# The Federal Vision and the Doctrine of Assurance



## Reformed Covenanter

Can a Federal Visionist ever have assurance? How does one know that one has done enough works of covenantal faithfulness in order to be justified on the last day?


----------



## Gryphonette

You don't. The FV stomps assurance right into the ground, since while the LORD knows those who He will preserve in faith until the end, the rest of us have to wait till we die to discover whether or not we outlive our faith.


----------



## Poimen

Judging by their constant attempt to get people to back away from the fires they have created, (what I call the 'nothing to see here folks' attitude) and anger and bitterness towards anyone that critiques them because the critics are always WRONG, it is obvious that the FV people are much better than you or I. And so they can have assurance that you and I lack because they are 'holier than thou'.


----------



## markkoller

I commonly hear, "look to your baptism" as all the assurance that one needs in the FV scheme. If you are baptized you are in the covenant and therefore saved. These people despise introspection and self examination, so the normal means of seeking assurance do not apply.


----------



## toddpedlar

markkoller said:


> I commonly hear, "look to your baptism" as all the assurance that one needs in the FV scheme. If you are baptized you are in the covenant and therefore saved. These people despise introspection and self examination, so the normal means of seeking assurance do not apply.



Indeed, "look to your baptism" is the mantra they will continually repeat.... but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...


----------



## Poimen

In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:



> "by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."


"The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"

Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.


----------



## MOSES

Poimen said:


> In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."
> 
> 
> 
> "The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"
> 
> Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.
Click to expand...


Thanks Poimen

It is nice to see someone actually quote an FV proponent when accusing them. I have found many people saying "this and that" about the FV, but fail to provide any quote or evidence.

For someone like me who is doing some reading and reasearch on the issue it definitely helps...Believe me, I am not going to take some guy's word about how "bad" it is, I will need quotes and evidence.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...



This is not distinct to the FV is it?

This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).

Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not distinct to the FV is it?
> 
> This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
> This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).
> 
> Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.
Click to expand...


So in other words, you're never *really* sure that you're saved, then?


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not distinct to the FV is it?
> 
> This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
> This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).
> 
> Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words, you're never *really* sure that you're saved, then?
Click to expand...


Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source. 



> 3. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.


----------



## Hippo

The FV seem to redefine what it means to be saved as being temporal salvation, i,e, remaining in the visible covenant. the point they make is that this is all that can be known without what is seen as damaging introspection. 

The question of decretal salvation is a seperate one, that is determined by the hidden councils of God.

The FV view on works would concentrate on the revelation in James that faith without works is dead i.e. a faith that is not alone. 

My problem with their anlaysis is to say that one is saved temporaly still begs the question as to whether one is saved decretely, it almost demands that we be satisfied with our temporal state and not look for any more than that. 

However God often uses a concern for our eternal state as the means by which we reach a state of repentance, people should be concerned about their eternal state and the Church should address a persons eternal state not teach that we should only look to our temporal state.


----------



## tdowns

*Hank's version?*



Poimen said:


> In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."
> 
> 
> 
> "The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"
> 
> Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.
Click to expand...


That sure sounds close to what I heard Hank Hanegraff saying the other day.......when asked about election.


----------



## Poimen

Hippo said:


> The FV view on works would concentrate on the revelation in James that faith without works is dead i.e. a faith that is not alone.



The irony being that despite what one might make of James 2 in regards to the doctrine of justification in Christ, James makes it very clear that there is no salvation _at all_ for those who have a dead faith (James 2:14)


----------



## KMK

markkoller said:


> I commonly hear, "look to your baptism" as all the assurance that one needs in the FV scheme. If you are baptized you are in the covenant and therefore saved. These people despise introspection and self examination, so the normal means of seeking assurance do not apply.



How does a FVer 'look to his baptism' if he was baptized as an infant?


----------



## Poimen

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not distinct to the FV is it?
> 
> This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
> This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).
> 
> Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.
Click to expand...


Certainly Max Weber popularized this position with his work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Calvinism" but Mr. Weber was no Calvinist and as far as I know, wasn't even a professing Christian. 

So you will need to demonstrate this point with citations from our creeds/catechisms etc. that this view of election is confessionally Reformed. It may be that some Pilgrim Fathers held to this theology but that is far from making it orthodox. 

Assurance of salvation/election based on works not a 'maintenance' theology (contra the FV); it is a 'fruit theology'



> The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.



_Canons of Dordt_, 1.12 (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, LD 32).


----------



## MOSES

Poimen said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not distinct to the FV is it?
> 
> This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
> This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).
> 
> Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly Max Weber popularized this position with his work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Calvinism" but Mr. Weber was no Calvinist and as far as I know, wasn't even a professing Christian.
> 
> So you will need to demonstrate this point with citations from our creeds/catechisms etc. that this view of election is confessionally Reformed. It may be that some Pilgrim Fathers held to this theology but that is far from making it orthodox.
> 
> Assurance of salvation/election based on works not a 'maintenance' theology (contra the FV); it is a 'fruit theology'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Canons of Dordt_, 1.12 (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, LD 32).
Click to expand...


I am not saying it is orthodox at all.

