# Federal Vision Update



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 3, 2006)

Its interesting to me how many people seem to be having a "slack" or "overly sensitive" disposition to the Federal Vision. I suppose part of that comes from waiting for respective denominations to make a "judgment" call on the Federal Vision overall.

I thought this was simple and straigth forward article reviewing a couple of books - one for the FV and one against it. I don't usually read things from the Trinity Foundation, but these two reviews I thought were simple and helpful.

__________________________________________

*Federal Vision**

David Engelsma

Editors Note: This essay is reprinted from the November 2005 issue of The Protestant Reformed Theological Journal. 

_The Federal Vision, Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner, editors. Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2004. 299 pages, $21.95 (paper)._

Written by several of the leading proponents of the *heresy* now solidly entrenched in most of the reputedly conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches, and spreading, The Federal Vision brazenly defends justification by works; universal covenant grace to every child of believing parents, if not to every person sprinkled with water in the name of the triune God; an election unto grace that fails to save; baptismal regeneration; and the falling away of many who were once united to Christ. Among the authors are Steve Wilkins, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Peter J. Leithart, Steve Schlissel, James Jordan, and Douglas Wilson. 

Justification by Works

The movement that calls itself the "œfederal vision" teaches justification by the obedience of the sinner. "œThe presuppositions undergirding Paul´s statement [in Romans 2:13] include the facts that the Law is "˜obeyable,´ that truly responding to the Law (the Word) in faith does justify" (Schlissel, 260). Romans 2:13 states that "œthe doers of the law shall be justified." Schlissel´s comment on the text, that the "œLaw is "˜obeyable,´" affirms justification by deeds of obedience to the law.

Schlissel denies that Romans 3:28 has any and all human works in view when it speaks of the "œdeeds of the law": "œTherefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rather, the reference is only to "œJewish" deeds, that is, ceremonial works done with the motive of meriting salvation (260, 261). According to Schlissel, the apostle merely excludes "œJewish" deeds from justification. Other deeds, deeds performed by the believer in the power of true faith, are included in justification. The Apostle Paul concluded that a man is justified by faith without deeds "” any deed and all deeds. Steve Schlissel concludes that a man is justified by faith with deeds "” deeds performed by faith. 

Peter Leithart charges the Reformation with distorting the truth of justification: "œThe Reformation doctrine of justification has illegitimately narrowed and to some extent distorted the biblical doctrine" (209). The distortion is the Reformation´s sharply distinguishing justification and sanctification and its insistence that justification is a verdict (211, 213). Leithart argues that justification in Scripture has "œa much wider scope of application than the strictly judicial" (209). In fact, according to Leithart, "œjustifying is never merely declaring a verdict" (213; the emphasis is the author´s). Justification is also the sanctifying work of God within the sinner enabling him to perform good works, which then become part of his righteousness with God, as Rome has been teaching for the past five hundred years. 

Resistible Grace 

The "œfederal vision" teaches that the saving grace of God in Christ is universal within the sphere of the covenant, but that this grace can be resisted and lost. Everyone who is baptized, particularly every child of believing parents who is baptized, is savingly united to Christ, although many later fall away and perish: 

Non-elect covenant members are actually brought to Christ, united to Him and the Church in baptism, receive various gracious operations of the Holy Spirit, and may even be said to be loved by God for a time"¦. In some sense, they were really joined to the elect people, really sanctified by Christ´s blood, and really recipients of new life given by the Holy Spirit. The sacraments they received had objective force and efficacy [Lusk, 288].

God truly brings those people into His covenant, into union with Christ. They are "œin Him," to use Jesus´ words in John 15. They share in His blessings (think of Hebrews 6). They experience His love, but that covenant relationship is conditional. It calls for repentance and faith and new obedience. God´s choice was not conditional, but life in the covenant is [Barach, 37; the emphasis is the author´s]. 

The new covenant theology in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches teaches that election fails to save many whom God chooses. It teaches that the eternal election of Ephesians 1:4 and Colossians 3:12 fails to save many who are the objects of this gracious choice. "œAnd yet not all who are united to the Elect One, Jesus Christ, remain in Him and fulfill the high vocation that election brings with it. It is still to be seen who will persevere and who will fall away from within the elect people" (Lusk, 294). 

Baptismal Regeneration

The movement teaches baptismal regeneration. The ceremony of sprinkling with water in the name of the triune God effects the temporary regeneration and salvation of everyone baptized. It effects regeneration by the power of the Spirit, but the ceremony regenerates and saves everyone who is baptized, particularly every infant of godly parents. This regeneration and salvation can be lost. "œThe threshold into union with Christ, new life in the Spirit, and covenant membership in the family of God is actually crossed when the child is baptized" (Lusk, 109).

The advocates of the "œfederal vision" teach the falling away of covenant saints from saving covenant grace. They teach the falling away of saints aggressively. The falling away of covenant saints is one of their favorite doctrines: 

Those who ultimately prove to be reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God [Wilkins, 62].

Clearly, then, Hebrews 6:4-8 teaches the possibility of a real apostasy. Some people do indeed fall away, and it is a real fall from grace. Apostates actually lose blessings they once possessed. Apostasy is so terribly heinous precisely because it is sin against grace [Lusk, 274; the emphasis is the author´s]. 

Lusk manages to incorporate all of the false doctrines mentioned above in a paragraph that could have been written by James Arminius or Cardinal Bellarmine: 

All covenant members are invited to attain to a full and robust confidence that they are God´s eternally elect ones. Starting with their baptisms, they have every reason to believe God loves them and desires their eternal salvation. Baptism marks them out as God´s elect people, a status they maintain so long as they persevere in faithfulness. By looking to Christ alone, the preeminently Elect One, the One who kept covenant to the end and is the Author and Finisher of the faith of God´s people, they may find assurance. But those who take their eyes off Christ, who desert the Church where His presence is found, who forsake the external means of salvation, will make shipwreck of their faith and prove to have received the grace of God in vain [289]. 

The "œfederal vision" rejects sovereign grace in the sphere of the covenant. In the sphere of the covenant, particularly among the children of believers, election fails, Christ died for all, grace is resistible, justification is by works, saved saints fall away to perdition, and salvation depends on the will of the sinner. 

A Conditional Covenant

The root of the heresy is an erroneous doctrine of the covenant. The doctrine of the covenant being developed by the movement teaches that God graciously makes His covenant with all the children of believers alike. In the sphere of the covenant, regarding all baptized babies without exception, grace is universal. The movement is one of covenantal universalism. But the covenant is conditional. Whether the covenant is continued with a child, whether a child continues in the covenant, whether a child continues to enjoy union with Christ and covenant grace, and whether a child is finally saved by the grace of the covenant depend upon the child´s faith and obedience. The movement is full-fledged Arminianism in the realm of the covenant.

In short, the error whence all the denial of sovereign, particular, irresistible grace springs is a covenant doctrine that refuses to permit God´s election to control covenant grace and salvation. 

[Hebrews 6 and similar] passages simply speak of the undifferentiated grace of God [Lusk, 275, 276; the emphasis is the author´s].

God truly brings those people into His covenant, into union with Christ. They are "œin Him," to use Jesus´ words in John 15. They share in His blessings (think of Hebrews 6). They experience His love, but that covenant relationship is conditional. It calls for repentance and faith and new obedience. God´s choice was not conditional, but life in the covenant is [Barach, 37]. 

To be in covenant is to have the treasures of God´s mercy and grace and the love which He has for His own Son given to you. But the covenant is not unconditional. It requires persevering faithfulness.... The covenant is dependent upon persevering faith [Wilkins, 64, 65; the emphasis is the author´s].

