# How should we consider NPP and FV folks?



## ubermadchen (Jun 24, 2009)

The Piper thread got me thinking about my MANY friends, sadly most, who are being drawn away from the Gospel to NPP and FV. For the friends who have become full blown NPP and FV, how should I consider them? Heretics? Should I fear for their souls? What about the leaders of these movements? I know it's wrong to judge someone's salvation but should I still consider these folks brothers and continue in fellowship with them? I consider my Arminian friends saved just very wrong about their theology. Is NPP and FV along this line or is it something much worse? I'm just really confused about this. Mods may move this if this is in the wrong forum.


----------



## Sven (Jun 24, 2009)

The PCA General Assembly considers Federal Visionists to be brothers in the Lord, but their doctrines are out of line with the Church's standards. This is an appropriate way to consider them. The teaching of the FV and NPP is not a damnable heresy, but it does have serious errors. We ought neither to consider them outside the bounds of the Church, nor should we consider their views to be a small matter that doesn't need any correction or discipline.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 24, 2009)

ubermadchen said:


> The Piper thread got me thinking about my MANY friends, sadly most, who are being drawn away from the Gospel to NPP and FV. For the friends who have become full blown NPP and FV, how should I consider them? Heretics? Should I fear for their souls? What about the leaders of these movements? I know it's wrong to judge someone's salvation but should I still consider these folks brothers and continue in fellowship with them? I consider my Arminian friends saved just very wrong about their theology. Is NPP and FV along this line or is it something much worse? I'm just really confused about this. Mods may move this if this is in the wrong forum.



One of the main difficulties with answering this question is that there is such a range of opinions on various issues, and (as the FV and the NPP proponents so often remind us) there is no one single position on a lot of the issues involved. Personally, I think comparing them to Arminians or to Roman Catholics is probably appropriate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timmopussycat (Jun 24, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> ubermadchen said:
> 
> 
> > The Piper thread got me thinking about my MANY friends, sadly most, who are being drawn away from the Gospel to NPP and FV. For the friends who have become full blown NPP and FV, how should I consider them? Heretics? Should I fear for their souls? What about the leaders of these movements? I know it's wrong to judge someone's salvation but should I still consider these folks brothers and continue in fellowship with them? I consider my Arminian friends saved just very wrong about their theology. Is NPP and FV along this line or is it something much worse? I'm just really confused about this. Mods may move this if this is in the wrong forum.
> ...



A correspondent in the other thread noted that Doug Wilson 
has articulated an orthodox position on justification by faith alone, rather than the unorthodox "final verdict of justification" [works] that is related to federal vision." Is this correct, and if it is where does Wilson disagree with the FV boys?


----------



## A2JC4life (Aug 17, 2009)

Npp?


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 17, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> Npp?



New Perspective on Paul


----------



## A.J. (Aug 17, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> Npp?



New Perspectives on Paul

New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----Added 8/17/2009 at 10:53:56 EST-----



Kathleen posted right before I posted. 

This page has good resources on the Reformed response to NPP:

INDEX to Modern unbiblical challenges to trad ref covt theol

-----Added 8/17/2009 at 10:55:07 EST-----

And so does this site: 

Westminster Seminary California clark


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 17, 2009)

A.J. said:


> A2JC4life said:
> 
> 
> > Npp?
> ...



Yes, but you provided helpful links! Thanks, as I'm still in the midst of figuring out what all this means myself.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 17, 2009)

I agree with Lane. The FV is, as William Ames said of Arminianism, an error tending to heresy but not heresy itself. 

We should pray for those seduced by the FV. Often they are bright, curious, and dissatisfied with the status quo but who don't seem to understand the historic, confessional Reformed faith and who veer from fundamentalism to the FV and sadly, to Rome or Greek Orthodoxy. 

As a pastoral matter it has had devastating pastoral and spiritual consequences in many congregations. Some young people who were involved have matured and re-considered their views and returned to orthodoxy but others aren't. 