My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not distinct to the FV is it?
> 
> This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
> This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).
> 
> Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words, you're never *really* sure that you're saved, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Before paragraph 3, the WCF says this:



> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, *founded upon 1) the divine truth of the promises of salvation,2) the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, 3) the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God;* which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.



The Divines seem to believe that assurance is based on three things: God's promises, inward evidence, and the testimony of the Spirit. 

'Inward evidence' seems to be the ability to discern the particulars of grace.



> LC Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
> 
> A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[349] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and *by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made*,[350] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[351] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[352]



The Divines do add "and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him...' but their emphasis seems to be on the heart and not the works, hence the word 'endeavor'. 

Is 'endeavoring' to walk in all good conscience the same as the FV 'covenantal obedience'?


----------



## Poimen

MOSES said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not distinct to the FV is it?
> 
> This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism and was really coined in the saying the "Puritan work ethic." It was a common thought in Pilgrim America that ones election was unsure, but you could show yourself "elect" by working hard in your daily life, trade, etc...and if you were successful you had even more assurance of your election. If you were lazy you were not elect.
> This type of thought was what brought about captialism in America as well (according to some historians).
> 
> Note: Of course we are told in scripture to "Work out" our salvation in fear and trembling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly Max Weber popularized this position with his work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Calvinism" but Mr. Weber was no Calvinist and as far as I know, wasn't even a professing Christian.
> 
> So you will need to demonstrate this point with citations from our creeds/catechisms etc. that this view of election is confessionally Reformed. It may be that some Pilgrim Fathers held to this theology but that is far from making it orthodox.
> 
> Assurance of salvation/election based on works not a 'maintenance' theology (contra the FV); it is a 'fruit theology'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Canons of Dordt_, 1.12 (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, LD 32).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not saying it is orthodox at all.
> 
> My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.
Click to expand...


Okay but saying "this is a historic belief in all of Calvinism" certainly gives the reader the impression that you thought it was.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you would do well to include the whole of chapter XVIII, rather than just this section? Assurance IS something that can be presently had - and is NOT grounded on works, as the previous sections of chapter XVIII which you neglected to quote clearly attest:



> CHAPTER XVIII.
> Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.
> 
> I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.
> 
> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
> 
> III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
> 
> IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> I am not saying it is orthodox at all.
> 
> My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.



To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying it is orthodox at all.
> 
> My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?
Click to expand...


My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.

*That is not orthodox*, in my opinion, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs. 
Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...but a large number of others within the reformed faith.


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying it is orthodox at all.
> 
> My point was simply that this way of thinking is not DISTINCT to the FV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.
> 
> *That is not orthodox*, in my opinion, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs.
> Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...*but a large number of others within the reformed faith.*
Click to expand...


For someone who values citations I would have thought you would have provided some.  The only source you have provided for your claim is one paragraph within one chapter of the WCF. And that source, in my opinion, is slightly out of context.


----------



## Guido's Brother

Can I interject in this (already underway) conversation?

I am not FV and have no sympathies whatsoever for it. I believe it to be a dangerous movement. In fact, I think all movements are best left for the bathroom. 

But is there something wrong with seeking assurance in the promises signed and sealed by God at one's baptism? 

The historic Reformed Form for the Baptism of Infants has a wonderful section at the beginning about those promises and what each person of the Trinity promises to do for those who are baptized.

The Canons of Dort speak about assurance in 5.10 and one of the grounds of assurance is "faith in the promises of God, which he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort." 

So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence. 

What do you think?


----------



## KMK

Guido's Brother said:


> Can I interject in this (already underway) conversation?
> 
> I am not FV and have no sympathies whatsoever for it. I believe it to be a dangerous movement. In fact, I think all movements are best left for the bathroom.
> 
> But is there something wrong with seeking assurance in the promises signed and sealed by God at one's baptism?
> 
> The historic Reformed Form for the Baptism of Infants has a wonderful section at the beginning about those promises and what each person of the Trinity promises to do for those who are baptized.
> 
> The Canons of Dort speak about assurance in 5.10 and one of the grounds of assurance is "faith in the promises of God, which he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort."
> 
> So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.
> 
> What do you think?



I can't speak for my Presbyterian brethren, but it sounds like what you are encouraging your people to look for assurance in their faith in what God has promised as 'signed and sealed' in baptism. By doing so you are still encouraging your people to have assurance in their _faith_ and not in their 'covenantal obedience'.


----------



## holyfool33

I don't think they could in the sense that a traditional Protestant does probably something more akin to the catholic doctrine of moral assurance (I do good so I must be saved).


----------



## MOSES

KMK said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify... you're not saying WHAT is orthodox at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.
> 
> *That is not orthodox*, in my opinion, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs.
> Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...*but a large number of others within the reformed faith.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For someone who values citations I would have thought you would have provided some.  *The only source you have provided for your claim *is one paragraph within one chapter of the WCF. And that source, in my opinion, is slightly out of context.
Click to expand...


I did not quote the wcf to support that claim...Why would I quote the wcf to support something that I already called unorthodox?
Sorry for being unclear. 

I quoted the wcf to show that those who, along with the FV, hold to a position of works only as the basis for assurance are wrong...not to support thier claim...

my point was and is only this...The works/assurance position is not DISTINCT to the FV alone.

Is there anyone here that thinks that it is?


