# An Open Letter to the Federal Vision



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 6, 2007)

Any Federal Vision lurkers are welcome respond to my open letter:

http://www.solideogloria.com/article/2007/01/06/00.36.55


> I've decided to post this here to formulate more clearly a thought that has been slowly developing over time given the controversy.
> 
> I readily admit that I have dear friends who are sympathetic to the Federal Vision and take great umbrage, at times, that I have criticized those who are most visible in the movement.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poimen (Jan 6, 2007)

There are many things that one might criticize about the Federal Vision movement but you have touched upon something that is, in my opinion, overlooked. Well said Rich.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Surely this whole debate isn't about us all being the same and all you're arguing for is the right to use different words to believe the same thing. You're not simply arguing for the right to quit being misrepresented are you? You haven't divided Church against Church and disrupted every Conservative Reformed denomination simply to have us agree that you are Reformed just like we are, are you?



This particular contention regarding this controversy (that it is _just_ a misunderstanding) does indeed bear its own burden of responsibility. Here are some wise words regarding truly minor doctrinal disagreements over which we should not divide, from David C. Lachman in his introduction to James Durham’s _Treatise Concerning Scandal_ (Dallas, Tex.: Naphtali Press, 1990), followed by the words of Durham himself. Bolded emphasis added.

Dr. Lachman writes:He [Durham] reminds us that division often is over very small matters. He deplores doctrinal division when the matter is not fundamental, observing that this sort of division occurs among _godly and orthodox men in some points of truth, when they too vehemently press their own opinion to be received with a kind of necessity, or load the other with too many absurdities beyond what will follow from the nature thereof. _And division once begun is frequently continued for insubstantial and unworthy reasons: uncharitable judgments, particularly concerning persons, _heart-burnings _at the credit and reputation of others (springing from the root of pride and envy), focus on the infirmities of others, a carnal and factious pleading for truth in matters not fundamental or necessary, and even the introduction of _new manner of expressions, _... _different from what has been formerly delivered_.... These and the like engender dissension and division and destroy the peace of the church. ​Durham never makes light of truth, and indeed asserts that _there is truth upon the one side of every debate. _But, granting that there are in fact different apprehension of truths not fundamental (such as meats, genealogies and the external circumstances of worship), he is against absolute decisions in such matters and particularly against those who would press them to the point which would cause a breach in the unity of the church. He cautions against those who would coerce the consciences of their brethren in doubtful matters and clearly lays the obligation on those who would force their brethren to comply (against their consciences) or be expelled. Such were the Donatists, and they were, as Durham demonstrates, clearly guilty of disturbing the peace of the church. Surely it is a great sin to divide the church over such matters. ​He warns that matters of government are the most difficult to resolve because there _men’s own particular interest is more concerned than _[it is when] _points of truth _are at stake and because there are fears that if, as a result of union, certain men come to power in the church, various evils might result. Appeals to an honored tradition or claims that a particular witness or work would be lost in no way exempts any from a duty to union; much less do unworthy motives such as fears one will not be as influential or important or even just as comfortable in a larger church. Durham reminds us that it is Christ’s church and that we are not given the liberty so to pervert it to our own concerns or interests. ​ Durham himself writes (_Scandal,_ 15-16):5. Things become offensive when they prove obstructive to the edification of others, and (as the word is _Rom. 14:21_), _do make them weak_, or infirms them, not only by fainting and weighting them, as is said before, but by confounding them in the truth or practices of religion, whereby they are either shaken in their former assurances, and so weakened, or made doubtful whether such things are duties and truths or not; or by such and such things, are diverted from the more necessary practices of religion. This is the scope of _Romans 14:1, _etc., and of other Scriptures elsewhere, whereby the Apostle Paul guards against doubtful disputations, which do not profit them that are occupied therein (_Heb. 13:9_). And thus, not only writing and reasoning for what is not truth, *but writing and speaking of truth in a new manner, with new expressions and multiplying molds of these, or doing it unseasonably, passionately, contentiously, etc., proves offensive. Thus what is not actually edifying, is offensive, *and upon this account Paul becomes all things to all, that he may gain some, as in his circumcising of Timothy that he might have access to edify the Jews, and such like. And thus often not condescending in indifferent things to please others, does much incapacitate them to be edified by us, or gives them prejudice at the way of the gospel, whereby their edification is obstructed, and they offended.​ And again later in his book (_Scandal,_ 234, 240):This [scandalous] division frequently arises, and is continued upon very small occasions. For it is not ordinarily gross heresies or palpable abominations that draw godly and learned men to side in the defense thereof, but things of lesser concernment; which we will find to be such as these: …​*Novelty of expressions and notions.*​12. New manner of expressions, or new molds of the doctrine of the gospel, different from what have been formerly delivered, have given occasion to this. That is, when there is either a new form of speaking, and an affectation of novelty in words, different from the form of sound words which ministers ought to hold fast; or when things are so proposed, as if all former molds had been defective, and all other divines in their preaching and writings were nothing to such. It seems that this newfangledness of speech had no less influence in dividing the Church of Corinth, and begetting factions therein, than the diversity that was in the matter, wherein they are not so generally found guilty, as being carried away with error, as of being itched with a human kind of eloquence in the manner of preaching. This same also may be in writings, and indeed when some cry up one manner or mold, and some others the contrary, it may breed siding [taking sides] and division, even as well as diversity of doctrine may do. And it is not for nought that the Lord has commanded simplicity in the manner, and the _holding fast of the form of sound words, _even as he has commanded soundness in the matter. Oftentimes there arises no less testiness or itching among people, nor less emulation among ministers, from the one than from the other.​ And again (_Scandal,_ 309),*Better to forbear some new thing than to alter the old, without some considerable reason.*​2. We say that men, especially in a time of divisions, would by all means endeavor to keep the trodden and approved way that has been used, and is in use in a church in such administrations. Because the less men are sticking in the manner of these things, and the more simplicity they use, and the less they differ from what is most ordinary and approved, the less will the hazard of division be in these things, which arises from the multiplying of them, the changing of the old, or bringing in of a new manner, the condemning of the way and manner used by others, as having some great absurdity in it, and the pressing of their way, even in circumstances, upon others. These and such like things are to be eschewed. And so indeed there is no way to peace in these things but to forbear. For it is more easy to forbear some new thing, than to make others alter what is old, except there is some reason in the matter to move to this.​


