# Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible



## Civbert

Have you all seen this blog? 

Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible

Read a few posts and you'll start to see the problem. This blog figured it out: Federal Vision Sock-Puppetry. Both sites are anonymous.


----------



## Civbert

Anyone?


----------



## py3ak

I hadn't seen until you linked to it. I thought it was funny.


----------



## greenbaggins

Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.


----------



## etexas

greenbaggins said:


> Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.


Gasp!


----------



## RamistThomist

I thought it was a tongue in cheek joke, like the mock atheist blog started a few summers ago.


----------



## Zenas

These guys are super-mature.


----------



## py3ak

I don't think anyone on our side is subtle enough to pretend to be rabid FV and carry it off, do you?


----------



## Civbert

The site bothers me greatly. There are many layman who, like myself not long ago, found the FV issues confusing. It would be easy for some people to read a site like this, and think this is a real anti-FV site. Maybe worse, they might actually agree with what is posted. Especially because the posts mix true and false ideas. 

The site is a parody of anti-FV views. But a parody necessarily starts by building or copying the original ideas, and then exaggerates them and mixing them with humor or sarcasm. However, sarcasm is often conveyed by tone of voice. Text intended to be sarcasm is often mistaken for serious thought. 

The sarcasm of this site is too subtle to be clearly conveyed. There are no cartoons or disclaimers. I think the site will potentially mislead people who are seriously trying to learn about this issue. And the site is getting notice and showing up on Google searches. I'd like to see more genuine anti-FV bloggers warning others about the site, so the Google searches that find the site, will also find the warnings.


----------



## DMcFadden

Here is how Lane reacted to the site . . .


greenbaggins said:


> Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.



Here is what Lane was reacting to . . .


> As you know, the Reformed faith is under constant attack by the Federal Vision and other heretics, but we can be thankful for our friends over at Greenbaggins and especially the Grace Evangelical Society (love their web address – faithalone.org!). Together, these stalwart defenders of the Reformed faith are fighting to make sure that faith is always alone.



Yikes! I tend to agree that the site is not only posted by FV proponents, but that it represents a mean-spirited anti-Reformed message at that. However, people unaware of the details of the FV position, unlearned in theology, or just plain gullible (so why is Doug Wilson taking it at face value???), could have their brains scrambled a bit by this site. What a waste of sarcasm.


----------



## Civbert

More evidence that the the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible is fooling people:

Jeff Meyers has posted on the Corrigenda Denuo blog the following:


> I've been reading and thinking carefully about these studies lately and am pretty much convinced that I need to ask to have my name removed from the Federal Vision Joint Statement (available here). The arguments presented at the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible site are devastating to our cause. It's Lent, so I repent.
> 
> link



Meyers is being sarcasitic. That is clear. But it still implies that the AFVBS is a legitimate anti-FV site.


----------



## Civbert

FYI: I've added this comment to a few blogs where they refer to the AFVSB:


> WARNING: The Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible site is a parody of the arguments against Federal Vision. The site itself is a strawman set up by an anonymous FV proponent. Do not be fooled.
> 
> -- Anthony Coletti


But I still hope more FV opponents will also add a post warning people about the site. Hopefully, when people do a search on "Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible", these warnings will show high in the results. 

I would post warnings directly on the AFVSB blog, but it does not allow comments. 

P.S. At this time (2/6/08), when doing a Google search on "Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible", this very thread on the Puritain Boards is at the top of the results. 


> *Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible - The PuritanBoard*
> Have you all seen this blog? Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible Read a few posts and you'll start to see the problem. This blog figured it out: Federal.
> www.puritanboard.com/f77/anti-federal-vision-study-bible-28965/


----------



## greenbaggins

DMcFadden said:


> Here is how the site characterized Lane . . .
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Lane's response . . .
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, the Reformed faith is under constant attack by the Federal Vision and other heretics, but we can be thankful for our friends over at Greenbaggins and especially the Grace Evangelical Society (love their web address – faithalone.org!). Together, these stalwart defenders of the Reformed faith are fighting to make sure that faith is always alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes! I tend to agree that the site is not only posted by FV proponents, but that it represents a mean-spirited anti-Reformed message at that. However, people unaware of the details of the FV position, unlearned in theology, or just plain gullible (so why is Doug Wilson taking it at face value???), could have their brains scrambled a bit by this site. What a waste of sarcasm.
Click to expand...


