# Much of Wilson's response to Leithart sounds like something I might say.



## Conner (Nov 17, 2014)

A Helicopter on the Front Lawn |


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2014)

That the "FV were misunderstood and it was the detractors' fault" line is getting old. Amazing that Wilson thinks if PL keeps this up it will only then possibly be truly the FV side's fault for 'confusion'. Rather, this is simply evidence where the fault has been all along.


----------



## Logan (Nov 17, 2014)

Wilson said:


> When the Federal Vision controversy erupted over a decade ago, there was a great deal of confusion involved in it. More than a few Girardian elbows were thrown, some folks jumped into the fray who couldn’t be troubled to read a book, or pick up a phone, and there was at least one troubled anti-FV prosecutor who was in the process of poping himself. From where I sit the responsibility for the lion’s share of those confusions rested with the accusers. But if that controversy ever heats up again, I am concerned that preliminary sketches and speculations like these recent posts could shift responsibility for the confusion to our side of the aisle. If we care about the peace and purity of the church, we must cultivate the virtue of theological clarity.



Sort of a side-comment in the article, I find this statement rather disturbing. From what I can tell, "anti-FV" folk have bent over backward trying to understand the FV folk _on their own terms_ and there has been absolutely no clarification given from the FV side, other than "you misunderstand us". For Wilson to then indicate that they've been cultivating the "virtue of theological clarity" all along up to this point is disturbing.

From what I've read of Leithart, Lusk, Wilson, they seem to raise more questions than they ever answer, delighting to shroud everything in "mystery" (what most people would call "contradiction") and enjoy obfuscating the clear statements in the WCF. And the "lion's share of those confusions" rest with the accusers? Baffling.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2014)

It is not disturbing it is ridiculous. It falls into the category of if you are going to lie make sure it is a big one and repeat often; some will believe it. 


Logan said:


> For Wilson to then indicate that they've been cultivating the "virtue of theological clarity" all along up to this point is disturbing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2014)

I know the father of FV lies is James B. Jordan but maybe Leithart is the Federal Vision's Jonathan Gruber?


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2014)

Mr. Leithart argued, “If, by contrast, we renounce the dualism of inner and outer and take justification as a fundamental redefinition not just of my status but of who I am, then we have a stronger basis for assurance.”

Mr. Wilson responded: "This legal declaration is not a legal fiction. My “legal me” is Jesus, and I am genuinely united to Him by faith. How could it possibly be dualism to be united to Christ?"

This "legal me" equates to Mr. Leithart's "who I am." It is the same redefinition of justification but in terms which disguise the fact it is a redefinition. The "lion's share of the confusions" is owing to such disguises.

Justification is and always will be outside of the believer because it is something done ABOUT him, not WITHIN him.

This justification is delivered from being a legal fiction, not by making it something more than a legal status, but by its union and conjunction with other fundamental blessings which are part of the Redeemer's purchase and the believer's personal experience.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 17, 2014)

MW said:


> This justification is delivered from being a legal fiction, not by making it something more than a legal status, but by its union and conjunction with other fundamental blessings which are part of the Redeemer's purchase and the believer's personal experience.


Well said.

Wilson's error is the claim that there are some who obtain the Redeemer's purchase "in some sense" that can be later lost. He can obtain evangelical blessings that the Confessions insist belong to the elect alone.


----------