Our salvation covenant with the Lord is like a marriage. If we persevere in loyalty to Christ, we will live with Him happily ever after. If we break the marriage covenant, He will divorce us [Lusk, 285, 286]. 

Contempt for the Creeds

The Reformed creeds mean nothing to these men, all of whom loudly protest that they are Reformed. The Canons of Dordt reject the Arminian heresy that "œthere is one election unto faith and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith without being a decisive election unto salvation." The reason is that this teaching is 

a fancy of men´s minds, invented regardless of the Scriptures, whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted, and this golden chain of our salvation is broken: "œAnd whom He foreordained, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified" (Romans 8:30) [Canons of Dordt, I, Rejection of Errors/2]. 

Contradicting the Canons and breaking the "œgolden chain of our salvation" bother Rich Lusk not at all. With (undocumented) appeal to Augustine, he distinguishes a "œpredestination unto grace," which is only temporary and does "œnot lead to final salvation," from "œpredestination unto perseverance," which does issue in final salvation (275).

With cavalier disregard for the teaching of the Reformed creeds, James B. Jordan denies that Jesus merited salvation for His people. "œNowhere [in Scripture] is Jesus´ accomplishment spoken of as earning salvation" (192). "œWhat we receive is not Jesus´ merits, but His maturity, His glorification" (195). 

Absurdity and "œFuzzy-edged Mystery"

James Jordan´s presence in the book is significant. Jordan is one of the old-guard Christian Reconstructionists, involved in the fiasco of Tyler, Texas, where an early attempt to bring in Christian Reconstruction´s earthly kingdom died aborning. Jordan connects the original movement of Christian Reconstruction with its contemporary manifestation. It should not be overlooked that most of the men of the "œfederal vision" are zealots on behalf of postmillennial Christian Reconstruction.

James B. Jordan is the wildest hare started by Christian Reconstruction. His speciality is allegorical, fantastical exegesis. In comparison with Jordan, Origen and Harold Camping are pikers. According to Jordan, Adam in Paradise would eventually have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with God´s approval. Adam would then have died a "œgood-death." By this "œgood-death," he would have been glorified, maturing into eternal life. This would have enabled Adam to fight the dragon for a while in the unfallen world at large. But Adam would have needed help. Help would have appeared in the form, not of St. George or Frodo, but of the incarnate Son of God. The eternal Son would have become incarnate even if Adam had remained obedient. But the incarnate Son likewise would have passed through the "œgood-death" of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that He too could "œmature." This fantasy is further embellished by Jordan with mind-boggling theories about garments and distinctions among animal, vegetable, and mineral (151-200).

If James Jordan is the exegete of the "œfederal vision," the movement is not only heretical but also absurd.

The absurd is the unintelligible.

Theological unintelligibility does not trouble Rich Lusk. Bravely drawing the inevitable conclusion from his premise that the Bible is not logical, Lusk is content to "œlive with fuzzy-edged mystery" (279). "œFuzzy-edged mystery" is "œfederal vision" language for ignorance. The specific area in which Lusk is content to live in his "œfuzzy-edged mystery" is the Biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Lusk readily admits that his doctrine of an illogical Bible, which is full of contradictions, particularly concerning the perseverance of the saints, derives from his "œbiblical-theological/redemptive-historical" method of interpreting the Bible, in opposition to what Lusk calls a "œsystematic/dogmatic" method (280).

In fact, Lusk´s "œfuzzy-edged mystery" is due to his denial that Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God is non-contradictory and logical, as non-contradictory and logical as the God whose Word it is. As the written Word of God, Scripture is clear, sharp-edged, and certain revelation, particularly of God´s preservation unto glory of every recipient of His grace. Scripture is clear, sharp-edged, and certain to faith. 

"œLuther´s Malady"

It falls to Steve Schlissel to make the most despicable attack on the Gospel of grace. Schlissel calls Luther´s knowledge of himself as a guilty sinner before a just God, out of which Spirit-worked knowledge came his understanding of the Bible´s Gospel of justification by faith alone, "œLuther´s malady" (255). Luther´s sickness! Justification by faith alone, therefore, is a diseased doctrine. Since justification by faith alone is the cornerstone of the entire Reformation Gospel, the entire Reformation Gospel of sovereign grace is sick.

This "œmalady," the men of the "œfederal vision" are determined to cure by a massive infusion of works-righteousness into the theology of Presbyterian and Reformed churches and into the spiritual lives of Presbyterian and Reformed people. The device by which works-righteousness is injected into the bloodstream of the churches and people influenced by the "œfederal vision" is the doctrine of a conditional covenant.

The heresy of the "œfederal vision" is deep and broad. It penetrates to the heart of the Gospel, and it extends to all the doctrines of grace. It can be refuted and rooted out only by the doctrine of a covenant of unconditional, particular grace. And this is why the Presbyterian and Reformed churches where the heresy is boldly taught are both unwilling and unable to resist it.

******************************

Book Review #2

_Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, by Guy Prentiss Waters. Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004. Paperback, 274 pages, $16.99. Reviewed by Pastor Edwin C. Urban, OPC._

Many in the conservative Presbyterian denominations are waking up, rubbing their eyes, and beginning to see that their communions are embroiled in a controversy that they never dreamed could have arisen in their Reformed churches. The controversy is over the nature and definition of justification. This debate is shaking the foundations of these denominations and is having a distinctly polarizing effect within them and between them.

It behooves every pastor and elder, the overseers of their flocks, to study and assess the now conflicting views that are being proposed regarding the nature of justification "“ a primary doctrinal concern of the Protestant Reformation. Much excellent material is being written and published regarding this debate.

One of the best books is Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul by Guy Prentiss Waters, B.A. in Greek and Latin, University of Pennsylvania; M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; and Ph.D., Duke University (concentrations in New Testament, Old Testament, and Ancient Judaism).

At Duke, Dr. Waters studied under Richard B. Hays and E. P. Sanders, two leading expositors of the New Perspectives on Paul. Dr. Waters is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Institute for Biblical Research. He is an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in America.

D. A. Carson, well known New Testament scholar, has written of Waters' book: 

In the last few years there have been several careful evaluations and critiques of the New Perspective. This one excels for its combination of simplicity, fair-dealing, historical awareness, and penetration. For the pastor who is vaguely aware of the debates, but who has little mastery of the confusing details, this book's careful presentation of each scholar's position is a model of accuracy and clarity. Even those who have been pondering the issues for years will see some things in a fresh light. The ability of Waters to combine exegetical, historical, biblical-theological, and systematic reflections, and all in relatively brief compass, enhances the credibility of the argument. Combine these virtues with pedagogically helpful chapter summaries and an annotated bibliography, and it is easy to see why this book deserves wide circulation. 

In reading this book, this reviewer was fascinated by the historical links the author establishes between the early exponents of the "historical-critical" school, F. C. Bauer and Wilhelm Bousset, through Albert Schweitzer, to Rudolph Bultmann and Ernst Kasemann, with the major authors of the New Perspective, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright. Waters has skillfully traced the affinities of the heterodox positions of this two hundred-year-old line of critical descent with the contemporary advocates of the New Perspectives on Paul, and beyond that, with Reformed circles close to home.

In the Preface, projecting the course along which his arguments will run, Waters writes, "I will"¦attempt to explain why officers and congregants within Reformed and evangelical churches find the New Perspectives on Paul attractive, and why such interest often attends interest in the theology of Norman Shepherd and the theology represented in the September 2002 statement of the session of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church."

