# Another FVist goes Papist



## dannyhyde

At the Pilgrims & Parish blog: Rome Sweet Home—Redux


----------



## Blueridge Believer

This taken from the article:

Homesick No More 
Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. - Jeremiah 6:16
Monday, August 27, 2007
On How The Federal Vision Made Me Catholic 

So there's much hubbub lately about the Federal Vision controversy. The conservative reformed world is fast becoming a house divided against itself over the issues of the reality of the sacraments and what they confer upon the recipient and the real possibility of apostasy.

Having been myself a member of both a Federal Vision community (lo, I am a pharisee of pharisees coming from Christ Church itself, the very Mecca of the FV movement) and a non-FV reformed community (OPC to be precise) and now a communing Catholic (in that order) I have thought about the question a fair bit. I still keep up on the matter, though through a glass dimly, mostly because the ideas of the preachers of the FV movement were largely the ideas that lead me to be accepted into the Catholic Church.




It appears he has proved out to be a Hebrew 6 and 10 apostate. What an abominable doctrine FV is.


----------



## fredtgreco

Sad.


----------



## AV1611

Very sad indeed.


----------



## RamistThomist

I can't link the site from this computer. What is his name?


----------



## BobVigneault

Spear Dane said:


> I can't link the site from this computer. What is his name?



Matt Yonke

* Age: 27
* Gender: Male
* Astrological Sign: Leo
* Zodiac Year: Monkey
* Industry: Construction
* Occupation: Electrician
* Location: Wheaton : Illinois : United States


----------



## Gryphonette

I wonder how many FV'ers going to Rome will it take to make the connection clear to those in the FV?


----------



## AV1611

Gryphonette said:


> I wonder how many FV'ers going to Rome will it take to make the connection clear to those in the FV?



Are there any numbers anywhere of how many who held to FV have crossed the Tiber?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

AV1611 said:


> Are there any numbers anywhere of how many who held to FV have crossed the Tiber?



Now wouldn't that be a handy statistic?!

But I dare say they all are standing at least ankle deep in the water.


----------



## Scott

BobVigneault said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't link the site from this computer. What is his name?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Yonke
> 
> * Age: 27
> * Gender: Male
> * Astrological Sign: Leo
> * Zodiac Year: Monkey
> * Industry: Construction
> * Occupation: Electrician
> * Location: Wheaton : Illinois : United States
Click to expand...


Its all coming together now. Rome has always had a strong pull on Leo electricians.


----------



## toddpedlar

Gryphonette said:


> I wonder how many FV'ers going to Rome will it take to make the connection clear to those in the FV?



I suspect those who are 'left beind' in the FV will deride those leaving to Rome as "not really understanding FV", just as those who have left FV to go back to Orthodoxy have been lambasted.


----------



## Scott

toddpedlar said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many FV'ers going to Rome will it take to make the connection clear to those in the FV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect those who are 'left beind' in the FV will deride those leaving to Rome as "not really understanding FV", just as those who have left FV to go back to Orthodoxy have been lambasted.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Noody seems to understand it except those who believe it.


----------



## Gryphonette

"...I suspect those who are 'left beind' in the FV will deride those leaving to Rome as "not really understanding FV"

Oh, yes, that's exactly what I've read. 

As for precise numbers, I wish I did. Trouble is, I daresay we're only aware of few of those who have ridden the FV-to-Rome Express. Unless they've had an internet presence, no one would know outside their immediate circle.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

According to posts at GreenBaggins, this has received a response from Wilson.


----------



## Scott

Can anyone find Wilson's response on the net?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

NaphtaliPress said:


> According to posts at GreenBaggins, this has received a response from Wilson.




Puritan Board 2.0.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

joshua said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to posts at GreenBaggins, this has received a response from Wilson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Board 2.0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I responded to that remark.
Click to expand...



I hope it posts, but just in case it doesn't, tell us what you said.


----------



## greenbaggins

He is a first-time commenter, and so his post was (briefly) held for moderation. It is now up here. Stewart is normally unbelievably ignorant and stupid. But, as Josh said, this is a tremendous compliment.


----------



## blhowes

Am I wrong that the main proponents of the FV teaching for the most part haven't left their reformed churches for Rome, but those who sit under the teachings are? Are the teachings being misunderstood, is that why people are leaving - if not, what is keeping FV teachers from also disserting the reformed faith?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

blhowes said:


> ...what is keeping FV teachers from also disserting the reformed faith?



In a word, arogance. They would be very small fish in the great big RC pond. in my opinion.


----------



## Gryphonette

blhowes said:


> Am I wrong that the main proponents of the FV teaching for the most part haven't left their reformed churches for Rome, but those who sit under the teachings are? Are the teachings being misunderstood, is that why people are leaving - if not, what is keeping FV teachers from also disserting the reformed faith?