It's quite disturbing to read your report that many of your friends are being taken in by this pseudo-Reformed movement.

"In by grace" (i.e., baptism which is said to confer and temporary, historical, conditional union with Christ) and "stay in by faith and works" is not good news at all for sinners. It is sacerdotalism (religious, priestly magic) and moralism. 

There have been a number of good books, articles, and ecclesiastical reports and statements on the FV movement. Most recently the United Reformed Churches released a report strongly rejecting the FV root and branch. We adopted Nine Points in 2007 rejecting it as did the PCA. The OPC has produced a report that is strongly critical too. The RCUS has rejected it and so has the RPCNA. The virtual unanimity in NAPARC against the FV is striking and bears considering.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 17, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> A correspondent in the other thread noted that Doug Wilson
> has articulated an orthodox position on justification by faith alone, rather than the unorthodox "final verdict of justification" [works] that is related to federal vision." Is this correct, and if it is where does Wilson disagree with the FV boys?



Timmo,

In my reading, Wilson can tend to affirm and deny the same point. It appears to be an attempt to maintain the Creator/creature distinction of van Til fame, but (in Wilson's case) seems to tend toward Nominalism. If memory serves, Wilson is a Nominalist as far as mathematics goes, but I think he may be in regard to some theological issues. Thus, with Abelard, he can indulge in _Sic et Non_ at times.

Cheers,


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 17, 2009)

A2JC4life said:


> Npp?



The "NPP" (New Perspectives on Paul) began 30+ years ago with a British Theologian (N.T. Wright) who popularized his idea of a "new" way of reading Scriptures written by the Apostle.

FV (Federal Vision) is really an offshoot from that, more recent, and was popularized particularly in Presbyterian and reformed communions by the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (Monroe, LA) lectures and conferences in the early 2000's. It is also sometimes called "Auburn Avenue Theology" for that same reason.

Bottom line, at best all these teachings confuse justification by faith _alone_. At worst, they deny it. Justification by faith _alone_ is the gospel.

Neither is acceptable.


----------



## Hamalas (Sep 17, 2009)

Good, question. So what would y'all think of going to an FV school like New Saint Andrews? Would it be the same as attending an Arminian college or a Catholic university? As pastors/parents, would you encourage a young person to go there?

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 17, 2009)

I know very little about FV but don't they believe in faith plus works? If so, then this would be another gospel according to St. Paul when he talked about some Jews insisting that Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved. Would St. Paul state that those Jews were spreading heresy since he said they were speaking of another gospel?


----------



## TeachingTulip (Sep 17, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> Good, question. So what would y'all think of going to an FV school like New Saint Andrews? Would it be the same as attending an Arminian college or a Catholic university? As pastors/parents, would you encourage a young person to go there?





Definitely not.

Denying Justification by faith, alone . . . is _very_ serious error that undermines the true Gospel of Grace.

-----Added 9/17/2009 at 06:33:14 EST-----



OPC'n said:


> I know very little about FV but don't they believe in faith plus works? If so, then this would be another gospel according to St. Paul when he talked about some Jews insisting that Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved. Would St. Paul state that those Jews were spreading heresy since he said they were speaking of another gospel?



You are exactly right, Sarah.

FV proclaims another gospel, which should be condemned.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 17, 2009)

Without meaning to affirm FV at all, it is error, and the PCA paper on it was excellent, I do know that the people we've met who are attracted to it actually believe the book of James is canon  ( not just Romans and Galatians  ) and there really is such a thing as living faith and dead faith, and that faith without works is dead, and they are trying to figure it all out.

I may not agree with their conclusions, but they ask good questions that can make the standard TR lingo sound almost antinomian, as if works and obedience don't matter. They do matter.

I don't think approaching it with smacking them over the head with more verses about justification by faith alone is necessarily helpful, even if true. They want a reasoned theology based on James and all the other verses that command our obedience.

