# Why Some Are Attracted to the Federal Vision?



## NaphtaliPress

One of the Warfildeans posted a recent seminary graduate's explanation of why he is FV; it must be somewhere but all I have is the Warfield version. I'll only post a link since the text is not attributed.
Why Some Are Attracted to the Federal Vision?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I agree with 95% of what he said.

I also believe in Justification by Faith alone, the imputed righteousness of Christ, that Westminster is the greatest Confession of Faith in the Church's history apart from the ecumenical Creeds (although not PERFECT, no theology this side of glory is or can be), that profession of faith must precede Communion (but not a doctoral dissertation of the faith), that there are 3 Covenants (the Covenant of Life, the Covenant of Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace), and that faith alone makes the sacraments efficacious in any way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

NaphtaliPress said:


> One of the Warfildeans posted a recent seminary graduate's explanation of why he is FV; it must be somewhere but all I have is the Warfield version. I'll only post a link since the text is not attributed.
> Why Some Are Attracted to the Federal Vision?



I know _exactly_ where this was copied from because Jon Barlow was responding to ME here:

http://www.barlowfarms.com/sensusplenior.php?blogid=1&the_post=1867737

Find post 84.

I've been dialoguing with him and had pointed him to the two recent threads about the FV. I was tied up all day and hadn't been able to respond with all the things he wrote. One thing I appreciate, however, is that he was man enough to distinguish himself rather than mixing terms.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Jon Barlow's whining about people commenting publicly on his public comments not withstanding:



> 1. FV brings back apostasy. It says to church members, "the warnings
> in scripture are for you, and though you are with us now, Judas
> seemed to be too; repent and believe the gospel every day."



The only way to have apostasy is to obliterate the internal/external distinction.

This is the same sort of realism that the Reformation rejected. It's the same sort of realism that says, "the only way for God to say of us, 'righteous' is if we are actually, intrinsically, righteous by Spirit-wrought sanctity. This is the same realism that says the "is" of the institution means "becomes." 

So there is now no distinction between "of" and "not of" us? They went out from us, because they WERE of us? In what MSS does one find this reading?

Yes, Judas _seemed _to be in! That's we've been saying for centuries, but he wasn't IN the covenant of grace in any substantial way. Why is is this so blinking hard to understand? He _seemed_ to be in because he was _really_ a hypocrite and he wasn't ever actually united to Christ except in a formal, outward way. 



> 2. FV brings back the sacraments. Squint hard at everything Scott
> Clark has written about the sacraments, and you still basically have
> a symbolic view of them. They are just nice pictures and are neither
> real promises nor real occasions for the Holy Spirit to deal with
> people.



This is galling. I don't even know where to begin with this one. Jon, when you squint, try reading what I write. My name isn't spelled ZWINGLI. 

Believers eat the body and blood of Christ. It's not a funeral. Full stop.

Christ brings to reality everything promised in baptism for every elect person through faith alone.

Baptism isn't communion. Christ gave two sacraments to do two different things. 

Why is this difficult?

If I'm a Zwinglian then Barlow is a Baptist who can't tell the difference between initiation and renewal.



> 3. FV brings children and the disabled back into the family meal at
> Jesus' table. Like it or not, the anti-FV guys have wrapped covenant
> communion into this debate, and they believe that being able to
> perform a certain kind of cognitive act is sine qua non for right
> participation in the supper. Most of the FV guys disagree.



This is really appalling and demands an apology. We exclude the disabled? Where has he been attending church? Not in any confessional congregation that I know! 

The bible says "discerning." Whatever the context, whether it refers to the congregation or the risen, proper, natural body of Christ (- so no the Belgic Confession is Zwinglian?) on which we feed truly by the Spirit (the correct interpretation). That's a cognitive act. 



> 4. FV strikes a note that has not been struck in the tradition for a
> long time. I guarantee that I could adapt some writings by
> Westminster divines into modern language, publish them, and then be
> accused of departing from the tradition.



Maybe there's a reason why some of these notes haven't been struck? They're sour? They're off key? They don't belong in the music. 

The idea that this lot has rediscovered the "Federal Vision" is arrogant beyond belief. What do these people actually know about the tradition? I see precious little evidence of any serious work in the tradition among them.