Among the reasons for writing this book, Waters, in the Preface, writes, "I want to illustrate the ways in which the New Perspectives on Paul deviate from the doctrines set forth in the Westminster Standards. I also want to show how Reformed theology surpasses the New Perspectives on Paul in explaining Paul's statements regarding the law, the righteousness of God, justification, and a host of other topics and doctrines."

Waters concludes his book with these remarks: 

All expressions of Christianity are on the path to one of two destinations, Rome or Geneva. What the New Perspectives on Paul offer us is decidedly not "œGenevan""¦. It seems that there are elements active in the Reformed churches that wish to lead the church into a sacramental religion, all in the name of being "œmore Reformed." If we examine their arguments carefully, we see that what they are really and increasingly saying is that Luther and Calvin were mistaken, and that Trent was right. May God give us grace that we may not squander the rich theological heritage bequeathed to us by the Reformers, historic British Calvinism, and American Presbyterianism. May we model, in spirit and teaching, that "œpattern of teaching" preserved so faithfully by our forefathers. 

After reading this book, it has become clearer to this reviewer that those in Reformed circles who have fallen under the influence of Sanders, Dunn, and Wright "“ whether they are conscious of it or not "“ are rejecting the federal theology of the Westminster Standards and are promoting, not just a refinement of the doctrine of justification, but a completely new system of doctrine.

January 2005

* "Vision: 1a: something seen in a dream, trance, or ecstasy, specifically a supernatural appearance that conveys a revelation; b: an object of imagination....2a: the act or power of imagination...."


The above information can be found at:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=221


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 3, 2006)

Thanks for posting these, Matt.


----------



## VanVos (Jan 3, 2006)

Very good article by Engelsma. But you know what the FVist will say in response. "Oh you've misunderstood us". "We believe in ecclesiastical regeneration as well as salvific regeneration", "We believe in corporate election/justification as well as individual election/justification" etc etc. Has anyone else observed this type of response from the more conservative FVist?


----------



## non dignus (Jan 3, 2006)

WOW. I didn't realize it was that bad.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 3, 2006)

See, JR does come out with pertinent info. I still get his stuff also. Even though he would condemn me for being credo or something else. I find him very helpful still.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> "Oh you've misunderstood us".



More than the Bible, that is thier motto. 

Every one of them will say that. When I posted a critique on Smith's book, that was basically the answer I recieved.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 4, 2006)

Great stuff. Jordan IS a nut. He is probably one of the worst exegetes in recent history, yet for some reason, internet trend followers think he is sliced bread's cousin. Schlissel and Wilkins are just as bad, if not worse. May God and His Word and the true Gospel prevail amidst such insanity and perversion.


----------



## pduggan (Jan 4, 2006)

It seems incontrovertible to me that 

1. Adam would have been allowed to eat from the Tree
a. knowledge of good and evil isn't a bad thing in the bible
b. its something that the mature man, or the king posesses

2. Since God said 'in the day you eat it you will die', that when Adam would be allowed to eat it he would die. That is, after all, what God said would happen.
a. There is a parallel in the narrative with the creation of the woman (God brings animals, Adam sees his lack, Adam goes into a coma, God chops Adam up, God provides a woman corresponding to God allows the serpent to enter, Adam is naked...so what _should_ happen next?)
b. a deep-sleep/coma is 'near death', and so the 'good death' (death outside of the realm of sin), seems to have a fair basis in the text.

3. The Bible presents a war between a dragon, the child of the woman, and the rest of her offspring. If Englemsa wants to mock that as a fantasy novel, well, maybe he doesn't belive genesis 1-3 is a literal account. I mean really, "talking animals"? 

Somebody has to to a better job arguing against the exegetical issues in genesis 1 than merely mocking a man for taking them at face value.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 4, 2006)

I thought the articles were helpful except for that last paragraph of Engelsma. Unless you are familiar with PRC distinctives, you probably didn't catch the big jab he made at the traditional Reformed faith. He essentially is saying that if you hold to any view of "conditionality" in the gospel (i.e. free offer, common grace, etc.) you can't repel the FV. If you aren't familiar with Hoeksema's work then you probably didn't catch it. He 's basically putting in a plug for the PRC and their own PRC monocovenantalism and denial of common grace. Other than that he had a very good analysis of the FV.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> It seems incontrovertible to me that
> 
> 1. Adam would have been allowed to eat from the Tree
> ...



Are you defending Jordon's interpretations?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2006)




----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 4, 2006)

> It should not be overlooked that most of the men of the "œfederal vision" are zealots on behalf of postmillennial Christian Reconstruction.



The author makes this comment in the context of James Jordan, but it should be pointed out that Jordan no longer considers himself a theonomist/reconstructionist. The comment as it stands is merely an attempt by the author to poison the well against two other hobby horse issues in the PRC: Christian Reconstruction and postmillennialism.

I'm no defender of the hermeneutical excesses of James Jordan (interpretive maximalism, a form of Redemptive-Historical interpretation) and his fellow travelers in the FV cadre, but the backhanded slap at confessional reconstructionists is unnecessary.

The irony here is that the father of the R-H method, Geerhardus Vos, is also in the same theological stream as the PRC folks. One could just as easily pin the excesses of Jordan on Dutch influences as on CR.


----------



## pduggan (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> Are you defending Jordon's interpretations?



At least the portions of them that I line out above. And against dismissals that they are absurd fantasies.

Are you offering a substantive criticism of the interpretations?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2006)

Paul,
Do you embrace federal Vision?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2006)

Waiting for your reply; I see on your blog that you are defending the FV against some statements made by my former Pastor Rick Phillips.


----------



## pduggan (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Waiting for your reply; I see on your blog that you are defending the FV against some statements made by my former Pastor Rick Phillips.



My former pastor too, actually.  Actually, I'd defending Wright vs. Phillips, not the FV.

Define "federal vision". I hold to the WCF. I think Schlissel makes some intemperate remarks, though I'd still like to see him critiqued accurately. 

I think Jordan's exegesis is by and large, fine, though I'm happy to hear critiques of it.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by pduggan]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Paul,
Do you subscribe to what Schlissel et. al. call FV?


----------



## pduggan (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Do you subscribe to what Schlissel et. al. call FV?



I doubt it, but then I don't have a firm grasp of a coherent position from Schlissel.

Can you point me to a web page where he lines out what he means by 'FV'?

I think he said some useful things about problems in the Puritan view of assurance, but I already hold to the WCF vs. the Savoy declaration.

I could remark on the parts listed in the article, if that helps:


> "œThe presuppositions undergirding Paul´s statement [in Romans 2:13] include the facts that the Law is "˜obeyable,´ that truly responding to the Law (the Word) in faith does justify" (Schlissel, 260).


I'd disagree with what that seems to be saying, which is that the law is doable by the natural man. I'd note that it contradicts Wright's exegesis of the passage, which makes the 'doing of the law' in 2:13 to mysteriously be, in fact, faith itself, not an acceptable lawkeeping by faith.



> Schlissel denies that Romans 3:28 has any and all human works in view when it speaks of the "œdeeds of the law": "œTherefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rather, the reference is only to "œJewish" deeds, that is, ceremonial works done with the motive of meriting salvation (260, 261). According to Schlissel, the apostle merely excludes "œJewish" deeds from justification. Other deeds, deeds performed by the believer in the power of true faith, are included in justification. The Apostle Paul concluded that a man is justified by faith without deeds "” any deed and all deeds. Steve Schlissel concludes that a man is justified by faith with deeds "” deeds performed by faith.


 If that is what Schlissel is saying, and he has not qualified or retracted it I'd oppose it. I very much disagree that Paul's opposition to works done with a view to meriting a righteous verdict are restrcited to ceremonial Jewish deeds. All deeds would be so excluded, though.

