what they fill in with the phrase "conditional election" that can be lost. If you read Wilkins' Presbytery Exam and some other content, it is clear that what they desire to argue for is that baptized members participate _temporally_ in the forgiveness of sins and union with Christ. This idea is specifically rejected by the Scriptures and the Confessions that teach that faith is the instrument that lays hold of the benefits of Christ and not mere temporal Covenant membership.

Hence, there is _nothing_ orthodox about their _definition_ of Conditional Election (which is what I initially typed) while the phrase itself is innocuous.

A bit more on this topic as Reverends Winzer and Greco interacted and Rev. Greco quoted Owen:



fredtgreco said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This call can be heard from Joe Blogs standing on a soap box in the centre of town.
> 
> Traditional Presbyterianism taught that Jehovah God manifests His gracious presence and acts according to His special providence for the good of the visible church. This privileged position is acknowledge by historic writers as an election, which distinguishes the members of the visible church from the world. To call it anything less is to detract from the significance of the church as an institution of divine appointment.
> 
> The Confession considers the visible church to be nothing less than "the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (chap. 25, sect. 2). Besides the special benefits of the sacraments, which apply only to the elect, the Confession states they are also instituted " to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word" (Chap. 27, sect. 1).
> 
> It appears to me that the confusion arises because inexperienced theologians do not understand the adjectives "absolute," "unconditional" or "eternal," as being relative to the election which pertains to eternal life, and that such adjectives are stated for the express purpose of distinguishing this election from an election to temporal privileges.
> 
> I specifically chose the quotation of John Owen because he particularly refers to Christ's election of Judas to temporal privileges. Judas was chosen, being a devil; yet in terms of inward, spiritual blessings, he was not chosen. One is not at liberty to deny what the Bible so plainly teaches. The responsible thing to do is to explain the difference between these two elections, which is what historic reformed theology has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe it is apropos of the issue at stake here in this thread. To acknowledge that there is an "election" or "choosing" by God that amounts to common grace (which you have aptly described) is not the point. Owen is clearly describing an election to temporary gifting, such as Judas had. That is not what Wilkins is describing. He is describing a temporary election to salvific gifts, benefits. Owen is describing the exact opposite. He is discussing the giftings shown by those who manifestly do not have saving graces, in his effort to show that the work of the Holy Spirit (the selected text is from Owen's work on the Holy Spirit, _Pneumatologia_) in saving grace is distinct, different and not related to his work in gifting men.
> 
> Here is the quote in full context, from a section dealing with the *difference *between spiritual gifts and saving grace, which makes that point crystal clear (I'll bold the bottom line portions):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPIRITUAL GIFTS
> AND SAVING GRACE.
> THEIR nature in general, which in the next place we inquire into, will be
> much discovered in *the consideration of those things wherein these gifts do agree with saving graces, and wherein they differ from them*.
> First, There are four things wherein spiritual gifts and saving graces do
> agree: —
> 1. They are, both sorts of them, the purchase of Christ for his church, the
> especial fruit of his mediation. We speak not of such gifts or endowments
> of men’s minds as consist merely in the improvement of their natural
> faculties: such are wisdom, learning, skill in arts and sciences; which those
> may abound and excel in who are utter strangers to the church of Christ,
> and frequently they do so, to their own exaltation and contempt of others.