If those main proponents are pastors, then I'd think there'd be at least a few hindrances to their boarding the FV-Rome Express, including a commitment to Protestantism in general and their denomination in specific, which commitment prevents them from carrying the FV out to its logical conclusion; possibly having a wife absolutely unwilling to board that train; and one of strict practicality, i.e. Rome would no doubt welcome them but not pay their mortgage or put food on their kids' plates.


----------



## Redaimie

It is very sad, they were members of my church. Pray for them.

If they indeed misunderstood the FV (as the FV suggests) than maybe the FV leaders should consider how confusing their teaching is. Granted I'm no scholar but when I think I understand what the FV teaches I read something that says I don't understand it.


----------



## Scott

Redaimie said:


> If they indeed misunderstood the FV (as the FV suggests) than maybe the FV leaders should consider how confusing their teaching is.


Absolutely. According to the FV guys, the PCA and OPC study committees did not understand (and these are some learned, sober people). Most everyone who opposes them does not understand. Their own adherents don't understand (at least if they decide to move to RC). If the FV teaching is so unclear that all opponents and many adherents get it wrong, then the teaching ability of the FV teachers is dismal.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

greenbaggins said:


> Stewart is normally unbelievably ignorant and stupid.


Lane,
So, just who is this 'ignoramus'?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

joshua said:


> Personally, I think the teaching is unclear, vague, and mysterious purposely. That way, if the teaching gets critiqued, the cry of "misunderstood" can be used to browbeat the naysayers. It all goes with the spirit of the age: ambiguity, flexibility, looseness, relativity...
> 
> Of course, I'm probably just misunderstanding.


No doubt.


----------



## Gryphonette

joshua said:


> It all goes with the spirit of the age: ambiguity, flexibility, looseness, relativity...



Isn't this a way the FV is akin to the Emergent stuff? On a practical level, that is?


----------



## greenbaggins

http://www.stewartquarles.blogspot.com/

Read all about him. He is a troll first-class.


----------



## Gryphonette

Marcus Borg? He has the physical-resurrection-of-Christ-denying _Marcus Borg_ in his preferred blog links?

Mercy Maud.


----------



## fredtgreco

Gryphonette said:


> Marcus Borg? He has the physical-resurrection-of-Christ-denying _Marcus Borg_ in his preferred blog links?
> 
> Mercy Maud.



Now, now, Anne, don't you know that Borg "loves Jesus and believes in him passionately" ?


----------



## Gryphonette

I think there's a kid in Dmitry's school whose name is Jesus; if it doesn't make much difference precisely _which_ "Jesus" one loves and believes in passionately - He who was physically resurrected and ascended into heaven, or one of the myriad others - would _that _one do?


----------



## BobVigneault

Gryphonette said:


> Marcus Borg? He has the physical-resurrection-of-Christ-denying _Marcus Borg_ in his preferred blog links?
> 
> Mercy Maud.



Which just backs up Pastor Keister's assessment that he is a 'troll first class' and that FVers are particularly drawn toward and beyond the innovative and nuanced fringes of orthodoxy.


----------



## fredtgreco

Gryphonette said:


> I think there's a kid in Dmitry's school whose name is Jesus; if it doesn't make much difference precisely _which_ "Jesus" one loves and believes in passionately - He who was physically resurrected and ascended into heaven, or one of the myriad others - would _that _one do?



Anne,

You're just further showing how you don't get it. You're not supposed to _think_. You're supposed to fawn, drool and obey every word NT Wright says. If Wright says that Borg is a Christian who "loves Jesus passionately" who are we to let a little think like the most fundamental doctrine in Christianity (the resurrection) stand in the way?!?


----------



## Scott

It seems like a lot of these FV guys are into other liberal, neo-orthodox, and similar writers too. Is that right? For example, flipping over to Kevin Johnson's blog yesterday there were positive quotes from the likes of Barth and others. Argh!


----------



## Gryphonette

Thing is, that makes sense, considering their affection (in most instances) for N.T. Wright, etc.

Just because a favored theologian gets some fairly significant stuff wrong (eg. Wright's egalitarianism) doesn't mean we can't learn Important Truths from him.

Well, if they have Important Truth to impart even though they also are imparting a fair amount of junk, then why not give an ear to everyone imparting junk? 

There are valuable lessons to be learned from almost all theologian-types!

Well, except for fundamentalist no-accounts like Piper, Mohler, etc. Wouldn't want to waste time looking for Important Truth from the likes of _them_. No point carrying it to foolish extremes.


----------



## RamistThomist

Gryphonette said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all goes with the spirit of the age: ambiguity, flexibility, looseness, relativity...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a way the FV is akin to the Emergent stuff? On a practical level, that is?
Click to expand...