The Spirit surely produces (judicial? is there any other kind) righteousness in the believer, though. As Calvin says


> Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces



I'm really more interested in the exegetical matters raised by Jordan in the FV book. I'll repost my 'incontrovertible' claims in the historical books forum if anyone wants to debat it there.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by pduggan]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

Scott, one can agree with eclectic ideas from FV authors without embracing FV in totality.

As proven by the "Where was Calvin wrong" thread.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Scott, one can agree with eclectic ideas from FV authors without embracing FV in totality.
> 
> As proven by the "Where was Calvin wrong" thread.



Mark,
I agree. However, FV is blatant heresy! And I oppose it as does this board.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Mark,
> I agree. However, FV is blatant heresy! And I oppose it as does this board.



Scott,

In all honesty, the accusations towards FV, and the writings of FV authors do not coincide when I read them both.

I do not agree with the denial of the covenant of works, nor the redefinition of "covenant" to be the Trinitarian relationship, nor the idea that Adam would have been granted salvoconducto to eat the fruit, nor many other ideas _ad infinitum_. But I still enjoy their literary approach to the scriptures, and I do not see the accusations of heresy being validated by contextual quotes of these men, along with the scriptures that refute their ideas.

Perhaps in time, more scholarly refutations will be made. But as for now they make for interesting discussions.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2006)

Mark, 
As piece meal, they present, or sound as if orthodox, yet they are viral when compiled. The means to the end in their regard is confusion. The discipline is invisibly virulent and many a man has fallen prey to the error.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 4, 2006)

Paul,
I wish some of your expressed convictions on Genesis 1-3 weren't incontrovertible to you. Then, perhaps you might be open to embracing valuable historical exegesis on the subject. At least you are open to hearing critiques...

It certainly is *not* the case that Adam should ultimately (with God's permission) have eaten of the tree *if* the _design_ of the sacrament was that it not be eaten. The following excerpt from Keil is instructive:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4514#pid53286

Men were meant to have a truly God-like knowledge of good and evil. God does not know evil by participation in it. The knowledge spoken of was obtainable precisely by obedience to the command.

To construe a warning: "in the day ye eat of it, thou shalt surely die," as something to be anticipated as a privilege when such a restriction was lifted is contrary to the sense of the thing, and palpable speculation.

"Interpretive maximalism" is simply Alexandrian exegesis _redivivus;_ you may mock Engelsma's observation and mine if you will. It is not the sober recovery of biblical exegesis that the Reformers (in line with the 15th century humanists) recovered for the church. They make occasional interesting reading, but are of little or no value in teaching or in fostering true spirituality. Only the _true_ sense of Scripture can do that.

As Wm. Ames said, the meaning of every scripture is one, "for anything that does not mean one thing surely means nothing."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 4, 2006)

Mark,

Do you have:

Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, by Guy Prentiss Waters

?

That would be a great overview tracing much farther back than simply the FV information. It houses everything AA, NPP and FV have in common and how they were birthed.


----------



## Robin (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Mark,
> 
> Do you have:
> ...



Hey Matt & guys...

see what WSC is up to: 

http://www.wscal.org/faculty/covenant_and_justification_book.htm

The guys have been working hard preparing to engage this for a while now... (I recall having my first class over 2 years back. ??)

The CD lectures, "The Foolishness of the Gospel" (available from Westminster) is a great source! The book is expected soon. (The new seminar is certain to have CD's available. ??)

(whistling....  ) O, Dr. Clark...tell us how things are coming along with this stuff, OK?

Robin





[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Robin]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Mark,
> 
> Do you have:
> ...



No I have not. I am not abandoning the reformed concept of alien justification _extra nos_. But Wright's perspective brings up many questions for me regarding the liminal space between justification and sanctification. I have said before that I think it augments the reformed tradition.

I see different aspects of justification in three spheres: _extra nos, intra nos,_ and _supra nos_.

God declares us righteous, works righteousness in us, to bring us to an eternal state of righteousness.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I am not abandoning the reformed concept of alien justification _extra nos_. But Wright's perspective brings up many questions for me regarding the liminal space between justification and sanctification. I have said before that I think it augments the reformed tradition.
> 
> I see different aspects of justification in three spheres: _extra nos, intra nos,_ and _supra nos_.
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 5, 2006)

Interesting discussion. You guys make me realize how much more I need to read. Some of the terminology used is new to me but I've been following the discussion for a while.

I would tend to be less sympathetic to the notion that every person who ascribes to portions of the FV to be heretics, especially without an Ecclesiastical body to make that proclamation.

I would agree with Scott that _Viral_ is a good way to describe the effects of the movement. It's only been a couple of years since this movement seemed to surface in force and it looks to rip apart many denominations. Even amils and postmils were able to fellowship together within Presbyterian denominations.

I guess that, even if one is convinced of the need to reform a body, that the schismatic results of pushing too hard, too fast would be a reason to give pause. Why not labor to move forward incrementally?

It just seems to be tearing apart Reformed churches right now and that "fruit" is of much concern to me regardless of the affinity I have for some of the ideas is introduces that we ought to wrestle with.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## pastorway (Jan 5, 2006)

started by men who deny inerrancy, continued by men who deny justification by faith alone, encouraged by men who can't say what they mean or mean what they say, and actively endorsed by men who redefine TULIP at every turn.....

what's not to love?

I for one am really quite shocked that more denominations have not come out and labelled this cancer for what it is. It is time to cut it out of the Body, kill it before it spreads any further. Even though some of those close to the sources may not be obvious heretics, the very fact that they are playing with this rot should be enough to shun them. 

*Who is on the Lord's Side? *

Well, the current state of affairs has denominations and pastors afraid to stand up and ask the question! 

Give them 5 more years, a few General Assemblies, a few resolutions, debates, discussions, and tolerance and this junk will do more damage to the church than liberalism ever has!



[Edited on 1-5-06 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2006)




----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

I hear two different ideas being presented that seem inconsistent.

1) The FV authors are so vague and ambiguous that it is hard to pin down what they are saying.

2) They are heretics ! ! Burn Them !!



So which is it ? As for me, I think I will continue reading them to see if the accusations are true.

And Matt, if I can get that book from the library I will check it out.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 5, 2006)

#2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> #2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.
> 
> [Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]



If they are truly heretics, don't we also need to put them out of the church (after due process, of course)?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



The major denominations are dealing with the issue.....
Excommunication does not necessarily mean that they should be dragged from the pughs.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 5, 2006)

If someone in the RPCGA was excommunicated, they would be dragged from thier pulpit. We don't allow heretics to preach.

Even if we "think" he is a heretic, we will suspend him from preaching and the Lord's Table until a trial is set and he if found guilty. If he does not repent, then we would excommunicate him from the church.

BCO:
*Suspension*
A. Suspension is a form of censure by which an officer or other member of the church is *deprived of certain privileges, for a definite or indefinite period of time.* Suspension of an officer from the privileges of membership shall always be accompanied by suspension from office, but the latter does not necessarily involve the former. When an officer has been indefinitely suspended, the judicatory shall immediately notify all presbyteries. A suspension of a member does not require written charges or a trial. However, the suspension of an officer does require written charges and a trial.

B. An officer or other member of the church, while under suspension, shall be the object of deep solicitude and earnest dealing, the goal being that he may be restored. When the trial judicatory, which pronounced the censure, is satisfied with the penitence of the offender, or when the time of suspension has expired, the censure shall be removed and the offender restored. This restoration shall be accompanied by a solemn admonition. Restoration to the privileges of membership may take place without restoration to office.