----------



## Hippo

One of the reasons for the FV is that there has been a certian infiltration of reformed thought that has lead to the sacraments and the Church not receiving the theological primacy that they should rightly enjoy.

It is to be welcomed that these issues are now being discussed. We should see the Church as a physical expression of God's love for his people with the physical aspect being of real importance and the sacraments are more than symbols, they have a real meaning and impact.

If the Reformed Church had not attempted to find common ground with mainstream evangelical and baptistic elements by neglecting these important distinctives of a true church but had instead been content with the historic faith of the reformation then I doubt these unbalanced and dangerous FV doctrines would have gained the following that they have.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you would do well to include the whole of chapter XVIII, rather than just this section? Assurance IS something that can be presently had - and is NOT grounded on works, as the previous sections of chapter XVIII which you neglected to quote clearly attest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHAPTER XVIII.
> Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.
> 
> I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.
> 
> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
> 
> III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
> 
> IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks...I agree. 

I quoted the wcf to show that the FV position and the "puritan work ethic" (proof of salvation position) were *opposed* to it..

*NOT* to support it.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> My example given in post 8. That being we don't know wether we are elect or not, we should strive to do good and work hard and thus prove ourselves to be elect..."the puritan work ethic" mixed with assurance.
> 
> *That is not orthodox*, in my opinion, but many outside the FV for 100s of years held to such beliefs.
> Thus looking to some sort of "works" for salvation is not distinct to the FV alone...*but a large number of others within the reformed faith.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For someone who values citations I would have thought you would have provided some.  *The only source you have provided for your claim *is one paragraph within one chapter of the WCF. And that source, in my opinion, is slightly out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not quote the wcf to support that claim...Why would I quote the wcf to support something that I already called unorthodox?
> Sorry for being unclear.
> 
> I quoted the wcf to show that those who, along with the FV, hold to a position of works only as the basis for assurance are wrong...not to support thier claim...
> 
> my point was and is only this...The works/assurance position is not DISTINCT to the FV alone.
> 
> Is there anyone here that thinks that it is?
Click to expand...


I am VERY confused by what you have posted in this thread.

You cited the WCF when I asked a question about assurance.

You weren't clear about what the purpose was in your citation, but it LOOKED like you were citing it as evidence that the WCF authors believed that works were the basis for assurance, a position that you now claim is unorthodox. It very much seemed to me (and apparently to others) that you were using it to prove that a works-assurance was something not limited to today's FV, but was present nearer the Reformation than today. 

What is your position on what the WCF teaches, then? Why did you cite it in response to my question?


----------



## Guido's Brother

The Canons of Dort (5.10) mention three grounds for *assurance of preservation*:

1) Faith in the promises of God (see my post above)

2) The testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit that we are children and heirs of God

3) The serious and holy pursuit of a good conscience and of good works. 

The Canons (1.12) also mention the following grounds with respect to *the assurance of election*:

Observing in themselves the unfailing fruits of election such as,

1) True faith in Christ
2) A childlike fear of God
3) A godly sorrow for sin
4) A hungering and thirsting after righteousness


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ask me...here's the WCF, a much more reliable source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you would do well to include the whole of chapter XVIII, rather than just this section? Assurance IS something that can be presently had - and is NOT grounded on works, as the previous sections of chapter XVIII which you neglected to quote clearly attest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHAPTER XVIII.
> Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.
> 
> I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God: which hope shall never make them ashamed.
> 
> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probably persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
> 
> III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
> 
> IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks...I agree.
> 
> I quoted the wcf to show that the FV position and the "puritan work ethic" (proof of salvation position) were *opposed* to it..
> 
> *NOT* to support it.
Click to expand...


It would have been helpful for you to state your reason for the citation, then, instead of just saying "listen to the WCF". Previously you sounded as though you supported works-assurance, which made your citation of the WCF without comment even more confusing.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> I am VERY confused by what you have posted in this thread.
> 
> You cited the WCF when I asked a question about assurance.
> 
> You weren't clear about what the purpose was in your citation, but it LOOKED like you were citing it as evidence that the WCF authors believed that works were the basis for assurance, a position that you now claim is unorthodox. It very much seemed to me (and apparently to others) that you were using it to prove that a works-assurance was something not limited to today's FV, but was present nearer the Reformation than today.
> 
> What is your position on what the WCF teaches, then? Why did you cite it in response to my question?



I did not know if you were asking me personally, or if you were asking me about another's position (e,g, the FV and other like puritans)...SO...I simpy pointed you to the wcf...which you obviously already knew contains the best answer in the assurance debate.

Again...I was not citing it to support either the FV or other puritans view on assurance...but quite the contrary.

Perhaps you thought I was because you thought I was defending the FV position because I started out by saying that their position on assurance is NOT unique or distinct to them alone...

Sorry...I think have  everyone..I was not even paying much attention to this thread, my fault...I simply wanted to point out that the FV position of assurance is not all that unique.


