# Do I have this right?



## TimV (Feb 1, 2010)

For the FV, no one is elect. Christ is Elect, and as our Federal Head all those who are His can be called, or counted as elect. The definition of those who are His is the sign of the covenant, which is baptism. So, all baptised persons can be called elect because of their relationship with Christ, who is the Elect One.

And is it the same with righteousness? Christ is Righteous, we do not have Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, but as our Federal Head, we can be called, or counted righteous, in the sense that God will judge those of us who continue in the covenant as having been in the right (rather than perfect in His eyes), when He judges the whole world on that day in the future.

Is that a parody of what they believe, or standard thinking among the chief proponents of the movement?

Thanks much


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 1, 2010)

Well, they believe in more than one kind of election - the kind you described, and also an election of individuals from eternity. The former they say can be lost, but not the latter.


----------



## Michael (Feb 1, 2010)

That's an interesting take on the contours of FV, but I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to find a proponent who would admit outright that no one is elect.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 1, 2010)

It wouldn't be so bad if they distinguished between God's providential election, whereby some reprobate adults and children are in the Covenant, and the election of individuals to salvation.

E.g. in a sense a child born into a believing home is chosen to be there by God, just as those born into the Old Covenant people were chosen, whether reprobate or not to privilege, promise and responsibility.

But this is a very different thing from what is usually known as election in the Reformed faith, and a clear distinction must be made between the two. 

But the Visionistas muddy the waters between the two, thus leading to, at best, utter confusion, at worst downright heresy. 

We don't find this in e.g. the Psalms where the Psalmists distinguish between the wicked and the righteous (just) in the Covenant people.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 1, 2010)

Tim, you might like the PCA GA report. A few snips, and sorry I didn't clean up the format...easier to read in the original.

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf

What is also striking in Wright’s version of covenant theology is the emphasis on corporate
9 categories. Forensic language in Paul is seen to refer to “covenant membership.” *Election is
10 viewed as national and ecclesial. He roots election in Israel’s corporate election as God’s
11 own people;* as he observes, “All through [the Old Testament] was a basic belief that the one
12 creator God had called Israel to be his special people, and as part of that call had given Israel
13 the land to live in and the Law to live by.”12 It is often this emphasis on the corporate that
14 draws appreciation of Wright from those associated with the FV.
15
16 As will be detailed in the next section, Wright’s redefinition of election will lead to a
17 reworking of justification. Present justification is about how covenant membership is
18 discerned, and thus about how Paul’s revised Christological election is ascertained. Writing
19 on Galatians 2, he observes that “there then follows the first ever statement of Paul’s
20 doctrine of justification, and, despite the shrill chorus of detractors, it here obviously refers
21 to the way in which God’s people have been redefined.” Justification is not about “getting
22 in” or “staying in” but about “how we know we are in.”13 Hence, we often hear the
23 description that justification (in Wright’s version of the NPP) is more about ecclesiology
24 than soteriology.
25
26* Needless to say, this NPP version of Paul’s teaching on election and covenant stands in stark
27 contrast to the confessional formulation of these themes. Both cannot be right as faithful
28 presentations of the Pauline teaching on election and covenant.*

Two of those identifying symbols or boundary-markers are the doctrines of election and
29 covenant. *It is true that many FV proponents affirm the decretal view of election found in
30 the Westminster Standards. As Douglas Wilson writes, “The fact of decretal election is
31 affirmed by every FV spokesman that I know of.”15 This view of election is accompanied,
32 however, by an equally strong affirmation of the need to view election from Scripture and
33 from the viewpoint of the covenant. According to Steve Wilkins, “The term ‘elect’ (or
34 ‘chosen’) as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with
35 Christ who is the Elect One.”16


4 Central to the FV understanding of “covenant” is their definition: “covenant” is defined as a
5 vital relationship with the triune God. “To be in covenant is to be in real communion with
6 God, attendant with real privileges and real blessings.”18 Coupled with this definition is their
7 understanding of the “objectivity” of the covenant. “A covenant is also objective, like your
8 marriage. It’s there whether the members of the covenant feel it’s there, or they believe it’s
9 there, whether they even believe in the covenant or not.”19 As Douglas Wilson states, “We
10 have noted repeatedly that baptism in water is objective, and it establishes an objective
11 covenant relationship with the Lord of the covenant, Jesus Christ.”20 This concept of
12 covenant objectivity includes the view that “every baptized person is in covenant with God
13 and is in union, then, with Christ and with the triune God.*”21 This confluence of “covenant
14 objectivity” through baptism and “real and vital union” with Christ produces significant
15 confusion about the relationship between the “sign” and “thing signified” and the nature of
16 children who are “in this respect” within the covenant of grace (WCF 27:2, LC 166).
17
18 A major consequence of covenantal objectivity is that membership within the covenant is
19 viewed in an undifferentiated manner. One upshot of this is that the BCO distinction
20 between “communing” and “non-communing” members is set aside or eliminated. Most FV
21 proponents also agree that the emphasis needs to rest on the “visible” church as the “people
22 of God.” *Union with this people, through baptism, is what is required for one to be elect;*29
30


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 4, 2010)

one of things i have really loved about this discussion site is being able to learn a lot theologically. my strong suit is in philosophy, i love theology but i am definantly better at philosophy. so as a amatuer philosopher i thought i might weigh in. i did notice a little problem of communication between critics and proponants of FV. i don't know much about FV but i have read the PCA report and the response by the FV proponents. i definantly side with the PCA report.

one thing i noticed is that FV proponants complain that their being misrepresented because their critics keep saying "this is what FV says..". this form of argument breaks down as basically this, "this is what your saying", "no thats not what we are saying". i think the air could be cleared if the critique was phrased more as this "you may say you believe X, Y, and Z but logically speaking these beliefs either are not compatable or lead to these logical conclusions". the proponants of FV can shout misrepresentation all day long but if their beliefs, or the logical conclusions of their beliefs, are incompatable with the reformed conffessions than thats all she wrote. than the debate would be not reduce to the above form. 

i don't know maybe this is irelevant but it just makes more sense to me. i could be wrong though. i just think this might really clear the "muddy water" and show logically were the differences in belief are. it might foster a more humble exchange between the two parties as well.


----------