*D 7:5 Excommunication*
Excommunication is the most severe form of censure, and is only resorted to in cases aggravated by persistent impenitence. It consists of a solemn declaration by the presbyterial judicatory that the offender is *no longer considered* a member of the Body of Christ. Erasure is excommunication without full process.

Only some of the FV guys are of denominations that would censure or excommunicate. Wilson, for example, is for all intents and purposes, an independent in the way his church operates. 

But we would never tolerate error in the pulpit, much less heresy.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2006)

Typo: I meant 'pughs'...... Certainly they would be jettisoned from the pulpits!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I hear two different ideas being presented that seem inconsistent.
> 
> 1) The FV authors are so vague and ambiguous that it is hard to pin down what they are saying.
> ...




  



Your comments are very insightful, Mark, and are right on the money! These two accusations of FV are inherently contradictory.


Also, it REALLY irritates me that so many people won't listen to them when they say, "You just don't understand us!" 


Go ask a Catholic scholar whether justification by faith alone is true or not, or whether sola scriptura is true, and you may get referred to a copy of Sungenis' "Not by Faith Alone" or "Not by Scripture Alone".

Go ask an Arminian whether TULIP is true or not, and you will get a clear "NO!"

Go ask a baptist whether he believes in credobaptism, or a paedobaptist if he believes in infant baptism, and you will get a hearty "Yes!" for an answer.


You see, we know we don't understood the other side, until we can state their side in such a way that THEY agree with it!

But for some reason, a lot of people are arrogant enough to think that they don't need to extend this basic courtesy to the FV folks. If you accuse them of denying justification by faith alone, and then they flatly DENY that they do that, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. If you accuse them of denying TULIP, and then they flatly DENY that they have denied TULIP, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. --- I have heard Wilson affirm TULIP, Wilkins affirm justification by faith alone, Horne affirm the WCF, etc. But for some reason nobody wants to believe them. Even though a person doesn't understand what they are saying, he thinks that he has the right to declare what they "really" believe.

*If I thought that the FV people believed half of the things they were accused of, then I would anathematize them just as heartily as anyone else on this board.* _But the flat truth is that many of the accusers don't have a clue WHAT the FV people believe, and apparently they don't have the courtesy to even bother figuring it out._



I have a request:
Can _anybody_ point me to an FV opponent who has clearly stated the FV position in such a way that an FV person would agree with it? 

If an FV opponent would do that, and an FV proponent would agree with it, then we might actually start to get somewhere in the discussion. Until then, I think the FV accusers are just chopping up straw men, and fighting nonexistent phantasms. 



Maybe someday I will getting around to doing something like this. I think I could state some of the FV beliefs in such a way that they would agree with it. It might take a few iterations, and I would want some of them to check it and verify that I'm understanding them correctly, but I think I could do it. Then, I could proceed to point out the areas where I think they are either helpful or in error. I definitely do think they have some error, but not of the heretical sort. 

(Just for example, I disagree with Wilkins' use of the word "elect". I don't think he uses the word in the way Scripture uses it. Of course, however, Wilson would agree with me there, so it just goes to show that the FV people are not monolithic.)


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)

A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy *by the courts*, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV *by the courts*, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> You see, we know we don't understood the other side, until we can state their side in such a way that THEY agree with it!
> 
> But for some reason, a lot of people are arrogant enough to think that they don't need to extend this basic courtesy to the FV folks. If you accuse them of denying justification by faith alone, and then they flatly DENY that they do that, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. If you accuse them of denying TULIP, and then they flatly DENY that they have denied TULIP, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. --- I have heard Wilson affirm TULIP, Wilkins affirm justification by faith alone, Horne affirm the WCF, etc. But for some reason nobody wants to believe them. Even though a person doesn't understand what they are saying, he thinks that he has the right to declare what they "really" believe.



Joseph, you have identified the problem I have with the debate, but I view it exactly opposite.

If someone, especially a minister of the gospel, is publicly using terms or making statements that seem to be denying orthodoxy or leading to misunderstanding, and if that person is called on it, he should clarify. When this is done in the FV context, it seems that the proponent's clarifications muddy the waters even more.

If one is using terms in a different way from the traditional meaning, he has the duty to clearly define them. Borrowing terms and imputing a different meaning is not clear expression. If done intentionally, it's a dirty trick. 

Even thought the FV people are obviously not monolithic, they seem to have similar attributes. Saying something that pushes buttons and then claiming that you are not understood is disingenuous. I've read many of the writings and comments of the pastors mentioned and I keep getting the image of a kid playing with matches. They know what they are doing and, when caught, they run away saying "I'm not starting a fire." A mere denial in that case is not enough. The kid should clearly explain why he was acting in such an apparently irresponsible way. (And the explanation may actually be a good one).


I think some of the men associated with FV are good and well intentioned men and I agree that such should be given a fair hearing. But, if they play word games in the course of that hearing, I find no reason to cut any slack.

A simple example of what I'm talking about occurred in an exchange I had recently with a friend who is a self-described militant Calvinist warrior. I mentioned that I heard a sermon on salvation by works and was impressed. My friend promptly pronounced the preacher a heretic and railed at how easily I was led astray. I pointed out that the works discussed was the active obedience of Christ. 

I (regrettably) was playing word games, but when called on it I quickly remedied the misimpression. I haven't seen much of that in the FV debate.

Vic


----------



## Dan.... (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



 Sounds Romish to me... 

Shows a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification and necessitates justification by infused righteousness.

extra nos = justification
intra nos = sanctification
supra nos = glorification


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.



But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy. 

I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.

If these man are not under your jurisdication, the only biblical recourse would be to *first* appeal to the court(s) of your sister denomination(s) urging them to investigate and, if necessary, bring charges. Only until they act -- either by investigating and convicting/exonerting or failing to act -- only then may you make a pronouncement. Because, frankly, you do not have all the facts. That is obvious. You have not done what the 9th commandment requires.

You are simply acting prematurely and unilaterally as a lone ranger denomination without regard to the larger visible church.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> Sounds Romish to me...
> 
> ...



Good points Dan, but I see the idea of the "righteousness of God" encompassing all three aspects throughout scripture.

I have said before that one can show distinctions without obliterating where justification and sanctification overlap. If we make a total dichotomy between the two then how can sanctification be the result of justification ? And how can we said to be judged by our works ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)
> 
> A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy *by the courts*, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV *by the courts*, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.



 




> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



 



Tom, your assessments are right on target, and are a breath of fresh air!!


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I hear two different ideas being presented that seem inconsistent.
> 
> 1) The FV authors are so vague and ambiguous that it is hard to pin down what they are saying.
> ...



As to number 1: Isn't this addressed in 2 Timothy 2

"Remind them of these things (which was just addressed), and solemnly charge them in the presence of God *not to wrangle about words*, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. *But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene.*"


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



Good point also Andrew. R.V. Bottomly has brought up an excellent point that no one has yet addressed I think.
It is up to the one abiguously explaining their point to narrow it down.
When Christ told a parable, the disciples wondered what He meant. It was Christ's duty to reveal or explain it, not the disciples.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Tom,
You may call us 'lone ranger', but what we are doing is stepping up to the plate where no one else will. 

The 9th commandment has not been breached; the FV has tinkered and tampered with the hindge of our beloved faith; thats heresy, period! The RC's are heretical. They are Arminian; they have as well done the same thing to justification as the FV has. 

I stand on what my church organization holds to.......


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Some one cut one.......


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



Bingo.

Nobody on this board denies double imputation. Our sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. We all certainly agree on justification _extra nos_, as Mark has pointed out.


