# Differences Among Federal Visionists



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 1, 2007)

Does anyone know much about the differences among the proponents of the Federal Vision? Some (i.e. Doug Wilson) appear to affirm an orthodox doctrine of justification (while still maintaining other erroneous views), can anybody elaborate on this issue as I do not want to misrepresent anyone's views (no matter how strongly I oppose them)?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jul 1, 2007)

As these gentlemen appear to have 'circled the wagons' I find it nigh impossible to comprehend where the real differences are between them. 





Daniel Ritchie said:


> Does anyone know much about the differences among the proponents of the Federal Vision? Some (i.e. Doug Wilson) appear to affirm an orthodox doctrine of justification (while still maintaining other erroneous views), can anybody elaborate on this issue as I do not want to misrepresent anyone's views (no matter how strongly I oppose them)?


----------



## KMK (Jul 1, 2007)

I have noticed this as well! I am anxious for a concise statement of their differences but they do not seem to claim any. I am still holding out hope for Wilson. My wife and I have been edified by some of his books.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2007)

I am sure its online somewhere but Wilson's Presbytery examined him and where he took issue with the Confessions. That would probably answer some questions, but I don't know where it is.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Does anyone know much about the differences among the proponents of the Federal Vision? Some (i.e. Doug Wilson) appear to affirm an orthodox doctrine of justification (while still maintaining other erroneous views), can anybody elaborate on this issue as I do not want to misrepresent anyone's views (no matter how strongly I oppose them)?



Some "appear" to affirm an orthodox doctrine but it is just that. I think they are duplicitous by the very fact that their statements are ambiguous or, at times, downright disingenous. I had a question read to Doug Wilson on a podcast a couple months back. I asked him a clear question about whether a person, not united to Christ by faith, could receive forgiveness of sins. He appeared to emphatically say "No" but then went on to say that there are "different senses" in which the Bible speaks of forgiveness. This is the deceptive nature of their teaching. They'll say they completely affirm the Confession where it talks about the benefits of true union with Christ but then create a category of union, forgiveness, etc that is extra-Confessional.

They claim that the Confession does not fully express the different senses the Scriptures define election, union with Christ, etc. The plain truth is that the Confession do express them and, in fact, _they emphatically reject the "extra" sense in which the FV propponents attempt to use them_. I can't imagine that Doug Wilson has such a severe reading comprehension problem that he hasn't yet figured that out. For him to claim that he confesses the WCF is inconceivable (and I know what that word means).

These men need to repent. I'm convinced that God will require account of the fact they led so many men astray by their ambiguity. They need to come clean and admit they are completely un-Confessional.

You see, unlike them, I don't mince words. Men don't mince words when things matter like the Gospel. All the complaints that they're misunderstood is so much whining from men who should have the courage of our Spiritual forebears to speak *clearly*. Every complaint that they are misinterpreted is further proof they do not have the mettle to be in the ministry to begin with.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jul 2, 2007)

"They'll say they completely affirm the Confession where it talks about the benefits of true union with Christ but then create a category of union, forgiveness, etc that is extra-Confessional."

This is a very good way of describing what's happening, Rich, i.e. the FV'ers are creating new categories. 

Then they insist that because they are - to their mind - leaving the original category in place they've not changed anything, so are just as "Confessional" as they used to be. Trouble is, this isn't the way things actually _work_.

(The following is a thought originally posted on Greenbaggins, so I apologize for the redundancy for those who visit both there and here.)

In the LORD's creation, adding something to something else most generally _changes _the "something else". Yes, when one takes the number 10 and adds 2, the 10 is still present in the resulting number, but fact is, the newly created number is 12, not 10. 

If one takes a half cup of sugar and adds a couple of tablespoons of water to it, the sugar is certainly still _present_, but it's now useless for sprinkling on sugar cookies.

It's wonderful to have oxygen, but add enough hydrogen to it and the resulting combination will still _have_ the oxygen but it won't be breathable unless one has gills.

It's simply wrong to assume that one can take THIS theological doctrine and add THAT theological doctrine and have the _original _theological doctrine remain unaffected.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Does anyone know much about the differences among the proponents of the Federal Vision? Some (i.e. Doug Wilson) appear to affirm an orthodox doctrine of justification (while still maintaining other erroneous views), can anybody elaborate on this issue as I do not want to misrepresent anyone's views (no matter how strongly I oppose them)?