Some are, some aren't. I know some who do spout that, but then again, I have used Wilson's arguments against Maclaren in other debates with Emergent folk. But Wilson said he got his arguments against EC from Bahnsen/Van Til/David Wells


----------



## javajedi

blhowes said:


> Am I wrong that the main proponents of the FV teaching for the most part haven't left their reformed churches for Rome, but those who sit under the teachings are? Are the teachings being misunderstood, is that why people are leaving - if not, what is keeping FV teachers from also disserting the reformed faith?



This has been my concern all along. Its the generation being raised on this junk that is at the biggest risk. 

I have expressed this to people I gave talked with about FV. It seems to me that the 'leaders' who teach new/novel doctrines but have had sound, Biblical training (not that they remain sound) and, like the FV folks, claim orthodoxy (small 'o') will remain where they are. Its the next generation that will take it to its logical conclusion and be lost. The leaders and those originally grounded will be very slow to reject orthodoxy. But the next gen. will not have that grounding. I think the 'fruit' will really be seen in years and decades to come - way to late for many. We are seeing the 'firstfruits' now, just wait for the big harvest to come. Sad, very sad.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

javajedi said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I wrong that the main proponents of the FV teaching for the most part haven't left their reformed churches for Rome, but those who sit under the teachings are? Are the teachings being misunderstood, is that why people are leaving - if not, what is keeping FV teachers from also disserting the reformed faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my concern all along. Its the generation being raised on this junk that is at the biggest risk.
> 
> I have expressed this to people I gave talked with about FV. It seems to me that the 'leaders' who teach new/novel doctrines but have had sound, Biblical training (not that they remain sound) and, like the FV folks, claim orthodoxy (small 'o') will remain where they are. Its the next generation that will take it to its logical conclusion and be lost. The leaders and those originally grounded will be very slow to reject orthodoxy. But the next gen. will not have that grounding. I think the 'fruit' will really be seen in years and decades to come - way to late for many. We are seeing the 'firstfruits' now, just wait for the big harvest to come. Sad, very sad.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. This trend is repeated over and over and over. Usually the first generation retains its semi-orthodoxy but the heirs of such views usually drift off into various heresies. For instance, I've told a lot of people that in 1-2 generations, the Calvary Chapel movement will drift into a cult. Why? Because they fit the historical recipe for such things - end times obsession with little core orthodox doctrinal interest.

I've always been most critical of the FV leaders for their arrogance and naiveté over the fact that being unclear is a huge liability. Frankly, I don't believe they're being unclear in their statements that benefits that can _only_ be enjoyed by union with Christ in His death and resurrection (forgiveness of sins, justification, etc) are said to accrue to people by their covenant participation "to some extent" even if they are reprobate.

Parse it until you're blue in the face. The mere fact they are willing, for years, to keep whining "I've been misrepresented" ought to be a huge alarm bell ringing for Godly Pastors. That they don't get it is an indictment on their character. If ELDERS have been wrangling for 5 years trying to make sure they understand them clearly and after 5 years still can't adequately state their beliefs in a manner acceptable to the proponents THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG.

I get passionate about this because I can't believe how foolish these men are that think this ambiguity will benefit their members. If Elders in Christ's Church are suspicious of the conclusions to be drawn from statements then, you can be sure, that people in the pews are drawing those same conclusions.

So pity this soul as someone who was a sheep with shepherds who cared more for their theological novelty than for his eternal soul. Save your ire for the Shepherds.

How many more converts will we hear about where they say: "Well, he didn't understand us the same way you guys don't.... Boo hoo! Poor me the FV Pastor! Why can't anyone understand me?!"

Run for political office with that excrement. When you face the King of Kings at the throne of judgment, all that foolishness will be called to account!


----------



## Gryphonette

*Bingo once, bingo twice, bingo eighty-seven times over!*



SemperFideles said:


> javajedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I wrong that the main proponents of the FV teaching for the most part haven't left their reformed churches for Rome, but those who sit under the teachings are? Are the teachings being misunderstood, is that why people are leaving - if not, what is keeping FV teachers from also disserting the reformed faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my concern all along. Its the generation being raised on this junk that is at the biggest risk.
> 
> I have expressed this to people I gave talked with about FV. It seems to me that the 'leaders' who teach new/novel doctrines but have had sound, Biblical training (not that they remain sound) and, like the FV folks, claim orthodoxy (small 'o') will remain where they are. Its the next generation that will take it to its logical conclusion and be lost. The leaders and those originally grounded will be very slow to reject orthodoxy. But the next gen. will not have that grounding. I think the 'fruit' will really be seen in years and decades to come - way to late for many. We are seeing the 'firstfruits' now, just wait for the big harvest to come. Sad, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I completely agree. This trend is repeated over and over and over. Usually the first generation retains its semi-orthodoxy but the heirs of such views usually drift off into various heresies. For instance, I've told a lot of people that in 1-2 generations, the Calvary Chapel movement will drift into a cult. Why? Because they fit the historical recipe for such things - end times obsession with little core orthodox doctrinal interest.
> 
> I've always been most critical of the FV leaders for their arrogance and naiveté over the fact that being unclear is a huge liability. Frankly, I don't believe they're being unclear in their statements that benefits that can _only_ be enjoyed by union with Christ in His death and resurrection (forgiveness of sins, justification, etc) are said to accrue to people by their covenant participation "to some extent" even if they are reprobate.
> 
> Parse it until you're blue in the face. The mere fact they are willing, for years, to keep whining "I've been misrepresented" ought to be a huge alarm bell ringing for Godly Pastors. That they don't get it is an indictment on their character. If ELDERS have been wrangling for 5 years trying to make sure they understand them clearly and after 5 years still can't adequately state their beliefs in a manner acceptable to the proponents THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG.
> 
> I get passionate about this because I can't believe how foolish these men are that think this ambiguity will benefit their members. If Elders in Christ's Church are suspicious of the conclusions to be drawn from statements then, you can be sure, that people in the pews are drawing those same conclusions.
> 
> So pity this soul as someone who was a sheep with shepherds who cared more for their theological novelty than for his eternal soul. Save your ire for the Shepherds.
> 
> How many more converts will we hear about where they say: "Well, he didn't understand us the same way you guys don't.... Boo hoo! Poor me the FV Pastor! Why can't anyone understand me?!"
> 
> Run for political office with that excrement. When you face the King of Kings at the throne of judgment, all that foolishness will be called to account!
Click to expand...


It's particularly true that the 2d "generation" will go whole hog to Cathodoxy since the FV insists the RCC and OC's are true churches, with doctrine not _that_ much worse than the local evangellycal church. What on earth is there to stop their children from becoming RC or Orthodox, then? And what protest could their FV pastors or parents legitimately raise?

It's unnerving how often the only real doctrinal problem an FV'er will have with Rome is the pope. The papacy's a pest, naturally, but in fact is hardly the most problematic doctrine held by the RCC. Trouble is, to many FV'ers the rest of the RCC's doctrines can be finessed away. Baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation no longer seem that strange and wrong; icons and statues are acceptable and even beneficial; even the existence of a priesthood is no longer a hindrance, considering how the distance between the congregation and the pastor has been increased with the heightened emphasis on "the authority of the Church with a Capital C". 

Once they can explain away the papacy, the last doctrinal hurdle has been crossed, and the FV-to-Rome train has taken on another passenger. 

It's extraordinarily depressing.


----------



## Scott

SemperFideles said:


> Parse it until you're blue in the face. The mere fact they are willing, for years, to keep whining "I've been misrepresented" ought to be a huge alarm bell ringing for Godly Pastors. That they don't get it is an indictment on their character. If ELDERS have been wrangling for 5 years trying to make sure they understand them clearly and after 5 years still can't adequately state their beliefs in a manner acceptable to the proponents THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG.


I agree completely. And if it is really the case that their teachings are inscrutable even to studied the reformed minds, then they should not be teaching at all. Teaching requires a minimum level of competence at being clear. Someone who cannot make himself clear, even to seminary professors, is not qualified to be a teacher in the church.

It seems that worldview changes often take a generation or two to really work themselves out. I think of Darwin, for example, who affirmed evolution and atheism and yet retained Victorian morality. That morality was anchored to something else and he was living on borrowed capital that his heirs did not have or want. 

The current teachers all have vested interests in their current careers and positions. Changing is very costly and hard. I suppose some could be in touch with the Coming Home Network or something like that.


----------



## py3ak

The former NSA student in question has given his thoughts on why he ought not be considered representative of the FV.

And I think it bears remembering that FVists are not the only ones who convert to Rome.


----------



## Redaimie

py3ak said:


> The former NSA student in question has given his thoughts on why he ought not be considered representative of the FV.
> 
> And I think it bears remembering that FVists are not the only ones who convert to Rome.



The facts remain the same he was influenced by their teaching as his original title states
("On How The Federal Vision Made Me Catholic") regardless of if the FV accepted him or not.


Also reading the comments you can see how some others may convert through the influene of NPP.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9575787&postID=3929020688383210696&isPopup



> ...... former PCA pastor for 6.5 years. I left over three years ago to pursue PhD work in Durham England at Durham University. I was in Louisiana Presbytery when all of this mess broke out and saw that I was Catholic and left for the Anglo-Catholic group FiF UK in the Church of England.
> 
> If I were to live anywhere else in the world other than England, I would more than likely have to swim the Tiber too! God bless all of you!