But everybody on this board seems to get *really nervous* about considering whether there are *other* senses in which the Bible uses the word "justification". Is that word *always* used in the same sense? I think not. An obvious example is James 2:24, *"You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."* --- Is James talking about the same _extra nos_ "justification" that we generally talk about in Reformed circles? Certainly not! So, unless we want to follow Luther in tossing James out of our Bibles, then we need to accept the fact that the word "justification" can be used in more than one way.

Is the standard doctrine of "justification by faith alone" true"? Is it true that justification has to do with double imputation, and the _extra nos_ conferring of an alien righteousness? Certainly.

But, in other contexts, can the word "justification" be used to talk about something else? Absolutely. Scripture itself requires it.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)
> 
> A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy *by the courts*, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV *by the courts*, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.






> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy.
> 
> I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.
> ...




Well said!


----------



## Robin (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I have a request:
> Can _anybody_ point me to an FV opponent who has clearly stated the FV position in such a way that an FV person would agree with it?
> 
> ...



Joseph, there was simply too much to reprint for you - here - so I'm providing the link to Rev. Richard Phillips "Convenant Confusion" essay, explaining (in good detail) the complex issues of FV. If one will take the trouble to look at the footnotes, it is obvious that Rev. Phillips has respectfully and soundly handled the references. (no strawmen)
http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/CDA/Content_Blocks/CC_Printer_Friendly_Version_Utility/1

Please consider that unbelief is "schizophrenic" by design. The most deadly and effective enemy of the Gospel is the subtle-counterfeit. 

(Those engaging the FV, understand well, the movement is not monolithic.)

Calvin would require the revisionists justify the "authority" with which they revise an entire 1500 years of biblical study (Reformation theology.) Revising the Apostle Paul ought to send up red flags for starters.

FV pours out of the arrogance and ignorance of those puffed-up with their own pharisee-ism. Truly, that's what it comes down to.



Robin


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Tom,

To be honest, it is not as if the criticism of the FV is occurring in a vacuum, or by self-appointed judges. Several prominent FV men have been denied transfer by PCA Presbyteries _specifically because of their FV views_. Obviously, the Presbyteries at issue can do nothing more than deny transfer. Several PCA Presbyteries have Study Committees/Reports that have criticized the FV. Prominent TEs and REs from the PCA, OPC, and other denominations have published and written lengthy criticisms - men who have been roundly respected for decades, such as Doug Kelly, Joey Pipa, Carl Robbins, Calvin Beisner, et al.

To say that nothing can be done before an official ecclesiastical pronouncement is just wrong. It also belies history. Anyone who has read the FV with a background in Presbyterian history sees the clear parallels between the Mercerberg movement and the Tractarians (both of which are lauded _ad nauseam_ by the FV, it is impossible to read some of the websites with getting diabetes from their praise of Schaff and Nevin).

A charitable reading of Leithart and Jordan sees that there are major differences between both their hermeneutics and their conclusions and that of historical Reformed exegesis. One only has to review _The Federal Vision_ itself to see that citations from Leithart, Jordan, Nevin and Schenck comprise about 85% of the supporting footnotes.

So here is a question: how does a Reformed denomination deal with a minister who has aberrant views, is denied transfer to another Presbytery and right afterwards runs to another denomination which does not have ecclesiastical relations with the first, taking a congregation of the Reformed denomination with him? It can't expect the new denomination to enact or respect discipline, since it does not have the same standards - and in fact holds standards that are heretical by the Confesson. So what should be done?


----------



## Robin (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



Tom, 

Let's face a real situation.

Benny Hinn IS a heretic -- we'd all agree. That's because he poses as a "Christian" minister and teacher, using the name of Christ whilst misrepresenting the Truth. Can he be excommunicated? Not by traditional standards, of course. But because he uses a public platform to make his claims, we are duty-bound to likewise denounce those claims publically.

In our strange and unique place in church history, there is an attitude of acknowledging "the Church" visible whether it be independants or denoms. Mass-media connects everyone who names the name of Christ. (an unbiblical, sinful mess) From the New Testament on, it was *only* membership via Biblical confessions. This is precisely why the Modern Reformation movement attempts to retrieve the former confessions -- to uphold what the true Church as been united by for centuries! (We don't need to re-invent the wheel, surprise, surprise.)

Meanwhile, it is OK and appropriate to engage and counter false representations of the Scriptures where-ever they hail from, but especially from those claiming Christ. If the Apostle Paul did, so should we.


Robin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Joseph, there was simply too much to reprint for you - here - so I'm providing the link to Rev. Richard Phillips "Convenant Confusion" essay, explaining (in good detail) the complex issues of FV. If one will take the trouble to look at the footnotes, it is obvious that Rev. Phillips has respectfully and soundly handled the references. (no strawmen)
> http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/CDA/Content_Blocks/CC_Printer_Friendly_Version_Utility/1



Robin,

For some reason that link is not working for me. Please try sending it to me again, and I will be happy to take a look.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



A better link:

http://tinyurl.com/4zq2u

A very good article.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> So here is a question: how does a Reformed denomination deal with a minister who has aberrant views, is denied transfer to another Presbytery and right afterwards runs to another denomination which does not have ecclesiastical relations with the first, taking a congregation of the Reformed denomination with him? It can't expect the new denomination to enact or respect discipline, since it does not have the same standards - and in fact holds standards that are heretical by the Confesson. So what should be done?



More generally what shape is any biblical discipline in generally, or at least attitudes toward it, if one only submits if he knows the court will side with him, or only if it sides with him?


----------



## Dan.... (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



Certainly, justification can talk about other things. The question is who is being justified by whom?

In Deut 25:1, the accused person is justified by a judge. 
In Romans 5, the sinner is justified by God.
In James 2, the one man is justified by another man (see vs 18).

When it comes to our salvation, it is God who justifies the sinner. We may be justified by other men, as in James 2, but that is not the justification that saves.

As long as we approach the subject by clarifying who is the justifier and who is being justified, then there is no problem. 

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Tom,
> 
> To be honest, it is not as if the criticism of the FV is occurring in a vacuum, or by self-appointed judges. Several prominent FV men have been denied transfer by PCA Presbyteries _specifically because of their FV views_. Obviously, the Presbyteries at issue can do nothing more than deny transfer. Several PCA Presbyteries have Study Committees/Reports that have criticized the FV. Prominent TEs and REs from the PCA, OPC, and other denominations have published and written lengthy criticisms - men who have been roundly respected for decades, such as Doug Kelly, Joey Pipa, Carl Robbins, Calvin Beisner, et al.
> ...



Fred,

I would continue to assert that in the absence of due process all these study committees, etc amount to nothing, ecclesiastically speaking. 

It's too bad there is no mechanism in the PCA for a minister denied transfer to file a complaint against the presbytery in question. At least there should be a way for his home presbytery to take action on his behalf. After all, they too are being found guilty by association with the minister under a cloud.

If there is truly sufficient concern about a man's teaching, and a group of presbyteries felt that another presbytery was harboring heretics, there is a constitutional way of dealing with the situation. Simply denying a transfer is not that way, because it leaves the church open to the potentiality that a minister might just take a congregation and leave. Any congregation can depart the PCA for reasons sufficient to itself. A minister in good standing is then immune for further action.

While I respect many of the men opposed to this FV stuff, I see the same tactics at work that have been used effectively against all other sort of "abberational" views, e.g., theonomy, "old school" presbyterianism, etc. It's the tyranny of the majority at work. (Anyone recall the "PCA Identity Statement" from a few years back?)