> 5. FV rejects the Klinean approach to the Covenant of Works. Thank
> goodness you're asking about apostasy finally, because that is more
> central to the heart of FV. Since the critics get to define FV
> however they choose, the debate started with the idea that FV
> believes in salvation by works, then it moved to the idea that the FV
> rejects the covenant of works, and now we're finally to election here
> at the 11th hour...



Meredith Kline invented the covenant of works? Hold the phone! No, call Witsius, Wollebius, Polanus, and Olevianus. Tell 'em not to say anything for hundreds of years until MGK writes. Please. This is such a red herring. See this page. Facts boys. Facts. 



> *Herman Witsius (1636-1708).*. In the covenant of works there was no mediator: in that of grace, there is the mediator, Christ Jesus....In the covenant of works, the condition of perfect obedience was required, to be performed by man himself, who had consented to it. In that of grace, the same condition is proposed, as to be, or as already performed by a mediator. And this substitution of the person, consists the principal and essential difference of the covenants (_The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man,_ 1677, 2 vol;1.49).





> 6. FV is not puritanism. You won't see the practical syllogism, and
> you won't see the kind of devotional practices emphasized that the
> Puritans emphasized because so much of that stuff was directed
> towards discerning whether or not one was "truly elect" or the like.
> FV says - listen to the scriptures - they were written to real
> churches and real congregations that are called "elect ones" -
> whether you're decreetally elect or not, the means of your salvation
> are the word, prayer, and the sacraments and if you're decreetally
> reprobate, the means of your damnation will consist of spurning those
> same means. Repent, believe the gospel, and work out your salvation
> with fear and trembling - looking inside yourself will give you
> nothing. Examine your motives, yes, but turn your eyes to Jesus in
> whom all the blessings of God are.



This is another appalling caricature. Jon, I hope you don't write this sort of stuff for your comps. Are you at St Louis U? If so, PLEASE talk to Patrick O'Banion. He can help you. He's one of our grads, so he's actually read the primary and secondary lit on this stuff. We do that at WSC. If my students tried to submit this drivel in a paper I would hand it back and require them to re-write. Our students, however, know better. They know that Kendall has been discredited for years. They know to read Dever. They know to read modern scholarship and not to repeat tired old canards. 



> 7. FV is not revivalistic; it focuses on the church, and it promotes
> a churchly piety.



The FV is not the only alternative to revivalism. See Hart, Horton et co. For all my criticisms of the Doctor re revivalism, no one ever accused him of compromising the gospel with moralism.



> 8. FV is uncomfortable with thinking of "invisible" vs. "visible"
> church as if there are two churches. With the Nicene Creed, and
> its "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" the FV guys want to
> think of one church of Christ, into which some imposters are embedded
> for a time. In fact, my guess is that many FV folks would greatly
> prefer the "church militant" vs. "church triumphant" language much
> more than the visible vs. invisible. FV doesn't erase the
> distinctionh - tares among the wheat. But it does want to
> say "believe the promises of the gospel". Your basic PCA baby baptism
> these days has become a disclaimer-fest - it is more about what the
> baptism *doesn't* mean than what it does. FV brings back God's
> promises, and simultaneously doesn't promote presumption. That's why
> it has the ring of truth to me.



See the Westminster Confession. You boys can be uncomfortable with catholic Reformed theology all you wish, but you can't do it and be Reformed. If you fellows actually read the Reformed tradition you would know that we don't have to choose between the militant/triumphant distinction and the visible/invisible distinction. They are different categories accounting for related but different truths.



> To be perfectly honest, I have had a hard time lately distinguishing
> between many of the FV opponents and the Grace Theological Society.
> And so I hope this post is clear enough to relate to the thread [on
> the Puritan Board] you referenced. I also think that thread focuses
> too much on Paul's mode of address, but that this is just one bit of
> evidence supporting Wilkins's approach.



To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time distinguishing between the Federal Visionists and the Socinians, the late Remonstrants, and the New Haven Theologians.



> The final issue about the forgiveness of sins just illustrates a
> peculiar way of speaking. The Bible says plainly that Jesus *is* our
> propitiation. God is satisfied with respect to our sins, in the
> living, risen Christ, and not in some abstract forgiveness of us. If
> there is some sense in which the non-elect are 'in Christ' for a
> time, then there is some sense in which they are in 'the
> propitiation'. Hope this helps.



So "is" means "unequivocally true of everyone in the covenant community in the same way"? 

Great. Thanks for sorting this one out for us.

Tell me again? Why are people attracted this movement?