> Nor do I intend abilities for actions, moral, civil, or political; as fortitude,
> skill in government or rule, and the like. For although these are gifts of the
> power of the Spirit of God, yet they do belong unto those operations
> which he exerciseth in upholding or ruling of the world, or the old creation
> as such, whereof I have treated before. But I intend those alone which are
> conversant about the gospel, the things and duties of it, the administration
> of its ordinances, the propagation of its doctrine, and profession of its
> ways. And herein also I put a difference between them and all those gifts
> of the Spirit about sacred things which any of the people of God enjoyed
> under the old testament; for we speak only of those which are “powers of
> the world to come.” Those others were suited to the economy of the old
> covenant, and confined with the light which God was pleased then to
> communicate unto his church. Unto the gospel state they were not suited,
> nor would be useful in it, Hence the prophets, who had the most eminent
> gifts, did yet all of them come short of John the Baptist, because they had
> not, by virtue of their gifts, that acquaintance with the person of Christ
> and insight into his work of mediation that he had; and yet also he came
> short of him that is “least in the kingdom of heaven,” because his gifts
> were not purely evangelical. Wherefore, those gifts whereof we treat are such as belong unto the kingdom of God erected in an especial manner by
> Jesus Christ after his ascension into heaven; for he was exalted that he
> might fill all things, ta< pa>nta, that is, the whole church, with these effects
> of his power and grace. The power, therefore, of communicating these gifts
> was granted unto the Lord Christ as mediator, by the Father, for the
> foundation and edification of his church, as it is expressed, Acts 2:33;
> and by them was his kingdom both set up and propagated, and is
> preserved in the world. These were the weapons of warfare which he
> furnished his disciples withal when he gave them commission to go forth
> and subdue the world unto the obedience of the gospel, Acts 1:4,8; and
> mighty were they through God unto that purpose, 2 Corinthians 10:3-6.
> In the use and exercise of them did the gospel “run, and was glorified,” to
> the ruin of the kingdom of Satan and darkness in the world. And that he
> was ever able to erect it again, under another form than that of Gentilism,
> as he hath done in the anti-christian apostasy of the church visible, it was
> from a neglect and contempt of these gifts, with their due use and
> improvement, When men began to neglect the attaining of these spiritual
> gifts, and the exercise of them, in praying, in preaching, in interpretation of
> the Scripture, in all the administrations and whole worship of the church,
> betaking themselves wholly to their own abilities and inventions,
> accommodated unto their ease and secular interest, it was an easy thing for Satan to erect again his kingdom, though not in the old manner, because of
> the light of the Scripture, which had made an impression on the minds of
> men which he could not obliterate. Wherefore he never attempted openly
> any more to set up Heathenism or Paganism, with the gods of the old
> world and their worship; but he insensibly raised another kingdom, which
> pretended some likeness unto and compliance with the letter of the word,
> though it came at last to be in all things expressly contrary thereunto. This
> was his kingdom of apostasy and darkness, under the papal
> antichristianism and woful degeneracy of other Christians in the world; for
> when men who pretend themselves intrusted with the preservation of the
> kingdom of Christ did willfully cast away those weapons of their warfare
> whereby the world was subdued unto him, and ought to have been kept in
> subjection by them, what else could ensue?
> By these gifts, I say, doth the Lord Christ demonstrate his power and
> exercise his rule. External force and carnal weapons were far from his thoughts, as unbecoming his absolute sovereignty over the souls of men,
> his infinite power and holiness. Neither did any ever betake themselves
> unto them in the affairs of Christ’s kingdom, but either when they had
> utterly lost and abandoned these spiritual weapons, or did not believe that
> they are sufficient to maintain the interest of the gospel, though originally
> they were so to introduce and fix it in the world, — that is, that although
> the gifts of the Holy Ghost were sufficient and effectual to bring in the
> truth and doctrine of the gospel against all opposition, yet are they not so
> to maintain it; which they may do well once more to consider. Herein,
> therefore, they agree with saving graces; for that they are peculiarly from
> Jesus Christ the mediator is confessed by all, unless it be by such as by
> whom all real internal grace is denied. But the sanctifying operations of the
> Holy Spirit, with their respect unto the Lord Christ as mediator, have been
> sufficiently before confirmed.
> *2. There is an agreement between saving graces and spiritual gifts with
> respect unto their immediate efficient cause. They are, both sorts of them,
> wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. *As to what concerneth the
> former, or saving grace, I have already treated of that argument at large; nor
> will any deny that the Holy Ghost is the author of these graces but those
> that deny that there are any such. That these gifts are so wrought by him
> is expressly declared wherever there is mention of them, in general or
> particular. Wherefore, when they acknowledge that there were such gifts,
> all confess him to be their author. By whom he is denied so to be, it is
> only because they deny the continuance of any such gifts in the church of
> God. But this is that which we shall disprove.