----------



## py3ak

Mary, I believe you actually know this person, so of course you may know the situation much better than we can. I also understand that there is a difference between someone leaving, say, the PCA for Rome (Matatics) and someone being led to Rome by hanging out with, say, Cardinal Newman. My point is simply that we should not allow ourselves to make uncritical cheap shots: they are bad strategy, even if emotionally satisfying, because they permit of such easy _tu quoque_ comebacks.


----------



## py3ak

Coincidentally, I did something I don't do regularly and stopped by the Bayly blog. David Bayly had some thoughts on this particular FVist becoming a Papist.


----------



## Redaimie

py3ak said:


> My point is simply that we should not allow ourselves to make uncritical cheap shots: they are bad strategy, even if emotionally satisfying, because they permit of such easy _tu quoque_ comebacks.



I do agree, cheap shots are never helpful & I honestly thank you for that reminder.

The only point I want to stress is that I believe FV theology can lead people to misunderstand justification & because I think it is a very real danger, it should be pointed out when it has, in light of not one but many who have actually gone from FV to Roman Catholicism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Mary, I believe you actually know this person, so of course you may know the situation much better than we can. I also understand that there is a difference between someone leaving, say, the PCA for Rome (Matatics) and someone being led to Rome by hanging out with, say, Cardinal Newman. My point is simply that we should not allow ourselves to make uncritical cheap shots: they are bad strategy, even if emotionally satisfying, because they permit of such easy _tu quoque_ comebacks.



Ruben,

I apologize if you believe that my scathing criticism of the FV is intended to either be a cheap shot or an easy criticism. My point was not meant to scholarly convince a man that there is a nexus between FV theology and a conversion to Rome. My point is that a lack of clarity combined with theological novelty causes for instability.

There is a phenomena ongoing in Pentecostalism right now - burn out. Many of the neo-Atheists you meet come from neo-Pentecostal Churches. It's not possible to connect a doctrinal connection from one pole to the other yet there is a gut appreciation why the one pole leads to the other pole.


----------



## Redaimie

SemperFideles said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruben,
> 
> I apologize if you believe that my scathing criticism of the FV is intended to either be a cheap shot or an easy criticism. My point was not meant to scholarly convince a man that there is a nexus between FV theology and a conversion to Rome. My point is that a lack of clarity combined with theological novelty causes for instability.
> 
> There is a phenomena ongoing in Pentecostalism right now - burn out. Many of the neo-Atheists you meet come from neo-Pentecostal Churches. It's not possible to connect a doctrinal connection from one pole to the other yet there is a gut appreciation why the one pole leads to the other pole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said it much better than I did.
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

Well now there I can agree with you, Rich. There is a difference between the occasional, imperfect logic of people's actions, and strict deductive demands of theological positions. My concern is solely that people not *weaken* their case by falling into the mistake of thinking that any stick is good enough to beat an opponent with. And I think that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a lecherous, gnostic oneness pentecostal.


----------



## lololong

As one who grew up catholic in Europe and converted to protestantism 16 years ago in a church that is now FV (AAPC), I thought I would give you my 2c.
The FV IS leading people to Rome. The liturgy, the theology,the imagery.. are all too close to what I was raised in. 
Because of my background and the mercy of God, I was able to see it quite clearly, and never embraced the FV/AAPC teaching. I told the session that I was not about to go back to Rome, and our family left several years ago.
It really pains me to see what is happening.


----------



## py3ak

Lolo, I'm interested in hearing more about your experience. What reminded you most of your time in Rome? What was the reaction to your input?


----------



## ZackF

lololong said:


> As one who grew up catholic in Europe and converted to protestantism 16 years ago in a church that is now FV (AAPC), I thought I would give you my 2c.
> The FV IS leading people to Rome. The liturgy, the theology,the imagery.. are all too close to what I was raised in.
> Because of my background and the mercy of God, I was able to see it quite clearly, and never embraced the FV/AAPC teaching. I told the session that I was not about to go back to Rome, and our family left several years ago.
> It really pains me to see what is happening.



I agree. I spent 10 years in Catholicism. I've ran into a fellow who left our church for the FV while shopping in Wal-Mart one evening. At first he explained why he had not been to church and was going elsewhere. I just flat out asked him if he was FV. I then asked him what the general FV (and his) view on the Doctrine of Justification was and he replied that he believed in Sola Fide. After that he qualified he response with what seemed to me to be a Catholic teaching on justification. His response to my observation was the Protestants "misunderstand" the Catholic teaching on Justification and that Catholics are not so bad after all and blah, blah, blah. I wanted to tell him that I taught CCD for six years and know what the differences are but he had to go and so we parted. It was a sad occasion for me.

Sola Gratia!! Sola Fide!!