Gabriel, you're WAY too sharp for this lot.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

One more word for Jon:

MULLER. 

Please. Your post is really embarrassing or should be. You cannot continue to ignore _Christ and the Decree_ and _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics_ and _After Calvin_. 

Okay, one more word, well two: Old Side.

Was the Old Side not "churchly"? Did they not oppose the Revivalists at every turn? See Marsden's biography of Edwards. 

rsc


----------



## wsw201

Dr. Clark,

I bet you get flogged in somebody's blog for that one!


----------



## Magma2

Evidently Mr. Barlow doesn’t know when to shut up; http://www.barlowfarms.com/

He writes:


> I am less than a year away from completing my Ph.D. in historical theology at a Jesuit University, and if we want to play blame-the-alma-mater, I'd just prefer that you blame that university and not Covenant Seminary.



Fair enough. Makes sense to me.

He also writes:



> There is nothing "openly Federal Visionesque" about the church I attend. Each week, my pastor leads us in a sober yet joyous worship service where the scriptures are read and preached faithfully. Pastor Meyers is kind to stick by me in the way he links to some of my posts, but it is unfair to impute any of my active or passive shortcomings to him.



Well, if the Pastor Meyers is the one I found linked to his blog at http://www.jeffreyjmeyers.com/ can there be any wonder why he finds such warm support from his pastor?

On a side note, it was interesting (nauseating) to tool around a little bit around the FV blogosphere. I came across a number of replies from our own William Hill including this one on Jeffery Meyer’s site in defense of Wilkins:



> As I stated on a email discussion list recently: Steve and company can do nothing right in their minds. The matter has gone way beyond an examination of the theological issues. It is now squarely in the center of personal reputations, a control for power and the need to be right. Pride is at the heart of this whole thing.
> 
> The burden of proof is on the accusers -- the accusers were Central Carolina Presbytery -- and they did not make their case. Of course the SJC may see things differently and I fully expect them to do so given the stacked deck that currently sits on that commission. Frankly, and as a side note, the SJC is not Presbyterian. These man are charged with the theological and judicail activities of the entire General Assembly?? Total bull-honkey if you ask me (and I know, you didn't ask me...)
> 
> Covenant Radio (http://www.covenantradio.com) will be dealing with that Memorial offered by Central Carolina on February 15, 2007. Mark Duncan will be our guest and he was present at the examination. In fact, he was one of the more visible speakers and questioners at the exam. It should prove to be quite interesting.



I recall getting into it a bit with Mr. Hill toward the end of my brief stay on Barry Hofsetter’s little discussion list before getting the left foot of fellowship from Barry and the Mods. At the time Mr. Hill who is a virtual neighbor of mine here in Tidewater, presented himself as being quite on the fence concerning the whole FV controversy. He really took me to task for being so boorish, dogmatic and generally mean. While I might still be boorish and dogmatic, certainly not mean  it seems Mr. Hill is off that fence.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Sean, I respect your right to your opinion, but I would encourage you not to be so dismissive or insulting of a PCA Pastor in good-standing, such as Rev. Meyers, who is friends with my pastor, and a great man of God. That, you don't have the right to do. Talk about theology all you want, but not Elders in Christ's Church.


----------



## wsw201

Boy howdy! I must be a prophet!!! Clark gets flogged in a blog!! 

BTW, this is why I do not Blog.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Also, Dr. Clark, thanks for your vote of confidence. But, as an aside, there ARE skilled exegetes and theologians among the "FV", pastors who have been pastors in good standing of the PCA and so forth for nearly twice as long as I've been alive!

Yes, there are the seminary students or grads or "internet theologians" that don't quite have the "knack" for serious, researched, polemics, but don't let that be a sweeping generalization at the same time!

More than anything, I would want this whole controversy to be settled through understanding, peacemaking, and charity ... not separation! I think many of the mature pastors and laypeople among the FV movement want this as well, but are somewhat "caught off guard" at the moment because what some of them have been preaching for 20 years is all of a sudden being assaulted by some people, rather than being discussed calmly at Synods or at coffee shops among friends casually.

And I think both the FV proponents and opponents share the blame in this regard. The beginning and continuation of this controversy was not handled well by either side, and that needs to change first and foremost. Then we can discuss the history of Reformed thought and so forth.

Just my thoughts!

Peace all.