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 6, 2007)

Great excerpt Chris.

I think some might be pressing "newfangled" speech because they believe it _clarifies_ what we ought to be believing. Ironic.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 6, 2007)

Rich,

You make a good challenge that really cuts to the chase. The church has always _reacted_ to heresy. You ask appropriately, "What heresy are you reacting against?"

They will probably answer with something like, "We're shoring up a long slide of degradation...", "modernism" or some other intangible non-specific. 
And so history repeats. They can't see how the church must now _react_ against them.


----------



## Casey (Jan 6, 2007)

It was my impression that they (Shepherd and FV folk) were reacting to a form of easy-believism . . . but their "solution" is quite mistaken.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 6, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> It was my impression that they (Shepherd and FV folk) were reacting to a form of easy-believism . . . but their "solution" is quite mistaken.



It is my belief that every serious error in the church or the society at large, is preceded by a distortion of the truth by the "good" or those who should know better. An analogy is one of a set of car driving right down the center of the road. Slowly but surely some cars begin the drift to the right. First not noticeable, then it is finally noticed by those most effected. Some drivers attempts to correct but in the attempt to right themselves, they over correct. So then we are left with cars driving down the left hand median and cars driving down the right hand median, hurling insults back at each other. "You are the nut; No, you are the nut." The problem is that they are both truth mixed with error.

The paradigm case is that of mid 20th century patriarchy vs. feminism. Biblical patriarchy is the way to go, but at some point, the "good", seemed to drift into some sort of traditionalism, became sloppy and it seems somewhat belligerent towards anyone who suggested some changes. This caused some to swerve to the other side of the road, aka Feminism. Feminism is just a mistaken solution to the problem of the time.

Now, I am just starting to study this issue but I think the biggest issue is being sure that one does not blow off objections from the other side against your side, because it is coming from the other side.