Dennis, are ya sure you don't have my response and their charge a bit mixed up?


----------



## Ivan

Civbert said:


> More evidence that the the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible is fooling people:
> 
> Jeff Meyers has posted on the Corrigenda Denuo blog the following:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been reading and thinking carefully about these studies lately and am pretty much convinced that I need to ask to have my name removed from the Federal Vision Joint Statement (available here). The arguments presented at the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible site are devastating to our cause. It's Lent, so I repent.
> 
> link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyers is being sarcasitic. That is clear. But it still implies that the AFVBS is a legitimate anti-FV site.
Click to expand...


Is Jeff Meyers a pastor in St. Louis?


----------



## greenbaggins

Yes, a PCA pastor in St. Louis who has signed the FV document.


----------



## Ivan

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, a PCA pastor in St. Louis who has signed the FV document.



I had a brief point of contact with him via emails. Frankly, his being from St. Louis was what caught my attention. I'm from the St. Louis area and was interested in finding contacts with Reformed-minded individuals there.


----------



## Ivan

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, a PCA pastor in St. Louis who has signed the FV document.



I see Mark Horne signed the document. Again, as I recall, he is an elder with Meyers at the same church in St. Louis.


----------



## DMcFadden

greenbaggins said:


> Dennis, are ya sure you don't have my response and their charge a bit mixed up?



Duh! That's what I get for doing posting on PB while watching election returns! 

As any competent redaction critic could tell you, utilizing the same tools as they employ with the Synoptics, the original post (_ipissima verba _Dennis) citing the blog and the good doctor lacked the explanatory comments and they were evidently scribal interpolations by a dyslexic nitwit sometime after the fact. Indeed, if you compare the lexical data on word usage, you will find that the person who placed the comments above each of the quotations could certainly not have been the same individual who penned the final paragraph (beginning "Yikes . . ."). While I believe that the confusing sentences were added a few minutes after the original post, they are clearly secondary. Perhaps we should simply dismiss them from the argument, unless you wish to focus on the final canonical shape of the material. In that case, I will simply have to say that the trajectory of interpretation leads me to believe that since the text means whatever it means to me, it really doesn't matter if the sentences are logically backwards.


----------



## greenbaggins

DMcFadden said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, are ya sure you don't have my response and their charge a bit mixed up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh! That's what I get for doing posting on PB while watching election returns!
> 
> As any competent redaction critic could tell you, utilizing the same tools as they employ with the Synoptics, the original post (_ipissima verba _Dennis) citing the blog and the good doctor lacked the explanatory comments and they were evidently scribal interpolations by a dyslexic nitwit sometime after the fact. Indeed, if you compare the lexical data on word usage, you will find that the person who placed the comments above each of the quotations could certainly not have been the same individual who penned the final paragraph (beginning "Yikes . . ."). While I believe that the confusing sentences were added a few minutes after the original post, they are clearly secondary. Perhaps we should simply dismiss them from the argument, unless you wish to focus on the final canonical shape of the material. In that case, I will simply have to say that the trajectory of interpretation leads me to believe that since the text means whatever it means to me, it really doesn't matter if the sentences are logically backwards.
Click to expand...


 You crack me up.


----------



## k.seymore

py3ak said:


> I hadn't seen until you linked to it. I thought it was funny.



Yeah, why did God sovereignly choose to give the FV'ers a disproportionate amount of clever humor? Faith is never alone when it enters the party with a blonde joke in its arms. See? I can't do it–not even a courtesy "lol" funny. 

Maybe this is a good FV test: 
_Presbytery:_ "Do you find the writings set before you to be humorously satirical?"
_Member on trial_: "Are they... um... supposed to be... uh..."
_Presbytery:_ "Alright, you've passed the first test. Now for the second: Could you tell us your best joke."
M_ember on trial_: [tells his best joke which involves Calvin, Luther and Michael Bolton entering a bar with a red wagon in tow]
_Presbytery_: [loud groans, horribly contorted faces] "Ok, you're safe." 
[large rubber stamp hits pile of paper containing the charges leaving behind the large red word, *O R T H O D O X*. Then everyone jumps up and starts cheering and dancing to the song "footloose."]