----------



## toddpedlar

Magma2 said:


> I recall getting into it a bit with Mr. Hill toward the end of my brief stay on Barry Hofsetter’s little discussion list before getting the left foot of fellowship from Barry and the Mods. At the time Mr. Hill who is a virtual neighbor of mine here in Tidewater, presented himself as being quite on the fence concerning the whole FV controversy. He really took me to task for being so boorish, dogmatic and generally mean. While I might still be boorish and dogmatic, certainly not mean  it seems Mr. Hill is off that fence.



Well, if you've listened to any of the programs on Covenant Radio, you'll recognize that neither of the hosts (despite what they say) is on the fence with regard to FV. There is a clear commitment to essentially all the points that FV folks typically bring up - and no amount of saying "we aren't taking any position" can make it true that there isn't a position that they both hold. Don't know if any of you listened to the program with Wilkins on it, but it was softball after softball... and if true "investigative reporting" were going on, I'd think there would be a different feel to those programs.


----------



## toddpedlar

As to the question posed by the thread title.... my twocent answer:

because it's got all the old attractions of ROME.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Todd,
How has Bill handled the non FV guests? 


toddpedlar said:


> Don't know if any of you listened to the program with Wilkins on it, but it was softball after softball... and if true "investigative reporting" were going on, I'd think there would be a different feel to those programs.


----------



## toddpedlar

NaphtaliPress said:


> Todd,
> How has Bill handled the non FV guests?



Um, let's see... (facetious hat on)

Covenant Radio guests:

Gregg Strawbridge (11/14, 12/28) FV
Rich Lusk (11/21) FV
Steve Wilkins (11/29) FV
Don Preston (12/7) FV? (full preterist, anyway)
Jeff Meyers (12/14) FV
Steve Schlissel (12/20) FV
Andrew Sandlin (1/4) not really FV, but FV-friendly

upcoming:

Sam Frost (1/20) no clue who he is
Doug Wilson (1/25) FV
Tim Gallant (2/1) FV
RJ Gore (2/8) ? though he's quite anti-RPW As far as I know
Mark Duncan (2/15) non-FV

So to answer your question, Chris: I don't know. Unless I'm mistaken, they've not had any non-FV 
folks on yet, really.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

toddpedlar said:


> Um, let's see... (facetious hat on)
> 
> Covenant Radio guests:
> snip
> upcoming:
> 
> Sam Frost (1/20) no clue who he is
> Doug Wilson (1/25) FV
> Tim Gallant (2/1) FV
> RJ Gore (2/8) ? though he's quite anti-RPW As far as I know
> Mark Duncan (2/15) non-FV
> 
> So to answer your question, Chris: I don't know. Unless I'm mistaken, they've not had any non-FV
> folks on yet, really.


Well Todd, I guess it will be interesting to see how Duncan fairs. I sent a PM to Bill suggesting some show prep via _The Confessional Presbyterian_ for the Gore interview (who rejects the RPW so that is pretty _anti _in my book).


----------



## Ravens

As far as I recall, I've never posted on this topic before. I hesitate to, simply because I'm simply a church member, and am not as informed on these issues as others on here. But laypersons do form opinions, so I suppose elders and what not might be semi-interested to know what "the little people" were thinking (hence 85% of the posts on this board).

 

Regardless: One thing I've wondered as all this has taken place, is how many of these older FV advocates, pastors, elders, etc., come from confessionally strict backgrounds. I could be easily mistaken, but it seems that not many do. If anything, it seems that many come from the PCA, OPC, etc. 

I don't know what significance that has, but I wonder if there is meaning tucked away there. From the impression I get (and obviously there's not an exhaustive survey on these issues), F.V. advocates also tend to be a little "looser" on the RPW, whether its EP or even something most should agree on, "images in worship."

All in all, in a lay-person's opinion, I think most of it is a spin-job. Study and piety is hard. And often in true spirituality, God leaves you in very dry places for seasons. Studying theology requires effort, and we don't always understand things as quickly as we'd like. The FV seems to "circumvent" clear, rigorous thought, with appeals to "misunderstandings", etc. Also, there's a lot more loaded words in their discourse... i.e., "covenantal" and "incarnational" becoming "larger than life" and taking in an indefinable semantic field. 