----------



## MOSES

Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)


----------



## Robert Truelove

Well, this is sort of hairy. While I am a vocal opponent of The Federal Vision, it is true that if one is not 'abiding in Christ' they have no biblical grounds of assurance until they 'get things right' (even though they may truly be saved, I am speaking only to the issue of the biblical grounds of assurance). 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I think where they get things confused is by placing the emphasis upon the individual to keep the faith instead of emphasizing that it is God's power that keeps us in the faith. However, they affirm it is God's power that keeps those elected from eternity to salvation, but since no one has any idea if they are truly saved and being kept by God or if their profession is in vain and cannot truly know in any practical way their true standing until they stand before God in judgment, we are left with a hairy problem regarding the biblical teaching regarding assurance. The practical end is a very works focused view of the faith instead of a living in grace through faith. One inevitably emphasizes man's performance, while the other emphasizes God's grace and power in the life of the believer. It is all a matter of mis-placed emphasis.

In conclusion, they in effect place what ought to be in the front seat behind the drivers wheel in the trunk, where what is in the trunk should be in the drivers seat. This is also the fundamental error of the New Perspectives on Paul (The Cristus Victor view of the atonement places penal substitutionary atonement in the trunk). Historical orthodoxy is in many ways affirmed but deprecated to a lesser place to make room for these innovations. This of course, if consistently followed and thought out, leas to a completely different view of the gospel and the church.

I write this knowing that most if not all Federal Vision proponents would think that I have mischaracterized their position but after much digging in their material I find no way to escape my comments as the logical end of their 'discussion'. 



Poimen said:


> In all seriousness though Steve Wilkins posits assurance in this way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. We therefore are elect. Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."
> 
> 
> 
> "The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant"
> 
> Thus temporary assurance can be obtained for every covenant (read 'baptized') member. Furthermore he later goes on to say that one must continue to 'abide in Christ' but as long as they do so they keep their assurance.
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8
> 
> The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)



The Wiki article says this about Weber's book/article:



> In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: *lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation.* So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.





> The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:
> According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
> The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, *donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on* as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.
> The manner in which this paradox was resolved, Weber argued, was the investment of this money, which gave an extreme boost to nascent capitalism.



Todd said this:



> but then they will also always look to their works to make sure they can rightly have assurance because of their baptism. In the FV scheme, ultimately, baptism gives no assurance, because they argue that one must 'persevere in good works to the end' in order to be 'finally' saved. It's an extremely mixed bag of false assurances they cart around...



You said this:



> This is not distinct to the FV is it?
> 
> This is a historic belief in all of Calvinism...



Is this the source you are using to support your view that 'all of Calvinism' shares the views of the FV on assurance?


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8
> 
> The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)



I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans... perhaps it would help to study some Puritan and Reformed works on assurance instead.


----------



## MOSES

KMK said:


> Is this the source you are using to support your view that *'all of Calvinism' *shares the views of the FV on assurance?



Bam...That is it, now I know why everyone got so confused. In post 8 I said:


> This is a historic belief *in* all of Calvinism



I meant "within"....that is, the assurance and works belief was (has been) found within Calvinism historically...*not* that it was part of Calvinism as a whole.

So again, is the FV view of assurance distinct to it alone? Is the FV view a NEW invention....

My thought...there are sources out there which would indicate the answer is ...NO.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8
> 
> The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans.
Click to expand...


Perhaps..

But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.

Here is a quote from another man:


> biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, *many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves *


David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)

Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a small amount of info in regards to what I was talking about in post 8
> 
> The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> basically the puritan work ethic was because of a desire to have assurance of salvation, (that is what the author of the book says)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think that Max Weber is a particularly reliable authority on the practice and doctrine of the Puritans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps..
> 
> But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.
> 
> Here is a quote from another man:
> 
> 
> 
> biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, *many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)
> 
> Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.
Click to expand...


I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?


----------



## MOSES

KMK said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps..
> 
> But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.
> 
> Here is a quote from another man:
> 
> 
> 
> biblical assurance results from depending on God's objective promises rather than on any subjective experiences. Unfortunately, *many of the Puritan followers of Calvin have strayed from their Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves *
> 
> 
> 
> David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)
> 
> Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?
Click to expand...


First, let me say this. I think the quote, which you copy in your question, is coming from the position that Lutheranism is the Reformed faith...That the puritans have strayed because of the emphais on works. 
(Is there not a real and historical debate that Lutherans can do as they please, e.g., live like the devil, beause their assurance is in the gospel alone,,,but the Calvinist rejected that and said no "we must work our our salvation. . ." and emphasized good works...?)


note: I quoted David Beckel above to show that others see Calvinists and puritans as looking to works for assurance...and I did that to show that Max Weber is not the only one.
Heck...I even seen a documentary on the reformation that taught that many in the Calvinist camp looked to works for assurance..
MY whole point is that this is not new with the FV.

KMK
To answer your question...I would say NO, as it relates to the quote. Puritans who placed an emphasis on works in assurance were not suddenly "non-reformed" because of that emphasis, in my opinion.


----------



## MOSES

Note:

One thing to remember in this topic is the difference between "perseverance" and "assurance."

perseverance is God's view and will towards us (it is soley the work of God). Assurance is our view of our ourselves towards God.
Thus.. perseverance is necessary in salvation. Without the "P" in tulip, there is no salvation.

Is assurance a requirement?