At least that's how I imagine the Presbyterian church works, forgive me for being Baptist.


----------



## py3ak

k.seymore said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen until you linked to it. I thought it was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why did God sovereignly choose to give the FV'ers a disproportionate amount of clever humor? Faith is never alone when it enters the party with a blonde joke in its arms. See? I can't do it–not even courteously "lol" funny.
Click to expand...


Presumably this is part of the judgment on us.


----------



## Ivan

k.seymore said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen until you linked to it. I thought it was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why did God sovereignly choose to give the FV'ers a disproportionate amount of clever humor? Faith is never alone when it enters the party with a blonde joke in its arms. See? I can't do it–not even courteously "lol" funny.
> 
> Maybe this is a good FV test:
> _Presbytery:_ "Do you find the writings set before you to be humorously satirical?"
> _Member on trial_: "Are they... um... supposed to be... uh..."
> _Presbytery:_ "Alright, you've passed the first test. Now for the second: Could you tell us your best joke."
> M_ember on trial_: [tells his best joke which involves Calvin, Luther and Michael Bolton entering a bar with a red wagon in tow]
> _Presbytery_: [loud groans, horribly contorted faces] "Ok, you're safe."
> [large rubber stamp hits pile of paper containing the charges leaving behind the large red word, *O R T H O D O X*. Then everyone jumps up and starts cheering and dancing to the song "footloose."]
> 
> At least that's how I imagine the Presbyterian church works, forgive me for being Baptist.
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

This was interesting. I posted my "warning" message on Jeff Meyer's Blog Corrigenda Denuo. It was noticed by the second commenter (Travis) who said:


> Say it ain't so, Jeff. I did read only one post over there. The one on Psalm 119 where David extoles the Law and his love for it. Incredulous!! Is Coletti right? Is it a parody? It surely make sense b/c that post was cry-able.


Now I figured Meyer's saw how terrible the arguments were so to make fun of them he said it convinced him to remove his name from the Federal Vision Joint Statement. The Jeff's blog post said:


> I've been reading and thinking carefully about these studies lately and am pretty much convinced that I need to ask to have my name removed from the Federal Vision Joint Statement (available here). The arguments presented at the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible site are devastating to our cause. It's Lent, so I repent.


 Yes. Very funny. (Note the blog post had links to the AFVSB blog.)

But I still did not want to assume that Meyer's realized the site was a parody and wanted to keep it quiet. I assumed he thought that the site was a legitimate Anti-FV site, and Meyer's was simply making fun of it. That's fine. The humor is clear. He's not going to ditch FV over the AFVSB blog. I get it. Ha ha!

And so I posted a warning message in the comments section. It was the second comment on the blog post.

But now if you go to Meyer's blog post on the AFVSB - you will notice my warning message has been deleted. Apparently, Meyer's doesn't want other people to know that the site is a parody. He deleted my warning!

Later James (Jim) Jordon himself joined in the fun to add his comment:


> Jeff, I agree. The arguments on this blog are pretty devastating. I mean, I've heard all these arguments before from the anti-FV people, but somehow they did not strike home until I saw them all together like this. I don't know who's doing this, but he or she is doing a real favor for the Church. Like you, I'm removing my name from the FV statement.
> 
> James Jordan


Ha ha! Lot's of laughs! 

Except the brunt of the joke is anyone opposed to FV. They want people to believe the site is legitimate. They want people to go to the site and see the people who are "anti-FV" are the very idiots that the FV people think they are. They don't want to warn people off. It's too much fun trying to make their opponents look foolish.


----------



## greenbaggins

Yes, you are right. The problem is that they are being way too obvious for it to fool anyone who has even a modicum of intelligence. The giveaway signs are just too obvious. All they had to do was accuse me of advocating a faith that is alone, and I knew what they were up to, not that I am tremendously smart. But I do have the requisite modicum of intelligence referred to above.


----------



## Civbert

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, you are right. The problem is that they are being way too obvious for it to fool anyone who has even a modicum of intelligence. The giveaway signs are just too obvious. All they had to do was accuse me of advocating a faith that is alone, and I knew what they were up to, not that I am tremendously smart. But I do have the requisite modicum of intelligence referred to above.