I'm just blathering, in a rush to get to work. Regardless, to summarize, many of the younger adherents seem to be taken by the spin, and by the eloquence and wit of the pastors and elders who promote FV. But heathens and heretics are normally craftier at language than the orthodox. I think Luther said that Erasmus carried around dung on fine vessels of gold and silver, or something to that effect. And most of the older adherents seem to be those who never really came out of a strictly confessional, 1646 style background to begin with. So maybe their dissastisfaction is more with "broadly Reformed evangelicalism" more than the historic Reformation.

Regardless, I'm thankful for the "harsh" dealings with it, and they probably haven't been harsh enough. Its ironic that half of the time we criticize the PCA and OPC for being too loose when it comes to Reformation truth, and when they take a couple years to make an action on something as fundamental as justification, all of a sudden we are rushing to judgment, and not acting in a brotherly manner.

I dunno. I think this thing will dissipate in and of itself, and become more of a fringe type thing under the leadership of a few charismatic personalities. In the end it will wither due to its own internal confusion and lack of virility.

JMO


----------



## Saiph

Dr. Clark, I am someone whom the FV ideas have a strong appeal. So here are a few honest searching questions. 



> Yes, Judas seemed to be in! That's we've been saying for centuries, but he wasn't IN the covenant of grace in any substantial way. Why is is this so blinking hard to understand? He seemed to be in because he was really a hypocrite and he wasn't ever actually united to Christ except in a formal, outward way.



I thought Judas did perform works of grace:



> Mark 3:14 And *he appointed twelve* (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out *to preach *
> Mark 3:15 and *have authority to cast out demons. *
> Mark 3:16 He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
> Mark 3:17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);
> Mark 3:18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,
> Mark 3:19 and *Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.*





> Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
> Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
> Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
> Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
> Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
> Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
> Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
> Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, *did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' *
> Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'



Is the "fruit" spoken of here more acts of mercy and marks of godly character than things like supernatural phenomenon ? Can we take this to mean that one can exorcise demons in the name of Christ and not be "in" Christ ? God would then be actively expelling the demonic spirit from an individual, by the means of an apostate believer.

By Judas receiving covenant blessings, does not that simply mean the inner fellowship of the twelve ? Like having the parables explained to him with the others even though he was apostate.



> John 15:2 *Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit* he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
> John 15:3 *Already you are clean* because of the word that I have spoken to you.
> John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
> John 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
> John 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
> John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
> John 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
> John 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
> John 15:10 *If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love*, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
> John 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
> John 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.




Every brach "IN" Christ.
Already CLEAN.
ABIDE, or REMAIN . . 

What is the cleansing received by the word that they should abide in ?
Is that not a supernatural grace ?



> Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
> Hebrews 6:5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
> Hebrews 6:6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.



I am not trying to argue. I really do not see what is at stake here regarding apostasy ? Did Judas indeed forfeit the taste of the heavenly gift, and "Partake" of the Spirit as Hebrews 6 indicates ?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Good to see you back Mark!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Mark,

So the only way for Judas to have done anything was to have been united to Christ in the same way a believer is?

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco

Mark,

Read the long selection I quoted from Owen above. He deals specifically, and exhaustively, with the differences between gifts of the Spirit (Judas) and graces from the Spirit (the other 11)