> 3. Herein also they agree, that both sorts of them are designed unto the
> good, benefit, ornament, and glory of the church. The church is the proper
> seat and subject of them, to it are they granted, and in it do they reside; for Christ is given to be the “head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all,” Ephesians 1:22,23.
> *But this “church” falls under a double consideration: — first, as it is
> believing; secondly, as it is professing. In the first respect absolutely it is
> invisible, *{N.B. the antipathy displayed even this week by FV types for the visible church, expressed by Owen here, and they refer to as "against the law of non-contradiction}* and as such is the peculiar subject of saving grace. This is that
> church which “Christ loved and gave himself for, that he might sanctify and
> cleanse it, and present it unto himself a glorious church, not having
> spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
> without blemish,” Ephesians 5:26,27.*
> *This is the work of saving grace, and by a participation thereof do men
> become members of this church, and not otherwise.* And hereby is the
> professing church quickened and enabled unto profession in an acceptable
> manner; for *the elect receive grace unto this end in this world*, that they
> may glorify Christ and the gospel in the exercise of it, Colossians 1:6;
> John 15:8. But gifts are bestowed on the professing church to render it
> visible in such a way as whereby God is glorified. *Grace gives an invisible
> life to the church, gifts give it a visible profession; for hence doth the
> church become organical, and disposed into that order which is beautiful
> and comely. *Where any church is organized merely by outward rules,
> perhaps of their own devising, and makes profession only in an attendance
> unto outward order, not following the leading of the Spirit in the
> communication of his gifts, both as to order and discharge of the duties of
> profession, it is but the image of a church, wanting an animating principle
> and form. That profession which renders a church visible according to the
> mind of Christ, is the orderly exercise of the spiritual gifts bestowed on it,
> in a conversation evidencing the invisible principle of saving grace. Now,
> these gifts are conferred on the church in order unto “the edification of
> itself in love,” Ephesians 4:16, as also for the propagation of its
> profession in the world, as shall be declared afterward. Wherefore, both of
> these sorts have in general the same end, or are given by Christ unto the
> same purpose, — namely, the good and benefit of the church, as they are
> respectively suited to promote them.
> 4. It may also be added, that they agree herein, that they have both the
> same respect unto the bounty of Christ. Hence every grace is a gift, that
> which is given and freely bestowed on them that have it, Matthew
> 13:11; Philippians 1:29. And although, on the other side, every gift be
> not a grace, yet, proceeding from gracious favor and bounty, they are so
> called, Romans 12:6; Ephesians 4:7. How, in their due exercise, they
> are mutually helpful and assistant unto each other, shall be declared
> afterward. Secondly, *We may consider wherein the difference lies or doth consist
> which is between these spiritual gifts and sanctifying graces*: and this may
> be seen in sundry instances; as, —
> 1. Saving graces are karpo>v, the “fruit” or fruits “of the Spirit,”
> Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 5:9; Philippians 1:11. Now, fruits
> proceed from an abiding root and stock, of whose nature they do partake.
> *There must be a “good tree” to bring forth “good fruit,” Matthew 12:33.
> No external watering or applications unto the earth will cause it to bring
> forth useful fruits, unless there are roots from which they spring and are
> educed. The Holy Spirit is as the root unto these fruits; the root which
> bears them, and which they do not bear, as Romans 11:18*. Therefore, in
> order of nature, is he given unto men before the production of any of these
> fruits. Thereby are they ingrafted into the olive, are made such branches in
> Christ, the true vine, as derive vital juice, nourishment, and fructifying
> virtue from him, even by the Spirit. So is he “a well of water springing up
> into everlasting life,” John 4:14. He is a spring in believers; and all
> saving graces are but waters arising from that living, overflowing spring.