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps..
> 
> But this is not something he invented entirely, others have taken similar notice.
> 
> Here is a quote from another man:
> 
> David Bickel (yea...he is a Lutheran, but my point is still the same)
> 
> Again...is the FV advocating something new...or have other Reformed folks (including some puritans) went down this path before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that many have 'strayed from the Reformed heritage in meticulously seeking evidence in themselves.' But that would mean that they do not represent 'reformed' thought. They are no longer 'reformed' because they have strayed. Yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, let me say this. I think the quote, which you copy in your question, is coming from the position that Lutheranism is the Reformed faith...That the puritans have strayed because of the emphais on works.
> (Is there not a real and historical debate that Lutherans can do as they please, e.g., live like the devil, beause their assurance is in the gospel alone,,,but the Calvinist rejected that and said no "we must work our our salvation. . ." and emphasized good works...?)
> 
> 
> note: I quoted David Beckel above to show that others see Calvinists and puritans as looking to works for assurance...and I did that to show that Max Weber is not the only one.
> Heck...I even seen a documentary on the reformation that taught that many in the Calvinist camp looked to works for assurance..
> MY whole point is that this is not new with the FV.
> 
> KMK
> To answer your question...I would say NO, as it relates to the quote. Puritans who placed an emphasis on works in assurance were not suddenly "non-reformed" because of that emphasis, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I agree that I don't want to get into a discussion of what is and what is not 'reformed' as so often happens on this board. 

However, is it really fair to characterize the Puritan view as placing an emphasis on works similarly to the FV? It seems to me the Puritans placed an emphasis on the desire for works that flows from faith as a point of assurance. The emphasis was on 'endeavoring' to do good works and not on the works themselves. Hence LC Q 80:



> Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
> 
> A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and *endeavour* to walk in all good conscience before him,





> And WLC 18:III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And *therefore* it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.



It seems to me that the confession teaches that our 'giving all diligence to make his calling and election sure', grows out of our attaining the infallible assurance of faith.

From the Sum of Saving Knowledge:



> THE EVIDENCES OF TRUE FAITH.
> 
> SO much for the laying the grounds of faith, and warrants to believe. Now, for evidencing of true faith by fruits, these four things are requisite: 1. That the believer *be soundly convinced*, in his judgment, of his obligation to keep the whole moral law, all the days of his life; and that not the less, but so much the more, as he is delivered by Christ from the covenant of works, and curse of the law. 2. That he *endeavour* to grow in the exercise and daily practice of godliness and righteousness. 3. *That the course of his new obedience run in the right channel*, that is through faith in Christ, and through a good conscience, to all the duties of love towards God and man.



It seems the Puritans focused assurance on a right heart condition in regards to works and not the works themselves. I am no expert on the FV, but can the same be said of their doctrine of 'covenantal obedience'? If the FV says, "Look to your baptism" (as some say) that is different than when the Puritans said, "Look that you are soundly convinced of your obligation to keep the whole moral law."

------

BTW, does this quote in the post by Poimen sound strange?



> "by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. *We therefore are elect.* Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."



Is he saying, "We are baptized, therefore we are elect?" I thought we were elect and therefore we are baptized into Christ.


----------



## MOSES

KMK said:


> "by baptism the Spirit joins us to Christ since he is the elect one and the Church is the elect people, we are joined to his body. *We therefore are elect.* Since he is the justified one, we are justified in him. Since he is the beloved one, we are beloved in him. Since he was saved from sin in death, in the sense that Hebrews 5 says, "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death and was heard because of his godly fear," he was saved from sin and death, so are we."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he saying, "We are baptized, therefore we are elect?" I thought we were elect and therefore we are baptized into Christ.
Click to expand...


I am perty positive that Wilkins is not speaking about the decree's of God, as laid out in the wcf, in his use of the word "elect". He is speaking about visible election (which the scriptures, according to wilkins, make this distinction as well)...hence the "by baptism"...which is also visible.

Visibly speaking...we are elect because we are baptized. 
Concerning the decrees of God, we are baptized because we are elect (providence playing a role in that).

Note: I don't see a problem with this.


----------



## MOSES

KMK

Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:

I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".

But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Hippo

MOSES said:


> KMK
> 
> Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:
> 
> I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".
> 
> But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.



A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.

The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.


----------



## MOSES

Hippo said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> KMK
> 
> Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:
> 
> I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".
> 
> But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.
> 
> The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.
Click to expand...



How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?


----------



## MOSES

Hippo said:


> A big difference is that the puritans did not *conflate* election to the church with election to decretal salvation..



Do you have some info that shows that this is what the FV actually teaches, i.e., election to the church is the same as (fused together) election with Christ?

I thought they simply taught the defintion of election being EITHER/OR .. election to the Church (via sacraments) is a visible form of election,,but is NOT election in the same sense as the eternal decree of God, as it is laid out in the wcf.


----------



## Hippo

MOSES said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> KMK
> 
> Concerning the FV and the puritan emphasis on works in assurance:
> 
> I have not done enough research of the FV to make the comparison. At this stage in the game, with my limited knowledge of the FV, I am not sure that there is that big of a difference between "covenant faithfullness" and the puritans emphasis of "good works".
> 
> But if anyone can help me see the "bigness" of the difference, it would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A big difference is that the puritans did not conflate election to the church with election to decretal salvation.
> 
> The puritans understood that we do good works because (and indeed if) we are elect, there is no question of us being elect because we do good works, even if such works are only possible through the work of God in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?
Click to expand...


Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).


----------



## Hippo

MOSES said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A big difference is that the puritans did not *conflate* election to the church with election to decretal salvation..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some info that shows that this is what the FV actually teaches, i.e., election to the church is the same as (fused together) election with Christ?
> 
> I thought they simply taught the defintion of election being EITHER/OR .. election to the Church (via sacraments) is a visible form of election,,but is NOT election in the same sense as the eternal decree of God, as it is laid out in the wcf.
Click to expand...


I agree, they do not see it as election in the same sense, but when they use the term election you never know which they are referring to (as we have seen in some of the quotes in this thread with regards to election). 

In this way the concepts are conflated, the confusion almost appears to be deliberate as instead of being seen as different concepts they are seen as a hierarchy.


----------



## MOSES

Hippo said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).
Click to expand...



Ok..*for the FV assurance of salvation is what man is able to obtain*.
What is wrong with that? Does not the confession speak of that? There would be no such thing as assurance without man "obtaining" it.

Ok...*And good works play a part in salvation*.
I have never heard an FVer teach this...Do you have a particular person in mind when you say that the FV say this?

Note: if "play a part" means, the fruit of salvation,,,then I would agree...but if "play a part" means the means of salvation, then I would disagree.

Also...I am here to learn, not to defend...so lay it on me.


----------



## HaigLaw

I have not understood all the subtle nuances in the back and forth discussions, but on the original question of this thread, no, I don't see how they can have any assurance.


----------



## MOSES

HaigLaw said:


> I have not understood all the subtle nuances in the back and forth discussions, but on the original question of this thread, no, I don't see how they can have any assurance.



Do you have assurance?

Please tell me how your assurance then differs from theirs. You can have assurance of salvation, but, in your opinion, you cannot see how they (FV) can have assurance...Tell me why.


----------



## MW

Guido's Brother said:


> So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.
> 
> What do you think?



Very well observed. Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism (HC QA 66), can we not speak of baptism as being part of our assurance? Not that baptism is our salvation, but that baptism is the sign and seal of God's promises, which, when met with faith, are our salvation. As a pastor, I have encouraged my people to consider the promises of God signed and sealed in baptism and, believing those promises, to have assurance and confidence.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well observed. Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to baptism as efficacious in and of itself without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.
Click to expand...


Ding! Ding!

You'll hear an FV proponent trumpet the idea that if someone asks them if they're elect they can say, unreservedly, "Yes, you were baptized."

To be baptized into the visible Church is to become elect (in a sense) because the person is now in the Covenant and to be in the Covenant is to be in Christ and united to Christ (in a sense). What maintains that union with Christ? Continued faithfulness.

This turns everything completely on its head.

While the Sacrament does, in fact, confer membership in the visible New Covenant, there is nothing that the Church does to unite a person to Christ. The instrument that procures that blessing is faith alone. Only those that have Evangelical faith, born from above, receive the actual grace signified by baptism.

How then the comfort to the believer in the Reformed schema?

Because the baptism does not point to the recipient in baptism (something the FV and Baptists have in common from different angles). Baptism is not saying that all who are baptized receive all the graces signified by baptism or that what is signified must be true of those baptized. What it does is _Promise_ those graces to those that have faith.

By looking at my baptism in the Reformed manner, I'm able to remember the Promise of God and then examine whether I have, indeed, believed the Gospel as the Scriptures reveal Christ. My assurance is then grounded by the evidences of Evangelical faith and the Promise of God announced in my baptism assures me with the ground of God's Immutability.

In contrast, by looking at my baptism in the FV manner, I merely know that every Tom, Dick, and Harry that's baptized into the Church is elect (for now) just like me. I can look to _my_ faithfulness now that says that I'm still faithful and haven't left the Covenant and so I'm certain to be saved in the future provided I never leave the Covenant. The introspection in this scheme is not to see a definitive evangelical work that is clinging to Christ in His finished work but an introspection that clings to progress in sanctification. I know I'm still in the Covenant today so I'm saved. I know I'm faithful to the Covenant today so the graces that signify baptism are true of me today.

In the Reformed view, assurance is grounded on the basis of the evidence of simple trust and an immutable Promise. The FV view grounds assurance in my faithfulness today that may or may not be vindicated in the future. I'll find out I'm elect at the judgment throne.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this show up, or what does this matter, in each of their doctrines on ASSURANCE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because to the FV assurance of temporal salvation is what man is able to obtain and good works play a part in salvation (albeit good works that are the product of God's grace).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..*for the FV assurance of salvation is what man is able to obtain*.
> What is wrong with that? Does not the confession speak of that? There would be no such thing as assurance without man "obtaining" it.
> 
> Ok...*And good works play a part in salvation*.
> I have never heard an FVer teach this...Do you have a particular person in mind when you say that the FV say this?
> 
> Note: if "play a part" means, the fruit of salvation,,,then I would agree...but if "play a part" means the means of salvation, then I would disagree.
> 
> Also...I am here to learn, not to defend...so lay it on me.
Click to expand...