What I think they need is some of the materials I've seen by guys like Piper about how when you stand before the throne on judgment day, NOTHING but the active and passive obedience of Jesus allows you into heaven. Nothing. Any sanctification the holy spirit has worked in you, and any infused righteousness, is worthless in that moment. It is all the work of Christ as the only basis to enter into God's presence, nothing in you at all. But then Piper ties in how much it matters to obey. 


I don't really know what TRs have written up a good treatment of James and works and living and dead faith, that answers the questions these people are struggling with. A while ago on some Norman Shepherd thread, Greenbaggins (PB mod) had some links to his own blog posts that were excellent. Maybe if he sees this he can link them for you. I found them helpful to me personally.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Sep 17, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Without meaning to affirm FV at all, it is error, and the PCA paper on it was excellent, I do know that the people we've met who are attracted to it actually believe the book of James is canon  ( not just Romans and Galatians  ) and there really is such a thing as living faith and dead faith, and that faith without works is dead, and they are trying to figure it all out.
> 
> I may not agree with their conclusions, but they ask good questions that can make the standard TR lingo sound almost antinomian, as if works and obedience don't matter. They do matter.
> 
> I don't think approaching it with smacking them over the head with more verses about justification by faith alone is necessarily helpful, even if true. *They want a reasoned theology based on James and all the other verses that command our obedience.*



Indeed. I have bolded their agenda, which you accurately state.

What they are attempting, is to redefine justification according to James, rather than according to God's grace and gift of faith.

The "justification" James taught, is not forgiveness of sins and imputation of Christ's righteousness, which regenerated believers realize and receive by faith alone.

Rather, James teaches that professing believers are obligated to evidence their faith to justify their testimony before men . . .not before God!

A very serious theological difference that places emphasis on practice and works rather than grace and faith. Obedience is made a means (again) to pleasing God according to good works, rather than depending upon the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ, and not one's own.

It is totally amazing to me that the core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is being redefined, weakened, and those doing so are being excused and whitewashed by the churches.

This is what the Reformation from Rome was all about to begin with.


----------



## Curt (Sep 17, 2009)

The short answer to this question is, individually. Is their fruit indicative of their profession?


----------



## MW (Sep 17, 2009)

Jude 20-25, "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. *And of some have compassion*, *making a difference*: *And others save with fear*, *pulling them out of the fire*; *hating even the garment spotted by the flesh*. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."


----------



## lynnie (Sep 17, 2009)

T Tulip....

I am not too familiar with the movement, but from the little I do know, you are entirely correct about the hardcore adherants and their agenda.

However, hub went to WTS as the whole mess was starting up with Shepherd in the mid 70s (they let him go in 82), and I can assure you that there was a very faithful, confessional, Reformed group that even Van Til was part of, that was horrified by an almost antinomian attitude among some TRs, and they kept hammering away in response that justifying faith is never alone. 

And yeah, somewhere along the line it seems like confessional people slid off into works earing merit before God and the FV error took hold. But I still maintain that it doesn't help to fight it, unless you have a clear and well articulated position that includes defining living faith and dead faith.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Sep 17, 2009)

lynnie said:


> T Tulip....
> 
> I am not too familiar with the movement, but from the little I do know, you are entirely correct about the hardcore adherants and their agenda.
> 
> ...



The church has a clear and well articulated definition of living faith. WCF XIV:I-III and XVI: I-VI

Dead faith is also clearly defined by the WCF, thusly:

"Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God." XVI: VII

We do not need to hammer doctrine into their heads, or go apologetic about what James is teaching.

The church simply needs to hold FV'ers to the Confession and the Holy Scriptures, and insist that they, under discipline, explain their own revisionist theories accordingly.

They are the ones wandering from the historic, orthodox, Reformed faith. And they should be held accountable by the faithful; not pampered or excused.