Well I am embarrassed to say that I was fooled. When I first found the site, I didn't dig very hard. This was when it first started (maybe by the second or third post on the blog). There are hundreds of pro and anti-FV sites and some are better than others. Even on my side (anti-FV), there are some less than excellent blogs. 

After the AFVSB popped up a few more times in email alerts from Google (for: "Federal Vision" "), I decided to subscribe to the blog. 

Now and then I would read a post and think it sounded _almost_ correct, but usually there was some mistake in the argument. I wasn't even sure that the things he wrote about the FV folks were necessarily true. 

It seemed to be a mix of exaggerations, strawman arguments, and sometimes bad theology; but all the while it sounded similar to some other anti-FV sites (yours not withstanding). So I thought the guy was a legitimate proponent of FV who wasn't doing a good job a lot of the time. Maybe he was a hyper-Calvinist? That could explain some of his theological errors.

We all know people who we like, but we wish they would stay out of the debate. This blog was one of those cases. It was embarrassing to me. If I could have contacted the blogger, I would have tried to correct some of his more grievous errors. Clearly they guy was a bit off and he was hurting the cause. 

But it did not occur to me that the AFVSB blog was being put on by an FV proponent to make fun of FV opponents. I guess I was smart enough to see the mistakes in the AFVSB posts, but not smart enough to see the unspoken intent of the blogger behind the site. 

Then I saw the blog post by Turretinfan. And I thought "that makes sense!" Well, you can see how I was reluctant to admit I had been fooled. And so I started this thread to see if others agreed that the AFVSB blog is actually a parody or "Sock-Puppet" being put on by a FV proponent.

And now I wonder if the intent of the owner of the AFVSB is simply to create an obvious parody of opponents of FV, or if he's intent was to create a Sock-Puppet for FV proponents to make fun of. Since my warning message was deleted from Jeff Myers blog, I believe it is the latter. And in either case, some people have been fooled into thinking the site is just a bad attempt to attack the Federal Vision.


----------



## greenbaggins

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of being dumb. But you figured it out, is the point. As you said, there are critics out there who argue the way this blog caricatures. That would make it much more difficult, I suppose. And I had an advantage when it claimed that I believed in a faith that is alone. That really tipped me off that something was really, really wrong with this site.


----------



## Civbert

greenbaggins said:


> And I had an advantage when it claimed that I believed in a faith that is alone. That really tipped me off that something was really, really wrong with this site.


That was one of the nails in the coffin for me also. I'm sure if I looked more closely, I would find lots of nails. But it was painful to look that close.


----------



## k.seymore

Civbert said:


> Apparently, Meyer's doesn't want other people to know that the site is a parody... They want people to believe the site is legitimate. They want people to go to the site and see the people who are "anti-FV" are the very idiots that the FV people think they are. They don't want to warn people off. It's too much fun trying to make their opponents look foolish.



I don't think you have to worry too much about it. I think it is pretty obvious satire. I know you charge them with deception saying they "don't want other people to know the site is a parody" and "they want people to believe the site is legitimate." But I think the author of the site is actually pointing out what the site is at the end of the posts. For instance the current post ends this way:

"Jesus did not leave any of his writings behind. He never saw the gospels and did not have the chance to edit, polish, or correct any misquotations... Matthew and the other gospel writers are simply paparazzi who gave us a lot of off-the-cuff remarks and off-the-record statements that Jesus may not have wanted published. For precise theology, it is better to stick with trained theologians like Paul and graduates of NAPARC seminaries."

And the previous one ends like this:
"Unfortunately, this verse has made its way into the Nicene Creed in the line, 'we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.' This poses a problem because no who is truly Reformed can confess this as it stands."

Do you personally know anyone who would be deceived this–that the Reformed believe that the Bible is errant, or that the Nicene creed is unorthodox? I would guess probably not, and if so I wouldn't worry too much about the site.


----------



## Civbert

I haven't been following the site that closely for the last couple days - mainly looking at sites that have links to the AFVSB site - but it seems like the author is trying to be more obvious than he was before. If you look to the earlier posts, I don't think they are all that obvious. I've come across several bloggers who thought the site was legit - but really bad. I'm glad the author appears to be getting the message.