What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? You can find this teaching in "The Federal Vision", edited by Wilkins, for starters, and Norman Shepherd's books as well. Another resource in which you can see this kind of thinking is the Federal Vision, Pro & Con, edited by Calvin Beisner. Rich Lusk is, in my opinion, the worst offender when it comes to teaching distinctly that works are regarded as part of our 'salvation qualification'. Mark Horne is just as committed to this position.


----------



## MOSES

armourbearer said:


> Traditionally Word and Sacraments as means of grace were regarded as the objective marks of assurance, and the inward grace wrought by the Spirit as manifesting itself in subjective marks. The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to *baptism as efficacious in and of itself *without pressing the need to observe whether the grace signified does in fact reveal itself in those evidences of a distinguishing work of God's Spirit.




questions:

Baptism is efficacious...right?

Baptism (the efficacy of) is conferred by the Holy Ghost....right?

Does the grace have to be "revealed"...or does it just have to belong to those who "that grace" belongeth?

An infant does not "reveal", nor do people "observe", the grace that is effective in baptism, yet it still really belongs to those to whom grace is promised...right?

My questions arise from here:

WCF 28


> 6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.






armourbearer said:


> The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to *baptism as efficacious in and of itself *without pressing the need to* observe * [it]




How doe the WCF 28 relate to this statement...How is the FV so far removed from this? How is the FV a problem, again?

Sorry for my slow learning...I just don't get it.


----------



## MOSES

toddpedlar said:


> [What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? .



*I have not read any works/books of the FV crowd...*I have read works of the FV advesaries...(like the opc report)...but that only caused me to have more questions. Note: I found myself agreeing with some of the things that the opc accused the FV of...
That is why this topic is a big deal to me.

Note: I had never heard of "theonomy" until someone called me one. I then had to do the research myself. Come to find out, my view of theonomy was never taught to me, I just simply came up with my position from studying the scriptures.

Again...some of the things that people accuse the FV of...are things I have learned myself in studying the scriptures and confession.

That is why I am so curious.

Note: I have listened to steve wilkins examination.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MOSES said:


> WCF 28
> 
> 
> 
> 6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, *to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto*, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to *baptism as efficacious in and of itself *without pressing the need to* observe * [it]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How doe the WCF 28 relate to this statement...How is the FV so far removed from this? How is the FV a problem, again?
> 
> Sorry for my slow learning...I just don't get it.
Click to expand...



You missed the key qualifier.

The grace promised in baptism is only exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to those that the grace belongs to (i.e. the elect). 

The FV states that grace is exhibited and conferred to all that are baptized. "By the working of the works" _every_ baptized member is united to Christ and His benefits (to an extent) in their scheme.

You missed Rev. Winzer's point, which I tried to elaborate above. When he spoke of grace "revealing" itself he implied that those elect (to whom the grace is promised) will have faith in the Gospel and that faith will exhibit itself as well as all the other saving graces. It is the fruit of the saving graces combined with the Promise offered that grants assurance and not some sort of "everybody is in Christ in some sense by baptism" thing.


----------



## MW

MOSES said:


> Does the grace have to be "revealed"...or does it just have to belong to those who "that grace" belongeth?
> 
> An infant does not "reveal", nor do people "observe", the grace that is effective in baptism, yet it still really belongs to those to whom grace is promised...right?



It belongs to them as a sign, but not all of Israel are Israel, not all in the visible church belong to the invisible church and enjoy the spiritual blessings of being in Christ; the elect obtain the grace signified by baptism. The question of assurance of salvation does not go merely to outward privilege, but whether or not the person who has the outward privilege has profited from it by the bestowal of saving grace.


----------



## Davidius

Semper Fidelis said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 28
> 
> 
> 
> 6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, *to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto*, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the FV is its encouragement to look to *baptism as efficacious in and of itself *without pressing the need to* observe * [it]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How doe the WCF 28 relate to this statement...How is the FV so far removed from this? How is the FV a problem, again?
> 
> Sorry for my slow learning...I just don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the key qualifier.
> 
> The grace promised in baptism is only exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to those that the grace belongs to (i.e. the elect).
> 
> *The FV states that grace is exhibited and conferred to all that are baptized. "By the working of the works" every baptized member is united to Christ and His benefits (to an extent) in their scheme.
> *
> You missed Rev. Winzer's point, which I tried to elaborate above. When he spoke of grace "revealing" itself he implied that those elect (to whom the grace is promised) will have faith in the Gospel and that faith will exhibit itself as well as all the other saving graces. It is the fruit of the saving graces combined with the Promise offered that grants assurance and not some sort of "everybody is in Christ in some sense by baptism" thing.
Click to expand...



Rich,

Do you know anything about the differences between this position and the Lutheran position?

*EDIT*

Nevermind, found some old threads.


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have not read any works/books of the FV crowd...*I have read works of the FV advesaries...(like the opc report)...but that only caused me to have more questions. Note: I found myself agreeing with some of the things that the opc accused the FV of...
> That is why this topic is a big deal to me.
> 
> Note: I had never heard of "theonomy" until someone called me one. I then had to do the research myself. Come to find out, my view of theonomy was never taught to me, I just simply came up with my position from studying the scriptures.
> 
> Again...some of the things that people accuse the FV of...are things I have learned myself in studying the scriptures and confession.
> 
> That is why I am so curious.
> 
> Note: I have listened to steve wilkins examination.
Click to expand...