From my reading of these guys there is no hard and fast differences that you can point to. I think most of the main players hold to paedocommunion, or "covenant" communion, which is the new buzz word, like Wilkins and Wilson and some don't, like Schissel (unless he's changed his mind). 

One of the things I have yet to see from the FV side is any attempt to really critique the meriad of FV positions that are out there. For instance Wilson will say he is a straight down the line Westminster Standards guy and upholds the Reformed doctrine of Justification but I have not seen him say anything against Rich Lusk's view of final justification or the statements made by Leithart or Ralph Smith on "intra" trinitarian covenantalism. When given the chance to do so you don't get much of an answer.

If you find something out there in virtual reality, let the rest of us know!


----------



## brymaes (Jul 2, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> I am sure its online somewhere but Wilson's Presbytery examined him and where he took issue with the Confessions. That would probably answer some questions, but I don't know where it is.


Wilson Exam Part 1
Wilson Exam Part 2
Wilson Exam Part 3
Wilson Exam Written Answers

These have not been given nearly enough attention by the anti-FV crowd, in my opinion.


----------



## KMK (Jul 2, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> From my reading of these guys there is no hard and fast differences that you can point to. I think most of the main players hold to paedocommunion, or "covenant" communion, which is the new buzz word, like Wilkins and Wilson and some don't, like *Schissel*



Who is Schissel?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> Who is Schissel?



Steve Schlissel


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 2, 2007)

Besides the info that Andrew linked to, he was one of the speakers at the AAPC 2001 conference that kicked off this whole mess. He was also one of the participants in the Knox Colloqium (sp?) on FV.


----------



## Craig (Jul 2, 2007)

Wilson affirms a nuance to justification...he says there is "corporate" justification, or regeneration (it's been a while since I read "Reformed is Not Enough". I think there is something eschatological involved as well...I forget. I guess it's the whole "we were saved, are being saved, and will be saved" idea.

He affirms sola gratia and sola fide....in his case, his most serious error is paedocommunion, his corporate view of justification is an unneccessary nuance, but I don't think he completely falls into the grouping of people like Jordan or Schlissel.

From my reading of Wilson, it seems he likes to emphasize the physical body of Christ and how God enters into covenant with entire households. Not wrong, of course...there's just this theological emphasis he makes where I think it should be more of a parental/pastoral thing. Therefore, he emphasizes the fact that our children are Christians because they are baptized into the church and are under obligation to the covenant and the curses for not being faithful. Where I would say the big diff is, is here: Wilson would not say that a baptized person who rejects the faith was ever individually regenerate or elect, whereas the other FVers would make it sound like that person had been elect and now isn't (i.e. as though he lost his salvation).

While I think Wilson may be confusing on the issue, I would say he is trying to be corrective where the church has failed in recent decades...is he wrong? Not completely...I just don't think his answer is the right corrective. The other guys are just whacked.

To those who are against FV (I'm not FV, btw): 
Wilson is the least of our problems. It's the other guys. If you want to know what they believe, read their stuff...there's a TON of it...and it's rather boring (in my opinion).


----------



## KMK (Jul 3, 2007)

Craig said:


> From my reading of Wilson, it seems he likes to emphasize the physical body of Christ and how God enters into covenant with entire households. Not wrong, of course...there's just this theological emphasis he makes where I think it should be more of a parental/pastoral thing. Therefore, he emphasizes the fact that our children are Christians because they are baptized into the church and are under obligation to the covenant and the curses for not being faithful. Where I would say the big diff is, is here: Wilson would not say that a baptized person who rejects the faith was ever individually regenerate or elect, whereas the other FVers would make it sound like that person had been elect and now isn't



Would the FVers say that Madonna, for example, who was baptized as an infant should repent and believe on the name of the Lord or simply renew her covenant vows?


----------



## Contra Marcion (Jul 3, 2007)

> Would the FVers say that Madonna, for example, who was baptized as an infant should repent and believe on the name of the Lord or simply renew her covenant vows?



Yes. 

_Per Wilson: "In another covenantal sense, a Christian is someone who has received Trinitarian baptism, and who is therefore covenantally obligated to repent and believe."_


----------