----------



## k.seymore

Civbert said:


> Well I am embarrassed to say that I was fooled. When I first found the site, I didn't dig very hard.



Whoops, sorry. You posted this as I was writing my last reply. I would have phrased what I said differently if I had read your new post.


----------



## k.seymore

Civbert said:


> I haven't been following the site that closely for the last couple days - mainly looking at sites that have links to the AFVSB site - but it seems like the author is trying to be more obvious than he was before. If you look to the earlier posts, I don't think they are all that obvious. I've come across several bloggers who thought the site was legit - but really bad. I'm glad the author appears to be getting the message.



Good, maybe complaints like yours have lead to them being more obvious


----------



## Civbert

k.seymore said:


> Do you personally know anyone who would be deceived this–that the Reformed believe that the Bible is errant, or that the Nicene creed is unorthodox? I would guess probably not, and if so I wouldn't worry too much about the site.



I have interacted with "reformed" people who give equally bad arguments. There are people out there on the fringes who are very vocal on web boards and blogs who get Calvinism or some sort of reformed thought, who are 95% right, but 5% of the time they are nuts! 

He will get it right on all points of the TULIP and can perfectly express the meaning or election or predestination - will give the scripture proofs and all. Then he will say Van Til is an Arminian who is burning in hell, or anyone who is going to any church but his is going to hell, or you must be perfectly convinced you are saved at all times or you're going to hell. And they are out there loudly defending the reformed faith. 

So what I am saying is that despite the mistakes in theology, and the bad arguments, and the sarcasm, it still plausible to think that the site is being run by a real anti-FV'er. People will still be fooled by the site, and this at the expense of legitimate FV proponents.


----------



## Civbert

k.seymore said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following the site that closely for the last couple days - mainly looking at sites that have links to the AFVSB site - but it seems like the author is trying to be more obvious than he was before. If you look to the earlier posts, I don't think they are all that obvious. I've come across several bloggers who thought the site was legit - but really bad. I'm glad the author appears to be getting the message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, maybe complaints like yours have lead to them being more obvious
Click to expand...

 I hope so.


----------



## Civbert

k.seymore said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am embarrassed to say that I was fooled. When I first found the site, I didn't dig very hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops, sorry. You posted this as I was writing my last reply. I would have phrased what I said differently if I had read your new post.
Click to expand...

 ssalright.


----------



## py3ak

I think the title kind of gives it away. You might have _The Old Perspective on Paul Study Bible_, but _The Anti-New Perspective on Paul Study Bible_ is a title that can only work as satire.


----------



## uberkermit

In a sense, this site gives some illumination on the subject. Whereas some FV'ers seemed unwilling (unable?) to explain the issues, you can see what they are now, albeit wrapped in satire.... What do you guys think?


----------



## Grymir

Mega Dittos Civbert! I finally was able to spend some time reading that anti-federalist study scofield bible! yea, it almost seems legit, if not for your warning, i wonder how long it would have taken me to figure it out. And I'm polemical by nature too! Anyway, you gave me a great idea for a Calvinist Blog. I'll wax eloquent on the 5 points of Calvinism, then talk about the soteriological ramifications of an escatalogical view of the rapture. Then I'll sneak in that Carl Barth is an arminian who is in hell right now, and then say something about how you stand a better chance of being saved by being outside of my church than in it, and all the others are going to hell.

Pardon my spelling errors, but its late at night and the spell checker doesn't have those nice big 5 dollar theological words in it. You don't want to know what it said escatalogical should be. 

Thanks and God Bless


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Civbert said:


> Have you all seen this blog?
> 
> Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible
> 
> Read a few posts and you'll start to see the problem. This blog figured it out: Federal Vision Sock-Puppetry. Both sites are anonymous.