----------



## lololong

Before the changes in theology came the changes in the liturgy: the robes, the repeats, the kneeling...very high church and basically almost the exact replica of what I grew up with. We were just missing the altar boys(Ruston was ahead of us on that one) and the chanting. Then in theology came the baptism...a baby baptized was saved and is sins washed away- the church became the only place for salvation - relationship with God was through the church, not personal - the sacrements became central and dominants before the preaching of the Word - Symbolism was in everything and everywhere. And of course one can lose his salvation (that you acquired at baptism). To stay saved, you have to believe AND keep the covenant...looks very much like salvation by works to me, just like in the RC. Worship had become for me a very difficult thing and I was not looking forward to Sunday.
I was glad when we left 3 1/2 years ago.


----------



## lololong

The reaction to my input was not very well received to say the least.
An input is welcome when you agree, not when you disagree.


----------



## fredtgreco

I am sorry to hear about your experiences Lolo and Zack. As A former altar boy, I feel your pain.


----------



## ZackF

lololong said:


> The reaction to my input was not very well received to say the least.
> An input is welcome when you agree, not when you disagree.



You must be getting nasty PMs. I am sorry to see that.


----------



## Gryphonette

I spent a dozen years as an RC, and could not possibly agree more. There's an unnerving similarity between FV and RC doctrine.

Even though the FV doesn't use the term "infusion", that's what their "justified by covenantal obedience" is at heart, so far's I can tell. One is _initially_ justified at baptism....this is a huge FV doctrine, is it not?....but to _remain_ justified requires sanctification. Sanctification is not actually a fruit of justification in the sense that traditional Reformed theology says, but instead there is a symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification. 

Mind, now! There is certainly a significant difference in reality between true RC soteriology and FV soteriology, make no mistake about that. The problem is the FV provides a stepping stone between Reformed soteriology and RC soteriology. Once one accepts any sort of symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification, it's not a giant leap to full-fledged RC doctrine.

There are also similarities between the FV view of the sacraments and the RC view; plus the whole "the Church IS salvation" angle sounds very RC.

It's like that Taylor Whozit said, the FV is a keyhole for the RCC.


----------



## ZackF

Gryphonette said:


> I spent a dozen years as an RC, and could not possibly agree more. There's an unnerving similarity between FV and RC doctrine.
> 
> Even though the FV doesn't use the term "infusion", that's what their "justified by covenantal obedience" is at heart, so far's I can tell. One is _initially_ justified at baptism....this is a huge FV doctrine, is it not?....but to _remain_ justified requires sanctification. Sanctification is not actually a fruit of justification in the sense that traditional Reformed theology says, but instead there is a symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification.
> 
> Mind, now! There is certainly a significant difference in reality between true RC soteriology and FV soteriology, make no mistake about that. The problem is the FV provides a stepping stone between Reformed soteriology and RC soteriology. Once one accepts any sort of symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification, it's not a giant leap to full-fledged RC doctrine.
> 
> There are also similarities between the FV view of the sacraments and the RC view; plus the whole "the Church IS salvation" angle sounds very RC.
> 
> It's like that Taylor Whozit said, the FV is a keyhole for the RCC.



I agree with this. FVism is replacing Anglo-Catholic/High Anglicanism as the halfway house to Rome. Eventually a sort of romanticism takes over and FVism doesn't seem like the real McCoy and so EO or RC look authentic and historical. Seems like recycled Tractarian-Newmanism (which pulled me into Rome) repackaged for a new generation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KS_Presby said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent a dozen years as an RC, and could not possibly agree more. There's an unnerving similarity between FV and RC doctrine.
> 
> Even though the FV doesn't use the term "infusion", that's what their "justified by covenantal obedience" is at heart, so far's I can tell. One is _initially_ justified at baptism....this is a huge FV doctrine, is it not?....but to _remain_ justified requires sanctification. Sanctification is not actually a fruit of justification in the sense that traditional Reformed theology says, but instead there is a symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification.
> 
> Mind, now! There is certainly a significant difference in reality between true RC soteriology and FV soteriology, make no mistake about that. The problem is the FV provides a stepping stone between Reformed soteriology and RC soteriology. Once one accepts any sort of symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification, it's not a giant leap to full-fledged RC doctrine.
> 
> There are also similarities between the FV view of the sacraments and the RC view; plus the whole "the Church IS salvation" angle sounds very RC.
> 
> It's like that Taylor Whozit said, the FV is a keyhole for the RCC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this. FVism is replacing Anglo-Catholic/High Anglicanism as the halfway house to Rome. Eventually a sort of romanticism takes over and FVism doesn't seem like the real McCoy and so EO or RC look authentic and historical. Seems like recycled Tractarian-Newmanism (which pulled me into Rome) repackaged for a new generation.
Click to expand...