CT


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 7, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> It was my impression that they (Shepherd and FV folk) were reacting to a form of easy-believism . . . but their "solution" is quite mistaken.





A reaction also against revivalism and what they would term "baptistic" tendencies.


----------



## Herald (Jan 7, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> It is my belief that every serious error in the church or the society at large, is preceded by a distortion of the truth by the "good" or those who should know better. An analogy is one of a set of car driving right down the center of the road. Slowly but surely some cars begin the drift to the right. First not noticeable, then it is finally noticed by those most effected. Some drivers attempts to correct but in the attempt to right themselves, they over correct. So then we are left with cars driving down the left hand median and cars driving down the right hand median, hurling insults back at each other. "You are the nut; No, you are the nut." The problem is that they are both truth mixed with error.
> 
> The paradigm case is that of mid 20th century patriarchy vs. feminism. Biblical patriarchy is the way to go, but at some point, the "good", seemed to drift into some sort of traditionalism, became sloppy and it seems somewhat belligerent towards anyone who suggested some changes. This caused some to swerve to the other side of the road, aka Feminism. Feminism is just a mistaken solution to the problem of the time.
> 
> ...



Hermonta, good analogy. In the case of the FV (and the NPP) it does not have to come down to two sides casting accusations just because each other is on opposite sides of the debate. The question to ask is, "Is there a standard by which we can come to an answer?" Of course we know that there is a standard, the word of God. It is a simple question to ask (almost too simply really), "What does the bible say about it?" In your analogy about the car the other drivers should have obeyed the law and proper driving techniques instead of worrying about the cars around them. That is how we get sidetracked. We take our eyes off that which matters most.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 7, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> A reaction also against revivalism and what they would term "baptistic" tendencies.



I thought they thought we were Lutherans!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 7, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> It is my belief that every serious error in the church or the society at large, is preceded by a distortion of the truth by the "good" or those who should know better. An analogy is one of a set of car driving right down the center of the road. Slowly but surely some cars begin the drift to the right. First not noticeable, then it is finally noticed by those most effected. Some drivers attempts to correct but in the attempt to right themselves, they over correct. So then we are left with cars driving down the left hand median and cars driving down the right hand median, hurling insults back at each other. "You are the nut; No, you are the nut." The problem is that they are both truth mixed with error.
> 
> The paradigm case is that of mid 20th century patriarchy vs. feminism. Biblical patriarchy is the way to go, but at some point, the "good", seemed to drift into some sort of traditionalism, became sloppy and it seems somewhat belligerent towards anyone who suggested some changes. This caused some to swerve to the other side of the road, aka Feminism. Feminism is just a mistaken solution to the problem of the time.
> 
> ...


Good points.

My problem is that this did not begin as an "other side" issue but within the Reformed "community" by men who were held in esteem. I still hold some of the men in esteem.

The basic idea of my letter is twofold:
1. If this is a minor course correction then have the FV gone too far. Maybe this was always about objecting to easy-believism but they believed the core doctrines were in place. Given the wrecking ball that has crashed through the Church and the wholesale forming of new "confederations" and micro-Presbyteries was the schism worth the minor course correction?

2. If this is a major departure from the Reformed faith then let's hear it. The critics of the FV don't seem to be criticizing the FV on minor issues but on the core issues of soteriology. If this debate is about that then maybe it would be helpful to know "you believe X about justification, here is why it is in major error...."

Frankly, if they cannot mount a criticism of the Reformed Church on point 2 that shows that the Reformed bodies have shipwrecked the core doctrines then I want to know why they believe issues that fall under category 1 are worth the destruction they have participated in. They can claim that they were just watching Churchmen tear the bricks down around them but they still could have backed down and said "...this division isn't worth a minor difference over words or some other debatable issue...let's be more careful with our language so we can have fellowship and labor in a more constructive way to try and see the same changes come about."


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Any Federal Vision lurkers are welcome respond to my open letter:
> 
> http://www.solideogloria.com/article/2007/01/06/00.36.55



So you have received no responses or am I missing something? That is truly surprising to me.


----------