----------



## ubermadchen (Sep 17, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Without meaning to affirm FV at all, it is error, and the PCA paper on it was excellent, I do know that the people we've met who are attracted to it *actually believe the book of James is canon*  ( not just Romans and Galatians  ) and there really is such a thing as living faith and dead faith, and that faith without works is dead, and they are trying to figure it all out.
> 
> I may not agree with their conclusions, but they ask good questions that can make the standard TR lingo sound almost antinomian, as if works and obedience don't matter. They do matter.
> 
> ...




This is the thread that just keeps on coming back.  Oh, and I did not get the memo that James was not canon. I know Martin Luther wanted to leave it out but I didn't know we had decided go with that decision. A little help here?


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Sep 17, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> ubermadchen said:
> 
> 
> > The Piper thread got me thinking about my MANY friends, sadly most, who are being drawn away from the Gospel to NPP and FV. For the friends who have become full blown NPP and FV, how should I consider them? Heretics? Should I fear for their souls? What about the leaders of these movements? I know it's wrong to judge someone's salvation but should I still consider these folks brothers and continue in fellowship with them? I consider my Arminian friends saved just very wrong about their theology. Is NPP and FV along this line or is it something much worse? I'm just really confused about this. Mods may move this if this is in the wrong forum.
> ...



Who else thinks that Arminians are equal with the Roman Church? I do not and hope this was a typo.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 17, 2009)

The average Arminian, if asked about what hope of heaven he will have when he stands before the great white throne, will say something about Jesus on the cross. Generally if you ask them and really pin them down, they will say their only hope is the blood of Jesus. They may claim in discussions about election that THEY decided and THEY asked the Lord into their heart, but when you get talking about going to heaven they'll admit it is all the work of Jesus that grants us eternal life.

Now the catholics I have known, with only a few exceptions.....eye yei yei...they all say they have lived a good life and that sort of thing. All works. So I do not equate Arminians and RCC.

uber..cynical joke, sorry. You had to be there when the James fights about living and dead faith were going on......

T Tulip....I guess we are thinking of two different FV groups. You are talking about the leaders of it leading people astray, and yes I'd agree.

_The church simply needs to hold FV'ers to the Confession and the Holy Scriptures, and insist that they, under discipline, explain their own revisionist theories accordingly.

They are the ones wandering from the historic, orthodox, Reformed faith. And they should be held accountable by the faithful; not pampered or excused. _ 

I am thinking of the young ones who are confused and struggling and reading their materials and trying to figure it all out. And with them, I'd use a gentler approach that starts out with listening to their verses about commands to obey and living faith and all that stuff. You don't whack them over the head with the WCF during the first five minutes of conversation. You ask them how they fit Romans and Galatians into their thinking eventually, and ask about our merit and works and the basis for eternal life and how the cross fits in.

This may seem clear to you but it isn't clear at all. It was a BIG DEAL when Luther started the Reformation and when people started to grasp the solas. It wasn't clear to a lot of priests or people until God began to open their eyes; almost the whole chuch was in bondage to works even worse than FV.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Sep 17, 2009)

lynnie said:


> T Tulip....I guess we are thinking of two different FV groups. You are talking about the leaders of it leading people astray, and yes I'd agree.



What other group is there? These are the ones holding positions in the seminaries and preaching from pulpits. Who else do you refer to?





> I am thinking of the young ones who are confused and struggling and reading their materials and trying to figure it all out.



Me, too.

And who are they reading and whose sermons do they sit under, and what kind of theological education will they receive if they enter the Reformed seminaries?





> And with them, I'd use a gentler approach that starts out with listening to their verses about commands to obey and living faith and all that stuff. You don't whack them over the head with the WCF during the first five minutes of conversation.



Why not? Ha!

Are we talking about a PR campaign, or sound Reformed teachings?

No "young person" being a member of a Reformed church, should be without instruction in all the Holy Scriptures and the Confessions.

There is no such thing as a "gentler approach" than the word of God and the wisdom of the church fathers.





> You ask them how they fit Romans and Galatians into their thinking eventually, and ask about our merit and works and the basis for eternal life and how the cross fits in.