I believe it is a matter of fundamental Christian charity to follow due process. If a group is unwilling to take the often very painful and prolonged steps of process, then I would be very hesitant to hear their complaint regardless of where my sympathies lie. Fairness demands it. I think the fact that we receive these report so quickly is the error or our age. We wish for immediate satisfaction. GA study committees take too much time, and even they can be devisive at times. Let's just listen to the "experts." After all it's pretty "clear cut" to everyone that matters.

With all due respect to Joey Pipa, et al, I have no more reason to believe them on the FV thing than I have to believe Augustine on the nature of the eucharist or Luther and Calvin on the matter of the perpetual virginity of Mary. (And I have great respect for Pipa and Calvin.) 

Let the church speak.

BTW, let me just affirm that my comments are neither endorsing nor repudiating what is called "Federal Vision". I'm trying to address the matter of how we respond to these issue that come up in the church. Speaking as a theonomist, I know first-hand the pain of shoddy or nonexistent "process". I can't tell you the number of times I've been accused of holding to views that I do not, in fact, hold just because of a label.

"Let's hang 'em first, and then we'll hold the trial after the dust settles."

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 5, 2006)

Well said, Tom!!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Tom,
> 
> Let's face a real situation.
> ...



Robin,

Then why do all these anti-FV guys not spend their time going after the likes of Benny Hinn? It's precisely because they think that they can do something in churches like the PCA and OPC. They have order on their side. But order (process) is not do be used for convenience sake. Justice demands that it be followed with an eye towards the good of the person in question, not evil. That's why we are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt until we can conclusively prove them to be "heretics". A few snippets from a book or speech, or, even worse, attributing the views of one member of a "group" to all the members of that same group, does not a case make.

Speaking of our brother presbyterians, the only way that you and I can say that Joe So-and-so is not confessional in his beliefs is by the church speaking through its elected and ordained leaders. 

Regarding the argument about the Apostle Paul, I would be very hesitant to bestow the apostolic office on any one man or group today. We have courts and process. We set them aside and listen to "experts" at our peril. After all, isn't that what got us into the mess? At this point in time it's just one set of opinions against another. Who carries more weight: Wilkins or Pipa? Phillips or Wilson? Line up behind your expert.


----------



## Dan.... (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



1. Is sanctification the result of justification? Centainly all who are justified will be sanctified, but sanctification is the result of what has been done in us.



> The former [justification] is founded on what Christ has done for us; the latter [sanctification] is the effect of what He does in us. -Hodge, Systematic, volume III.



2. When we are judged by our works, is this not a different justification than Paul refers to in Rom 4:5?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 5, 2006)

Which is why the WCF made such a "stink" over getting this right:

Justification:

"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience (active, CMM) and satisfaction (passive, CMM) of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Sanctification:

"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are *further* _sanctified_ (Not further justified, CMM), really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."


----------



## Robin (Jan 5, 2006)

Robin,

For some reason that link is not working for me. Please try sending it to me again, and I will be happy to take a look. [/quote]

Hey Joseph...

Try going at it through Dr. Clarks website. See: "Rick Phillips on the Federal Vision"


r.
http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/CovResources.html








[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Robin]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

I agree Matt and Andrew . . . it is the following phrase I am referring to:

Justification:

"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience (active, CMM) and satisfaction (passive, CMM) of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Sanctification:

"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are *further* _sanctified_ (Not further justified, CMM), really and personally, *through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,* by his Word and Spirit *dwelling in them*: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." [/quote]

The difference between being declared righteous, and becoming more righteous in our actions. The Spirit of God dwelling in us makes us live righteous lives.

In other words, through sanctification, God makes our behaviour match our state of being before God. 

Unless our righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees . . . (Not merely outward, but inward).

I am using justification in two ways:

1. Justified by the imputation of Christ's obedience.
2. Justification meaning the qualitative aspect of our sanctification. Righteousness as in behavioral changes wherin we are found to be more and more in conformity to God's law. 

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father *justified by works* when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 
Jam 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 
Jam 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God. 
Jam 2:24 You see that a person is *justified by works and not by faith alone.* 
Jam 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 
Jam 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. 

The sense I am talking about is used epistemology quite often, (justified basis for belief) and no one confuses it with the forensic aspect of imputed righteousness. So why cannot scripture use the same word in different ways. "Leaven" is used as something both good and bad.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 5, 2006)

Justification, In my humble opinion, is too important to apply both to what God does at our conversion, and our further sanctification. I realize that the Greek word for "righteous" is used in at least 2 senses; however that's not how we customarily use the term "justification"in modern English, and in my opinion it's too easy to confuse how we get right with God with how we become more holy. These guys are smart enough to know that people already confuse the two and will do so more if they use "justification" in this way. You can't convince me they're ignorant. I will avoid their writings, I've already been through the perfectionist "slough" once and don't care to revisit it. (Spoken by an ignorant lay-person.)

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and *his righteousness*, and all these things will be added to you. 

Does _dikaiosune_ mean forensic justification in that verse ? Or practical righteous living ? Or the the second by means of the first ?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 5, 2006)

The subject was brought up about the unique situation in today's world regarding churches being able to defend themselves from heresy or bad doctrine (i.e. it's difficult with mass media and so on), and I think (I'm new here, by the way) regarding Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue there is something relevant I've noticed:

The most active and pugilistic apologists who normally would confront FVism or AATism tend these days to be disinterested in classical covenant theology. I'm thinking of a James White type. 

There's also a different category of good, active apologist who is not good at confronting FV and AAT because they are hamstrung by past allegiances and battles they were involved in regarding defending theonomy (and similar things). For instance if Meredith Kline is on the side of defending the Covenant of Works from FV interpretation then the theonomy-camp apologists will be silent (Kline being some kind of ultimate enemy of the theomony camp). 

A reason a Doug Wilson (and crew and mentors) can do what he does is because he is playing to an audience ignorant of doctrine at the level of classical covenant theology. Wilson is playing the same game liberal politicians play when they play to parts of the population who, for instance, don't understand how free market economies work, and they don't care that the people who do know how free market ecomonies work see that they are playing games and not being honest because they just want to fool part of the people. It's fundamentally a lack of shame on their part when they don't care that people who know better can see what they are doing.

I think, though, the theonomists (or former ones, or quasi ones) like Steve Hays (and I could be wrong but is Paul Manata similar to Hays in having entered into Reformed Theology via theonomist writings, to some degree or another?) need to purge completely that doctrine (I notice Hays never uses it in his apologetic writings anyway) and the good apologists like James White (let's just say all the good Reformed Baptist apologists) just have to bite the bullet and once and for all learn classical covenant theology or realize that they will be forever at a disadvantage against the most currently effective bad-doctrine pushers within the Reformed camp.

The Rick Phillips article - Covenant Confusion - is an excellent example of how effectively the men above the 'street level' can confront bad doctrine, but notice it takes a fairly thorough understanding of Covenant Theology to follow that article to begin with. (It's a GREAT article.)

On the UpperRegister site Kline's article Answering Objections to the Covenant of Works

http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/answering_objections.html

is very good on this subject too.

Both the above articles get at the FV doctrine at their root (or, perhaps better put in this case, at their fount). If you debate the FV guys at the level of the meaning of justification in Paul and James you are far down the stream at that point, and all the real damage has already been done upstream and you are operating in the conditions of that damage without knowing it, which, of course, gives all the advantage to the FV guys.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 5, 2006)

One other point on this subject: people who want to alter or defile biblical doctrine will make their attack at weak points in the wall. In Reformed Theology (and among Reformed Christians) they are attacking at the weak point in the area of the doctrine of sanctification where Reformed Christians have neglected the fact that sanctification has a passive AND and active element in it. Reformed systematic theologians havn't neglected this; you can go to any good Reformed systematic theology and see sound teaching on sanctification and it's passive and active elements, but for some reason among Reformed Christians themselves the active element is denied. Wayne Grudem is very good in his Systematic Theology at setting the scene of all this and pointing out where neglect has happened. See 'Our Role in Sanctification' starting on page 754.