----------



## BertMulder

> So, Gabe,
> 
> The gospel isn't at stake? I mean, if the gospel is at stake, if the FV is teaching justification through our condign and congruent merit (even if they don't know it) and faith in the act of justification has been re-defined to mean "trust and cooperation with grace," if "guilt, grace, and gratitude" is out because it's now "antinomian" then how is it a time for peace?
> 
> Patience? This has been going on for 30 years. Look what patience hath wrought. Instead of cutting the head off of this monster thirty years ago, nice guys let it fester. The Phila Presbytery of the OPC dismissed Norm before the charges could be heard and so he went to the CRC. The CRC conservatives were happy to have Norm. He opposed women in office. He corrupted the gospel, but he opposed women in office, so they overlooked the gospel thing. So he taught the same course at MARS that got him dismissed from WTS. They taped it and John Barach listened to the tapes. Now we have a whole new generation of students who knew not P E Hughes or Godfrey or any of the stalwarts who defended the gospel against Norm's moralizing. Add a dash of Schilder and a healthy dose of Tom Wright's covenant nomism and presto: Covenant Moralism disguised as Reformed theology.
> 
> Arguably, it was this attitude that created this crisis. People were nice and pleasant and now there are FedVis offspring everywhere. What has being nice got us?
> 
> Was the Synod of Dort nice to the Remonstrants? No. They threw them out of their pulpits (and in some cases, out of the country - I might be a theocrat temporarily ). When they were nice and let them back in the Remonstrants eventually ruined the HK necessitating the Afscheiding in the 19th century.
> 
> This is not a matter for talk over tea. That's been done. You're a young man, I understand. You want every one to get along, but I'm a pastor. I have parishioners who are jeopardized by this stuff. I see you being sucked into and it breaks my heart. I get emails from folk who never hear the gospel anymore. All they hear is law: "cooperate with grace," "keep what you've been given in your baptism." Gabe, I've heard it with my own ears. I've had FV folk tell me that Esau really was elect, in the same way Jacob was, but he lost it because he didn't obey.
> 
> The time for peace is past. Peace is for folks of good will who are genuinely searching and willing to have serious, informed, conversations. Peace is not for folk who are willfully seducing the sheep. How peaceful was Paul with Peter when Peter refused to eat with Gentiles? Paul accused him of denying the gospel. On your terms, wasn't Paul a little harsh?
> 
> This is a time for separation. We need to separate the Federal Visionists from our churches. If confusion about the gospel, the covenants, and the sacraments is not a cause for separation, then what is?
> 
> This is a time for Reformed Churches who still believe what we confess to begin to apply those confessions to this thorny ecclesiastical problem and make them stick.
> 
> If we cannot deal with the Remonstrant/Socinian/Amyraldian crisis of our time, then we should hang up our Genevan robes and go flip burgers somewhere.



Amen! Let us stand guard on the walls of Zion!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I can't find my original post (that Bert quotes in part) to edit it - where did it go?

At any event, I should make clear by my reference to MARS that Norm taught there immediately or shortly after leaving Phila (c. 1981) and that they have no sympathy for his views now. 

President Venema has published two excellent books repudiating covenant nomism and showing that it is incompatible with the Reformation gospel. Mark Beach just returned from doing a conference in the frozen north on the same topic. 

The other edit I would make is that I repent of my remark re: Gabe's possible relations to the FV. I don't know for a fact where he stands and I shouldn't have spoken so at least in public. 

rsc


----------



## Scott Bushey

R. Scott Clark said:


> Mark,
> 
> So the only way for Judas to have done anything was to have been united to Christ in the same way a believer is?
> 
> rsc



Thank you; exactly.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

If someone is denying the gospel, they should be handled appropriately. For what it's worth, I do not personally think the handfull of FV proponents I have encountered have done so, although it may be the case that SOME of the less-informed "followers" of the FV *HAVE*.


----------



## Saiph

R. Scott Clark said:


> Mark,
> 
> So the only way for Judas to have done anything was to have been united to Christ in the same way a believer is?
> 
> rsc



I am not saying Judas was united to Christ the same way John was. And neither is any FV proponent that I know of. But there was a union. I am curious about what that union entails. Obviously it was enough spiritual gift or grace to walk away from and "betray" or deny.

Fred:

I do not see the Owen quote. Am I missing something ?


----------



## crhoades

Saiph said:


> Fred:
> 
> I do not see the Owen quote. Am I missing something ?


 
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=229677#post229677


----------



## nominalist747

*Smarts*

Dr. Clark, if Gabe has the smarts for which you compliment him, why on earth does he find the FV so much less problematic than you? If you are correct in not only the FV errors, but also in how clear, obvious, and contrary to the gospel they are, it makes no sense for you to think of someone as smart who agrees with 95% of Jon Barlow's post. Just be consistent--as snarky as Gerety is here (he has already called my orthodoxy, intelligence, and honesty into question, when none of my Westminster professors or pastors has ever done so), he at least has that virtue: if you agree with or defend any part of any writing by anyone connected with the FV, he'll blast you as an idiot or a heretic, or probably both, not say "Hey, man, you're smart...but the position you agree with is as wrong and stupid as they get." If Gabe is smart, perhaps the position he agrees with is not that bad or stupid. If the position is as stupid and wrong as you say, then Gabe is hardly smart for agreeing with any of it. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Gabe,

I can't speak to your personal conversations, but I'm talking about leaders of the FV movement and their published work. 

The very FV, covenantal nomist, scheme is _per se_ a denial of the gospel. In by grace, stay in by cooperation with grace, is not the gospel. It's the very mess we left behind in the Reformation. 

If anyone doubts that's what at stake, read Jon Barlow's latest posts. 