Good points. What I've noticed among FV primarily is the "...we think you guys gooned up Reformed theology so we're going to re-construct it by going back through Augustine to reconstruct it ourselves..." attitude.

Thus, you have Churches with sort of an eclectic "slapping together" of liturgical and theological ideas from centuries past.

But then the Church must seem like a personal collection of theological ideas to some after awhile. They look around and realize that there are probably 50 Christians on the entire planet that are actually worshipping just like them and they start to feel a bit cultic and not very catholic.

Since their theological ideas and forms approximate closely to certain elements, I would imagine that the "man in the pew" probably figures it's best to get respectable and "really go ancient". Better to go to a place that has a real institutions that have been doing this stuff for centuries than stick around the dinky building where a few guys have been cutting and pasting a crazy mosaic for the past 5 years.


----------



## py3ak

I wonder if any of the FV leaders came out of Rome?


----------



## Redaimie

py3ak said:


> I wonder if any of the FV leaders came out of Rome?



I would be very surprised if any did.

As a former Roman Catholic I don't think I would have left Roman Catholicism if all I had I read was FV material. 

It was the gospel pure & simply understood with no caveats that led me out of Rome. When I read Romans, by the grace of God I saw my need for Christ & Christ alone as my Redeemer. I know the FV is not the same as Roman Catholicism but I believe the gospel becomes lost in FV sacremontology to the point that the need for a belief in Jesus Christ alone as savior is not clearly seen. To be clear I'm not saying the FV does not believe in faith alone, it's just that as a person in the pew to me the message the FV puts forth is confusing. That's just my opinion & maybe I'm wrong in which case time will tell.


----------



## wsw201

On a practical point, comparing salvation via FV versus RC, I would go with RC any day. You may have to burn off sins in purgatory for a few thousand years (unless you have some nice relatives who can pitch in a few bucks to shorten your stay), but as long as you haven't committed a mortal sin, you will get to heaven! 

With FV you can delude yourself into thinking that you have been the most faithful covenant keeper the church has ever known and when it comes the final judgment and your "final Justification" you all the sudden find out that you got short changed by the Holy Spirit and didn't get the gift of perserverance. Next stop? Lake of Fire!!


----------



## ZackF

wsw201 said:


> On a practical point, comparing salvation via FV versus RC, I would go with RC any day. You may have to burn off sins in purgatory for a few thousand years (unless you have some nice relatives who can pitch in a few bucks to shorten your stay), but as long as you haven't committed a mortal sin, you will get to heaven!
> 
> With FV you can delude yourself into thinking that you have been the most faithful covenant keeper the church has ever known and when it comes the final judgment and your "final Justification" you all the sudden find out that you got short changed by the Holy Spirit and didn't get the gift of perserverance. Next stop? Lake of Fire!!




You don't know many Catholics have said, "if I can just make it purgatory....."


----------



## Robert Truelove

And what is the response by a key Federal Visionist regarding those who are apostatizing due to Federal Vision teachings...

James Jordan comments on this in "Biblical Horizons" No.197, August 2007 edition...

"And it does not help, of course when unstable young men, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, drift through the Federal Vision Conversation and then move on to Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or Ango-Catholicism. *But that cannot be helped. It is the risk we take for being Biblical and open to the future.*" (emphasis mine)

The last two sentences are perhaps the most utterly audacious statements I had read throughout my journey through this controversy. I say perhaps because a paragraph after the one above above he has the audacity to say...

"The Calvinistic churches are little more than extensions of the academy. The black robe is the robe of the scholar, not the angelic white robe of a worship leader. The heart of the meeting is the long lecture-sermon. Candles? No! Colored paraments on table and pulpit? No! Flowers? Maybe. The darkets part of the room is the center where the dark wood table and the dark wood massive pulpit and the black-robed preacher are. *It is like looking into hell itself.*"

For all the 'boo hoo hoo, people are not treating us with love' from the Federal Visionists, one would think they would take some responsibility for heir own actions and speak with more love and grace.


----------



## Casey

BobVigneault said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't link the site from this computer. What is his name?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Yonke
> 
> * Age: 27
> * Gender: Male
> * Astrological Sign: Leo
> * Zodiac Year: Monkey
> * Industry: Construction
> * Occupation: Electrician
> * Location: Wheaton : Illinois : United States
Click to expand...

A former member of my congregation; they left this past Summer. Please remember Matt and his new wife in your prayers.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Southern Presbyterian said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what is keeping FV teachers from also disserting the reformed faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a word, arogance. They would be very small fish in the *great big RC pond*. in my opinion.
Click to expand...

What pond? I see only a cesspool and perhaps even a Lake of Fire.