> From him, as a root or spring, as an eternal virtue, power, or principle, do
> all these fruits come. *To this end doth he dwell in them and abide with
> them, according to the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:17;
> Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; whereby the Lord Christ effecteth
> his purpose in “ordaining his disciples to bring forth fruit” that should
> “remain,” John 15:16. *In the place of his holy residence, he worketh
> these effects freely, according to his own will. And there is nothing that
> hath the true nature of saving grace but what is so a fruit of the Spirit. We
> have not first these graces, and then by virtue of them receive the Spirit,
> (for whence should we have them of ourselves?) but the Spirit bestowed
> on us worketh them in us, and gives them a siritual, divine nature, in
> conformity unto his own.
> *With gifts, singly considered, it is otherwise. They are indeed works and
> effects, but not properly fruits of the Spirit, nor are anywhere so called.*
> *They are effects of his operation upon men, not fruits of his working in
> them; and, therefore, many receive these gifts who never receive the Spirit
> as to the principal end for which he is promised. *They receive him not to
> sanctify and make them temples unto God; though metonymically, with
> respect unto his outward effects, they may be said to be made partakers of him. This renders them of a different nature and kind from saving graces;
> for whereas there is an agreement and coincidence between them in the
> respects before mentioned, and whereas the seat and subject of them, —
> that is, of gifts absolutely, and principally of graces also, — is the mind,
> the difference of their nature proceeds from the different manner of their
> communication from the Holy Spirit.
> 2. *Saving grace proceeds from, or is the effect and fruit of, electing love.*
> This I have proved before, in our inquiry into the nature of holiness. See it
> directly asserted, Ephesians 1:3,4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Acts
> 2:47, 13:48. Whom God graciously choosoth and designeth unto eternal
> life, them he prepares for it by the communication of the means which are
> necessary unto that end, Romans 8:28-30. Hereof sanctification, or the
> communication of saving grace, is comprehensive; for we are “chosen to
> salvation through sanctification of the Spirit,” 2 Thessalonians 2:13, for
> this is that whereby we are “made meet to be partakers of the inheritance
> of the saints in light,” Colossians 1:12. Th*e end of God in election is the
> sonship and salvation of the elect, *“to the praise of the glory of his grace,”
> Ephesians 1:5,6; and this cannot be unless his image be renewed in them
> in holiness or saving graces. These, therefore, he works in them, in pursuit
> of his eternal purpose therein. *But gifts, on the other hand, which are no
> more but so, and where they are solitary or alone, are only the effects of a
> temporary election. *Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the
> church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring
> them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used,
> we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto
> their office or work. *And this temporary election is the cause and nile of
> the dispensation of gifts. *So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and
> gave him thereon “another heart,” or gifts fitting him for rule and
> government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve
> to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His
> temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts
> unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto
> them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them.
> “Have not I,” saith our Savior unto them, “chosen you twelve, and
> one of you is a devil?” John 6:70.
> He had chosen them unto their office, and endowed them with
> extraordinary gifts for the discharge thereof; but one of them being not
> “chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world,” being not
> “ordained unto eternal life,” but, on the other side, being the “son of
> perdition,” or one certainly appointed unto destruction, or “before of old
> ordained unto that condemnation,” he continued void of all sanctifying
> graces, so as, unto any acceptation with God, he was in no better
> condition than the devil himself, whose work he was to do. Yet was he, by
> virtue of this choice unto the office of apostleship for a season, endowed
> with the same spiritual gifts that the others were. And this distinction our
> Savior himself doth plainly lay down; for whereas he says, John 6:70,
> “Have not I chosen you twelve,” — that is, with a temporary choice unto
> office, — chap. 13:18, he salth, “I speak not of you all; I know whom I
> have chosen,” so excepting Judas from that number, as is afterward
> expressly declared: for *the election which here he intends is that which is
> accompanied with an infallible ordination unto abiding fruit-bearing, chap.
> 15:16, that is, eternal election, wherein Judas had no interest.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------