Yes, he and they say, "grace," "faith" and "Christ," but where are the solas? 

Where is imputation of anything? Lusk says it's out. 

Where are Christ's merits? Lusk and Jordan and Barach say: out.

Where is _sola fide_ (defined by the WCF and BC as receiving and rest or resting and relying)? Norm Shepherd says: out.

Where is the imputation of Christ's active obedience? Shepherd says: out.

Where is the distinction between law and gospel? They ALL say: out.

Aren't these established facts? 

You really should read CJPM. If you send me your surface address I'll send you one at no cost. [no this is not a global offer, but I don't have Gabriel's email address or phone so this is the only way to contact him]

rsc



WrittenFromUtopia said:


> If someone is denying the gospel, they should be handled appropriately. For what it's worth, I do not personally think the handfull of FV proponents I have encountered have done so, although it may be the case that SOME of the less-informed "followers" of the FV *HAVE*.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Oh, that's good for the Reformed churches!

rsc



Paul manata said:


> He's a hyper-preterist from Florida.


----------



## nominalist747

*Judas' union*

Mark is right in his 5:40 post. Wilkins, Wilson, & Leithart all say there is a real and qualitative difference between Judas' union with Christ and John's, but that this different kind of union is a still a real one that confers real benefits, and those benefits are in some sense similar to those experienced by believers. This fits well with Matthew 7, and Heb. 6--the grace received by the apostate looks an awful lot like that given to the truly elect, for the time being.

And can I just say again that Wilson at least explicitly affirms the internal/external distinction in the union with Christ? "He is not a Christian who is one _outwardly_...But he is a Christian who is one _inwardly_..." (RINE, p. 18)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

nominalist747 said:


> Dr. Clark, if Gabe has the smarts for which you compliment him, why on earth does he find the FV so much less problematic than you? If you are correct in not only the FV errors, but also in how clear, obvious, and contrary to the gospel they are, it makes no sense for you to think of someone as smart who agrees with 95% of Jon Barlow's post. Just be consistent--as snarky as Gerety is here (he has already called my orthodoxy, intelligence, and honesty into question, when none of my Westminster professors or pastors has ever done so), he at least has that virtue: if you agree with or defend any part of any writing by anyone connected with the FV, he'll blast you as an idiot or a heretic, or probably both, not say "Hey, man, you're smart...but the position you agree with is as wrong and stupid as they get." If Gabe is smart, perhaps the position he agrees with is not that bad or stupid. If the position is as stupid and wrong as you say, then Gabe is hardly smart for agreeing with any of it. You can't have it both ways.



I feel like someone's calling me an idiot here!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

R. Scott Clark said:


> Oh, that's good for the Reformed churches!
> 
> rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Josh,

Well, if I knew then (when you were here) what I know now, and if I knew how attracted you seem to be to the FV, I would have pressed you much harder than I did. 

My understanding of this stuff was still developing. We had not held the conference when you were here. I hadn't worked out what they're really saying about baptismal union with Christ. I was focused on justification sola fide and Shepherd. I hadn't read Schilder and hadn't worked out that stuff to any degree. The picture is much clearer for me now.

I'm sorry that I let you down when you were here. There's no question about your intelligence. You demonstrated that in your seminar papers and discussions. 

I would question your judgment and Gabe's and anyone's who cannot or will not see the FV doctrine of baptismal union and the rest of it for what it is. 

Please read the faculty book and see if your old profs will provide you with sufficient reason to abandon this stuff.

I think I understand why this is attractive. It's an over-reaction to American individualism and antinomianism. Jon Barlow repeated what Norm Shepherd has been saying for 30+ years, that the critics (Godfrey and Palmer Robertson!?) are antinomian because we don't make sanctity a part of the ground or instrument of justification. Norm views this whole thing (as apparently Jon does) through the lenses of the evangelical Lordship debate.

My response has always been: a pox on both their houses! I think MacArthur has improved, but his initial response was as problematic as Zane Hodges' antinomianism. Horton's _Christ the Lord_ had good responses to both sides.

The Reformed view is clear: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The FV clearly do not accept this scheme, ergo they are not Reformed. 

I also think that the FV is seductive because it plays off of fads. "Relational" categories are hip now. So the FV ditches imputation for "relation." Tom Wright is hip, so covenant nomism replaces the outdated, they say, "forensic" doctrine. In general, semantic precision is out and semantic fuzziness is in. The FV thrives in such an atmosphere. 