----------



## blhowes

prespastor said:


> And what is the response by a key Federal Visionist regarding those who are apostatizing due to Federal Vision teachings...
> 
> James Jordan comments on this in "Biblical Horizons" No.197, August 2007 edition...
> 
> "And it does not help, of course when unstable young men, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, drift through the Federal Vision Conversation and then move on to Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or Ango-Catholicism. *But that cannot be helped. It is the risk we take for being Biblical and open to the future.*"


That's disturbing. 

I thought I'd search for this so I could read the whole article. I haven't read it through yet, but came across this as I was skimming:
What we have found, however, is a *Biblophobic* hostility toward any attempt to deal Biblically with the Bible. If the Westminster Confession defines “election,” for its purposes, as “elect to glory,” then we are not allowed to point out that in the Bible “election” is usually used in the sense of chosen to office, chosen for mission, or chosen to be baptized into the church.​Biblophobic? I know this is a serious debate, and I try to maintain a serious attitude, but things like this (forgive me) make me chuckle. Biblophobic?


----------



## ZackF

blhowes said:


> prespastor said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the response by a key Federal Visionist regarding those who are apostatizing due to Federal Vision teachings...
> 
> James Jordan comments on this in "Biblical Horizons" No.197, August 2007 edition...
> 
> "And it does not help, of course when unstable young men, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, drift through the Federal Vision Conversation and then move on to Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or Ango-Catholicism. *But that cannot be helped. It is the risk we take for being Biblical and open to the future.*"
> 
> 
> 
> That's disturbing.
> 
> I thought I'd search for this so I could read the whole article. I haven't read it through yet, but came across this as I was skimming:
> What we have found, however, is a *Biblophobic* hostility toward any attempt to deal Biblically with the Bible. If the Westminster Confession defines “election,” for its purposes, as “elect to glory,” then we are not allowed to point out that in the Bible “election” is usually used in the sense of chosen to office, chosen for mission, or chosen to be baptized into the church.​Biblophobic? I know this is a serious debate, and I try to maintain a serious attitude, but things like this (forgive me) make me chuckle. Biblophobic?
Click to expand...



That's the exact point I would make to Jordan. What Jordan describes is the Catholic view of "election." The guy is just not Reformed nor Calvinist. If he doesn't want to be...then fine. You don't have to call yourself a Roman Catholic just stop calling yourself a Calvinist. Nobody has the courage to leave a movement or group anymore. It's all about asserting the will in place you are not welcome. When I was Catholic I got so mad at people who claimed to be Catholic yet rejected most all Catholic dogma. Mush-mouthed post-modernism I guess... Let your yes be yes and your no be no.


----------



## Dennis1963

Blueridge Baptist said:


> This taken from the article:
> 
> Homesick No More
> Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. - Jeremiah 6:16
> Monday, August 27, 2007
> On How The Federal Vision Made Me Catholic
> 
> So there's much hubbub lately about the Federal Vision controversy. The conservative reformed world is fast becoming a house divided against itself over the issues of the reality of the sacraments and what they confer upon the recipient and the real possibility of apostasy.
> 
> Having been myself a member of both a Federal Vision community (lo, I am a pharisee of pharisees coming from Christ Church itself, the very Mecca of the FV movement) and a non-FV reformed community (OPC to be precise) and now a communing Catholic (in that order) I have thought about the question a fair bit. I still keep up on the matter, though through a glass dimly, mostly because the ideas of the preachers of the FV movement were largely the ideas that lead me to be accepted into the Catholic Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears he has proved out to be a Hebrew 6 and 10 apostate. What an abominable doctrine FV is.


 Very sad indeed! We are in the last days, Matthew 24:24.


----------



## RamistThomist

Free Greg Bahnsen message anticipating this very subject.

Download the "Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified"


----------



## travis

Spear Dane said:


> Free Greg Bahnsen message anticipating this very subject.
> 
> Download the "Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified"



Funny, you just linked to a pro-FV site.


----------



## RamistThomist

travis said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free Greg Bahnsen message anticipating this very subject.
> 
> Download the "Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you just linked to a pro-FV site.
Click to expand...


Bahnsen's message stands or falls regardless of said site. And listen to the message: he *slams *any kind of reunion with Rome. Almost brutal. Makes PB look soft.


----------



## ZackF

Spear Dane said:


> travis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free Greg Bahnsen message anticipating this very subject.
> 
> Download the "Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you just linked to a pro-FV site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bahnsen's message stands or falls regardless of said site. And listen to the message: he *slams *any kind of reunion with Rome. Almost brutal. Makes PB look soft.
Click to expand...


I just listened to this message. Great message. I am thinking about starting a thread of this nature but I am not sure how I want to frame the issue yet. I need to give it some thought and prayer.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

The minute they go FV they might as well concede themselves to Rome.


----------