Have you considered that things that the FV folks are accused of, and that you have come to in studying the Scriptures, might just be wrong? Perhaps those conclusions you have come to that happen to line up with what the FV teaches, are both unconfessional and unbiblical, products of incomplete or inaccurate reasoning. This is certainly the case with the FV teaching on assurance, "final justification", etc. - if you've come to those convictions, are you willing to entertain the possibility that you've come to incorrect conclusions? 

By the way, you should be aware that, broadly speaking, the FV teachings on these things are contrary to the confessions, and that advocacy of these positions on this board will not be greeted with warm affection.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Shawn

It should be noted that the only officially Theonomic denomination in the world, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS), was the first church to openly condemn the Federal Vision.

One of its ministers - Rev. John Otis - wrote a book against the Federal Vision called Danger in the Camp, which extensively documents and refutes their heresies - especially on justification.

If you have received your copy of _A Conquered Kingdom_ yet, you will notice that Rev. Otis wrote an extensive foreword, and that I penned a FV disclaimer (because I quoted from some of their proponents books - though mostly before they were FV).


----------



## sotzo

In my view, the Roman Catholic catechism has the best expression of the FV proponents' view of baptism and salvation.

From the RCC's catechism:
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God. 

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules." 


So, what we see here in para 1263 is the complete obliteration of sin and its guilt via baptism (for *everyone* baptized...in other words, it is literally a clean slate). But with the "tinder of sin" still left, that initial obliteration can be reversed so it must be manfully resisted by the grace of Christ. This "tinder of sin" portion of the catechism is taken from the proceedings of the Council of Trent which concludes "yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. " That is, he is saved who maintains the "clean slate" provided by baptism. 

While FV'ers would most likely stop short of this conclusion, it is the logical end. If baptism bestows salvation and that bestowal can be lost, then one is consistent with Rome.


----------



## MOSES

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Shawn
> 
> It should be noted that the only officially Theonomic denomination in the world, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS), was the first church to openly condemn the Federal Vision.
> 
> One of its ministers - Rev. John Otis - wrote a book against the Federal Vision called Danger in the Camp, which extensively documents and refutes their heresies - especially on justification.
> 
> If you have received your copy of _A Conquered Kingdom_ yet, you will notice that Rev. Otis wrote an extensive foreword, and that I penned a FV disclaimer (because I quoted from some of their proponents books - though mostly before they were FV).




I think Rev. Otis has some lectures on the FV on sermonaudio. Being you recommend him I will listen to those lectures.
I have listened to and read some of the works of those who oppose the FV. What I usually find is a "blanket" pointing out of error without a sufficient explanation of why. I have also found a lot of dis-honest scholarship where the opposing position is put in the worst light possible, usually out of context, and then condemned because of the "bad light", not because of a clear and bright understanding of the error itself.

Note: hopefully Otis has a clear and bright understanding of the error of the FV...and does not have an agenda of sheding "bad light" on those he disagree's with.

Note: I have not received your book yet...but it has been shipped from lulu so it should be here soon.


----------



## Leslie

With reading through this thread, and what I've read about FV, it seems that FVers can have assurance for today (because they are faithful) but they cannot have assurance of ultimate salvation. No one knows what he/she will do in the future, so one cannot know if he/she will be ultimately saved. Is this correct or is it wacky?


----------



## Ron

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

Ron

Reformed Apologist: Federal Vision, Augustinian not Reformed


----------



## toddpedlar

MOSES said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn
> 
> It should be noted that the only officially Theonomic denomination in the world, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS), was the first church to openly condemn the Federal Vision.
> 
> One of its ministers - Rev. John Otis - wrote a book against the Federal Vision called Danger in the Camp, which extensively documents and refutes their heresies - especially on justification.
> 
> If you have received your copy of _A Conquered Kingdom_ yet, you will notice that Rev. Otis wrote an extensive foreword, and that I penned a FV disclaimer (because I quoted from some of their proponents books - though mostly before they were FV).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rev. Otis has some lectures on the FV on sermonaudio. Being you recommend him I will listen to those lectures.
> I have listened to and read some of the works of those who oppose the FV. What I usually find is a "blanket" pointing out of error without a sufficient explanation of why. I have also found a lot of dis-honest scholarship where the opposing position is put in the worst light possible, usually out of context, and then condemned because of the "bad light", not because of a clear and bright understanding of the error itself.
> 
> Note: hopefully Otis has a clear and bright understanding of the error of the FV...and does not have an agenda of sheding "bad light" on those he disagree's with.
> 
> Note: I have not received your book yet...but it has been shipped from lulu so it should be here soon.
Click to expand...


If, as you have noted above, you have never read any FV work written by an FV proponent, then how can you make the criticisms of the "anti FV" writings that you do? How do you know that they take FV teachings and put them in the "worst light possible"? How do you know that the errors are not refuted due to a clear and bright understanding of the error itself? How do you know all this?

I still await, also, an answer to my 6/2/08 post (#61) about whether you've considered that the FV positions might just be wrong, i.e. unbiblical.


----------