This paragraph is particularly to the point:

"Unfortunately today, this "passive" role in sanctification...is sometimes so strongly emphasized that it is the only thing people are told about the path of sanctification. [...] But this is a tragic distortion of the doctrine of sanctification, for it only speaks of one half of the part we must play, and, by itself, will lead Christians to become lazy and to neglect the active role that Scripture commands them to play in their own sanctification."

The FV types use this weakness in Reformed understanding to do their conflating of sanctification with justification &c. and all their 'move in the direction of Rome' confusion-making.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



Guy has another book on the FV coming out this Spring. P&R says that the faculty book will be out in May. Guy is also working on a book on Norm Shepherd. 

I know the copy editor at P&R is working on our typescript. 

That's it.

To those suggesting that the FV isn't a significant problem, I wonder: compared to what? If one compares the language, structure, and formulae of the FV program to that of the 16th and 17th century orthodox and the confessions they wrote, which we subscribe, the discrepancy is obvious.

They deny the visible/invisible distinction and its corollary, the internal/external distinction (I will address this in the upcoming conference) 

This fundamental denial virtually forces them to redefine baptism as the instrument of union with Christ and all his benefits. 

These benefits they say are temporary (except when they suggest that they're not temporary) and these benefits can be lost. So there is a temporary (they call it "covenantal") election, union etc that can be lost. They can be kept by trusting and obeying. If the baptized person fulfills "the covenant" as Jesus did, by trusting and obeying, then we'll know that they really were elect. Until then one can have assurance that one is elect because one is baptized, but then, it's not the real, decretal election, except when it is. Which is my election? I don't know. I haven't finished trusting and obeying yet. Great lots of assurance that brings!

They deny or call into question double imputation (Jordan, Barach, and Lusk are explict: Badges, badges, we don't need no stinking merit badges," - oh yes, they deny merit as a category and then turn around and remarkably teach a version of congruent merit. At least some of them deny sola fide (no one more strongly than Schlissel who says the only time the Bible mentions it, it rejects it James!); they deny the covenants of redemption and works. They deny any distinction between the pre- and post-lapsarian covenants. They deny the law/gospel dichotomy in justification and these are just the denials/revisions I can remember off the top of my head.

This is quite a list for a movement that isn't sure it's a movement. Oh sure they've published voluntarily two books -- they gave themselves the name! I would never grace these fellows with the honorable adjective "federal" -- using the term to describe the same group of thinkers, they've held several conferences using this name for their theological agenda, but Doug Wilson says, it's not really a movement, it's just some guys thinking out loud. 

As my kids say, "whatever."

rsc


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

I think I will drop out of the FV/NPP debate until I can understand the issues from a more knowledgeable standpoint.


----------



## Robin (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I think I will drop out of the FV/NPP debate until I can understand the issues from a more knowledgeable standpoint.



A wise and honorable admission, Mark!

In admiration,

r. 

Btw, unpacking Matt. 6:33 and questions like it, will help more than studying FV. (Q. 86 of the HC comes to mind...)

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Robin]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 5, 2006)

Mark, do you think we can be perfectly sanctified (in the Wesleyan sense) in this life?


----------



## Saiph (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Mark, do you think we can be perfectly sanctified (in the Wesleyan sense) in this life?



No.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 6, 2006)

FV (as far as I know) isn't terribly new. I had a book until just recently called _ Paul Among Jews & Gentiles_ by one Kristor Stendahl who was a Lutheran theologian in the 1960's who was arguing the same things, i.e. Augustine & Luther got it wrong, it's not about personal salvation, it's about becoming the people of God,etc. Also, during the late '70's I was exposed to a variant of this in the Catholic church I attended (which also borrowed heavily from the liberal Protestants of the mid-century). I learned all about how Jesus wasn't really claiming to make atonement, it was about God & His people being vindicated before the world. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, took it to the thriftstore.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> FV (as far as I know) isn't terribly new. I had a book until just recently called _ Paul Among Jews & Gentiles_ by one Kristor Stendahl who was a Lutheran theologian in the 1960's who was arguing the same things, i.e. Augustine & Luther got it wrong, it's not about personal salvation, it's about becoming the people of God,etc. Also, during the late '70's I was exposed to a variant of this in the Catholic church I attended (which also borrowed heavily from the liberal Protestants of the mid-century). I learned all about how Jesus wasn't really claiming to make atonement, it was about God & His people being vindicated before the world. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, took it to the thriftstore.



Catholicism too!


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 6, 2006)

There's a difference, is there not, when the people doing it brazenly self-identify as Reformed and even pretend to hold to historic confessions (to the extent that the FV people do). There's also a difference when it is being pushed within the seminaries and from the very pulpits of Reformed churches and denominations. (Norman Shepherd, a central mentor of these people, was allowed to incubate and grow much of this within Westminster Theological Seminary, infecting those with weak immune systems before he was asked to leave, but it was too late.)

If classical Reformed doctrine were Pepsi this new push is not a rival soft drink with it's own name, it is an enterprise trying to make money with the name 'Pepsi' but selling something very different in the cans. 

Not to take the metaphor too far, but the corporate lawyers are forced to lay down the law.

It's actually happened (the laying down of the law), but since the doctrine concerned requires a level of understanding that is somewhat sophisticated - classical covenant theology - (and hence easy to be sophistical with) compared to where most of the rank and file of Reformed Christians reside at it's allowed the games-players to pretend nothing is happening and continue to go along their merry way with their project. 

Weak churches and denominations and divisions and all that don't help when fighting such a thing.

Doctrinally we all have to come to understanding of what is sound one way or another, then we have to defend the faith...and it's ongoing...

Until the end when the King kind of takes care of matters.

(Foundational to all this is: doctrine matters. Doctrine is not just ivory tower theologians arguing about things that have no connection to real life and real people. Doctrine is connected with faith itself. Sound doctrine, and an understanding of it, is what does battle with your own fallen nature within you. When you don't have sound biblical doctrine you are still under the tyranny of your sinful nature, to a real degree. The devil knows this, which is why the devil continually attacks both the Word of God and sound, on-the-mark doctrine.)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 6, 2006)

> If classical Reformed doctrine were Pepsi this new push is not a rival soft drink with it's own name, it is an enterprise trying to make money with the name 'Pepsi' but selling something very different in the cans.




This is the affect of Postmodern Liberalism. I'm working on a short article that points this out.


----------



## Robin (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> There's a difference, is there not, when the people doing it brazenly self-identify as Reformed and even pretend to hold to historic confessions (to the extent that the FV people do). There's also a difference when it is being pushed within the seminaries and from the very pulpits of Reformed churches and denominations. (Norman Shepherd, a central mentor of these people, was allowed to incubate and grow much of this within Westminster Theological Seminary, infecting those with weak immune systems before he was asked to leave, but it was too late.)



Well, M, it's also a matter of the moral decay in culture (real) and those independents (no seminary/self-appointed former-evangels) like Wilson who sensibly yearn to activate good-doing and counter culture's decline (theonomy-ishly); driven by zeal and ignorant arrogance. (I know Wilson was graciously interviewed by solid-reformed theologians years ago to clarify some of his doctrines.) So it really is a matter of sin as they resist to align confessionally - building denominations of their own.

It's the familiar foe to the pastor/teacher: _ambition_. (Calvin warns about.)


r.


----------