Sorry, and maybe I am old-fashioned, but my husband and I never asked the opinions of our students. We told them the truth, and expected them to respond to that biblical/confessional truth with belief . . .or else!

Young people want to hear the straight and honest truth. They do not want to be coddled and "wooed" into the faith of Jesus Christ.

If we elderly people fail to give the truth, and fail to withstand subtle errors within our churches, we will answer to God for such failures, for such failures of faithfulness would amount to nothing less than unbelief in the revealed truths of God already provided to His church.

This is a very serious subject, that should not and must not be swept under the rug . . .


----------



## KMK (Sep 18, 2009)

Another distinction that should be made is between those who teach FV contrary to the unity of the church and those who are simply 'bewitched' by said teachers.


----------



## charliejunfan (Sep 18, 2009)

FV confused me back before it was well known as heresy, I used to look to works for assurance of salvation, and as you can imagine, I had no assurance. I know now that Christ is the only one who can give me assurance while my works direct me to His work alone, because mine is too filthy.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 18, 2009)

Sven said:


> The PCA General Assembly considers Federal Visionists to be brothers in the Lord, but their doctrines are out of line with the Church's standards. This is an appropriate way to consider them. The teaching of the FV and NPP is not a damnable heresy, but it does have serious errors. We ought neither to consider them outside the bounds of the Church, nor should we consider their views to be a small matter that doesn't need any correction or discipline.



Justification which is not by faith alone is not a damnable heresy?

Roman Catholics don't believe in justification by faith alone. Those who are ignorant of what they believe as RC's can be Christians, but anyone who knows what they are saying...how can they be Christians? RC (probably because I am a former RC) is heresy. Heresy in the general sense (not official sense). Of course maybe we could call it the official sense since the Divines said the Pope is the antichrist. And the NPP and FV are very closely linked to RC, (one might even say EO). 

I don't agree with the PCA's 'pastoral report', although most of it I like. I don't like the part where they deemed them still brothers in the Lord. I don't think we can state that, nor does their doctrine show that.

NPP/FV proclaim another gospel...and I think we all know what our Lord says about that in Galatians 1.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 18, 2009)

It was no mistake comparing FV with Arminians and Roman Catholics, when it is understood that both are semi-Pelagian. Both can talk about the need for grace. It just isn't grace alone. Works has to make an appearance there somewhere. And, to be cautious here, I don't believe all FV'ers are semi-Pelagian. 

Andrew, you say that it isn't helpful for us to compare the FV to RCC. But then you argue that neither teach the Gospel, neither teach justification by faith alone, and both are heretical. Exactly how is it unhelpful, then, to compare the FV to RCC? I think when one considers their emphasis on the visible church, their views of baptism, and their view of final justification, it is VERY similar to RCC. In fact, I have often summarized the FV by saying that it is a fundamentally Roman Catholicizing tendency. 

When the report called them "brothers," it was a judgment of charity, saying that, since we don't know their hearts, it is more than possible that some of them are actual believers. It was thought best to give them the benefit of this particular doubt.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 18, 2009)

Lane you are very right, my mind went crazy apparently, I was thinking of some other group.  Don't know how that happened. 

I think I was more answering the heresy part of it. I believe NPP/FV, RC (I can't add the other C here because they aren't a church in my opinion) are heretical (in at least the general sense of the term --> Galatians 1). I'm going to delete what I posted above. HA!


----------



## lynnie (Sep 18, 2009)

Keep in mind that the FV claim to base their position on scripture and are not holding papal doctrines up as equal in authority. In fact they look at us and say that we (deep in our hearts) put the confessions on the level of canon. The do hold to sola scriptura and argue from that position. That is a huge difference with the RCC.