I think there is a post on that blog denying six-day creation. This sort of thing only strengthens the FV cause.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

In fact here is the article in question:



> Exodus 20:11
> “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).
> 
> Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God created the world in six days. This naïveté betrays the anti-intellectualism of the Federal Vision.
> 
> *The Modern Reformed faith has always held that the first chapter of Genesis is poetic*, and as everyone knows, poetry cannot be used to convey history. Poetry always compromises accuracy.
> 
> This becomes even more clear when we notice that the sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there were mornings and evenings for the first three days, not to mention the creation of light on the first day.
> *
> The only explanation for this chronological gaffe is that God is communicating poetically rather than historically*. This violation of the law of non-contradiction leads us to the obvious conclusion that we cannot not take this account literally. Thus, *the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created.*
> 
> Federal Visionists wrongly accuse us of being dishonest with the text. On the contrary, *our position is not only honest, but heroic*. *When the doctrine of the Creation ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given us, we openly rejected it.* We preached against it. We took every risk.



While I am totally opposed to the Federal Vision, I understand how modern Calvinism's compromises with humanism, and the social antinomianism of many in the Reformed world, could attract people to it.

The words that have been highlighted above make me sick.


----------



## RamistThomist

Most if not all FVers affirm six day creation. Jordan has a good book refuting Kline on the subject.


----------



## Jon Peters

Ivanhoe said:


> Most if not all FVers affirm six day creation. Jordan has a good book refuting Kline on the subject.



I remember reading Jordan's book 10 or so years ago and liked about half of it. Then, as I recall, things went a little sideways. I was a Theonomist at the time and it predates the current FV controversy, but after that reading that book I could not take Jordan seriously. I don't recall the specifics now; I'll probably have to go and read it again.

But, more to the point, I think the FV prides itself on being very conservative on issues such as creation and women. In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).


----------



## brymaes

> In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).


Garrett Craw?


----------



## Jon Peters

theologae said:


> In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).
> 
> 
> 
> Garrett Craw?
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## Gryphonette

*[nervously] This is going to sound really dumb, I expect.*



Daniel Ritchie said:


> In fact here is the article in question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exodus 20:11
> “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).
> 
> Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God created the world in six days. This naïveté betrays the anti-intellectualism of the Federal Vision.
> 
> *The Modern Reformed faith has always held that the first chapter of Genesis is poetic*, and as everyone knows, poetry cannot be used to convey history. Poetry always compromises accuracy.
> 
> This becomes even more clear when we notice that the sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there were mornings and evenings for the first three days, not to mention the creation of light on the first day.
> *
> The only explanation for this chronological gaffe is that God is communicating poetically rather than historically*. This violation of the law of non-contradiction leads us to the obvious conclusion that we cannot not take this account literally. Thus, *the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created.*
> 
> Federal Visionists wrongly accuse us of being dishonest with the text. On the contrary, *our position is not only honest, but heroic*. *When the doctrine of the Creation ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given us, we openly rejected it.* We preached against it. We took every risk.
> 
> 
> 
> Are we absolutely certain that is on the level?
> 
> It's so totally over-the-top I have a hard time believing it's sincere. I mean, "our position is not only honest, but heroic"? Who says that with a straight face?
> 
> And "*the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created."
> 
> *Wait a minute. It's a poetic vision intended to demonstrate how the world was definitely NOT created? As in, Genesis 1 was written for the purpose of correcting a pre-existing erroneous impression? Or did it deliberately describe one way the world could have come into being, while simultaneously - albeit implicitly - shooting it down?
> 
> What, the LORD's embarrassed at how He actually created the world? Or maybe He couldn't figure out how to describe the process so people could understand?
> 
> He, who designed and created both people _and_ language wasn't able to write a coherent account of His creation?
> 
> It seems to me whoever wrote that is either so abysmally stupid he should have his driver's license taken away, or he's jerking our chain, and is in fact attempting to make those who are against the FV look like a bunch of dopes.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

Y'all. The blog is satire and a joke. It is written by pro-FV people. They are being an interlocutor for the anti-fv side. I think it is obvious by now. Even though I have disagreed with FV, their interlocutor has a few spot-on criticisms.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Y'all. The blog is satire and a joke. It is written by pro-FV people. They are being an interlocutor for the anti-fv side. I think it is obvious by now. Even though I have disagreed with FV, their interlocutor has a few spot-on criticisms.



I see. I must confess I do not have much respect for anonymous attack blogs against the FV. There seems to be something decidedly wrong with a person who takes it upon themselves to publicly criticize others, but is not man enough to reveal his own name.


----------