That is why I think you need a solid bible based approach. If you start in with the WCF they will look at you the same we we look at Rome...adding something to scripture as equal in authority. I think it is a mistake to appeal to Reformed tradition and confessions when talking to an FV. When I got saved I was immediately introduced to Arminian dispensationalism, and it was scripture itself that eventually forced me into the Reformed positions. Not confessions. ( although Piper and Edwards did help  ). I have talked a long while several times with an FV/NPP who went to WTS and I have to talk bible, confessions don't cut it.

Sola scriptura is a huge distinction from the RCC, and you ought to be ready to debate it on that level in my opinion, and only on that level.


----------



## Prufrock (Sep 18, 2009)

Lynnie,

You are absolutely right that, in order to _establish_ or _convince someone_ of our doctrines, we can in no way go to the confessions, but to scripture alone. However, with the FV topic, context is everything. When we're in the setting of ecclesiastic courts, etc., and the opponents are claiming that what they are teaching is what our confessions allow, or that it is the Reformed teaching, scripture is (in such a case) irrelevant. Scripture can't demonstrate what is _Reformed_, only what is _true_. Thus, first we must correct the historical/ecclesiastical misunderstanding (i.e., that they are teaching what we [the Reformed] have been teaching all along), and then we correct the Biblical understanding. So in the form of the present FV disputes, appealing to the confession is not only proper, but it is also most necessary.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 18, 2009)

Prufrock, what you just said goes back to what was mentioned above. You are talking about the teachers leading people astray, and yeah, you are 100%right and it is disgraceful that they claim to be confessional.

I am thinking though, of the average person exposed to this and the struggles they have (I don't exactly hang out with the big names). And there you must be prepared to reason with scripture alone. The thread starter was talking about their friends and I'd say that with your friends, be ready to debate only from the word. You CAN lay the groundwork of Christ's merit alone with scripture. Some doctrines like say limited atonement are harder but I don't think this one is so hard.

The WTS grad guy we know got a job on staff at a PCA church sympathetic to Wilson and NT Wright. I get upset thinking about it. ( he is sooo kind and nice and humble, far more gracious than many people I know). Yeah, they claim to hold to the confession but it is so twisted. I've lost all my grand illusions about the PCA the last couple years. I try to pray faithfully but I just get upset


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 18, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Lynnie,
> 
> You are absolutely right that, in order to _establish_ or _convince someone_ of our doctrines, we can in no way go to the confessions, but to scripture alone. However, with the FV topic, context is everything. When we're in the setting of ecclesiastic courts, etc., and the opponents are claiming that what they are teaching is what our confessions allow, or that it is the Reformed teaching, scripture is (in such a case) irrelevant. Scripture can't demonstrate what is _Reformed_, only what is _true_. Thus, first we must correct the historical/ecclesiastical misunderstanding (i.e., that they are teaching what we [the Reformed] have been teaching all along), and then we correct the Biblical understanding. So in the form of the present FV disputes, appealing to the confession is not only proper, but it is also most necessary.



I'm not formally theologically trained and have a limited understanding of the intricacies of "Federal Vision" and "New Perspectives" theology.

However, one of the early things I noticed in the ofttimes strident manner of people arguing for "FV" was that on the one hand, they said they agreed with the Confession, on the other that the Confession is not clear on major points- the implication being it needs to be amended or changed.

On the one hand, saying they are "very" confessional (more confessional than the rest of the reformed) and then pitting the confession against Scripture- saying that the Confession does not really represent Scripture.

All that, before the re-defining of key confessional (and biblical) words like justification and other confessional terms, commonly understood like "union with Christ," "perseverance of the Saints," and "visible church."

It was clear that when one "FV" leader starting defining his multiple definitional differences with words like "justification" and "union with Christ" as "quibbles," we were dealing with something seriously in error, both biblically and confessionally.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 18, 2009)

> It was clear that when one "FV" leader starting defining his multiple definitional differences with words like "justification" and "union with Christ" as "quibbles," we were dealing with something seriously in error, both biblically and confessionally.



And also confused and confusing which is not a sign of sound theology.


----------