Further, there is, as I try to demonstrate in a forthcoming critique of McLaren, a general evangelical resistance to boundaries. In that essay I was just trying to shore up catholic boundaries, but in our churches we have rather higher boundaries and those are being resisted or redefined too. It's the Zeitgeist. 

I'm a little surprised that you give much time to a movement that is so clearly out of touch with the Spirit of your _alma mater_, to a movement repudiated publicly and repeatedly by your _alma mater_, and to a movement that seems to be so appalling and willfully ignorant of so much modern historical theology. The live by every word that proceeds from Tom Wright's mouth, but they don't have 30 seconds to read Richard Muller. 

Smart people get fooled all the time. Hey, I was a Royals fan for years (before the first strike). 

I suppose "smarts" don't have a lot to do with that, so I should withdraw my remark to Gabe. No question about his smarts, but Rich Lusk is smart, Doug Wilson is smart, but they're both very, very wrong. Remember, Arminius was very clever, but our churches said he was also very wrong.

Nobody like Gomarus anymore, but he was right.

rsc



nominalist747 said:


> Dr. Clark, if Gabe has the smarts for which you compliment him, why on earth does he find the FV so much less problematic than you? If you are correct in not only the FV errors, but also in how clear, obvious, and contrary to the gospel they are, it makes no sense for you to think of someone as smart who agrees with 95% of Jon Barlow's post. Just be consistent--as snarky as Gerety is here (he has already called my orthodoxy, intelligence, and honesty into question, when none of my Westminster professors or pastors has ever done so), he at least has that virtue: if you agree with or defend any part of any writing by anyone connected with the FV, he'll blast you as an idiot or a heretic, or probably both, not say "Hey, man, you're smart...but the position you agree with is as wrong and stupid as they get." If Gabe is smart, perhaps the position he agrees with is not that bad or stupid. If the position is as stupid and wrong as you say, then Gabe is hardly smart for agreeing with any of it. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Josh,

I don't think you can rescue Doug from himself. I think you're imputing conceptual clarity to his theology that doesn't actually exist. Did you see his attempt to clarify his view of baptismal union on my blog? I stared at that thing for a long time before I gave up. 

If these guys are so orthodox, why are we having this discussion?

I keep saying, and I'm right, this debate is not about nothing.

rsc



nominalist747 said:


> Mark is right in his 5:40 post. Wilkins, Wilson, & Leithart all say there is a real and qualitative difference between Judas' union with Christ and John's, but that this different kind of union is a still a real one that confers real benefits, and those benefits are in some sense similar to those experienced by believers. This fits well with Matthew 7, and Heb. 6--the grace received by the apostate looks an awful lot like that given to the truly elect, for the time being.
> 
> And can I just say again that Wilson at least explicitly affirms the internal/external distinction in the union with Christ? "He is not a Christian who is one _outwardly_...But he is a Christian who is one _inwardly_..." (RINE, p. 18)


----------



## nominalist747

*Staying in*

As to the whole "getting in, staying in" phrase (which is taken from Sanders and which Wilson has rejected), can we admit their distinction between the covenantal, ecclesiological dimension and the eternal and decretal one? One gets into the (visible) church by profession and remains in the (visible) church by bearing fruit (as demonstrated in a continuing profession and good works), and at the end God purifies that church, reveals those who did this truly and those who did this falsely, and those whom he receives boast and rejoice in the knowledge that it was God's sovereign, irresistible grace that worked in them from start to finish.

And a bit difference is that the medieval cooperationist scheme view grace as a thing poured into you by the sacraments, while several FVers I've read say that sacramental grace is external, being concrete favor bestowed by God--and they would say "Believe in those graces" (i.e., the preached Word and the sacraments), not "cooperate with" them.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

R. Scott Clark said:


> Gabe,
> 
> I can't speak to your personal conversations, but I'm talking about leaders of the FV movement and their published work.
> 
> The very FV, covenantal nomist, scheme is _per se_ a denial of the gospel. In by grace, stay in by cooperation with grace, is not the gospel. It's the very mess we left behind in the Reformation.
> 
> If anyone doubts that's what at stake, read Jon Barlow's latest posts.
> 
> Yes, he and they say, "grace," "faith" and "Christ," but where are the solas?
> 
> Where is imputation of anything? Lusk says it's out.
> 
> Where are Christ's merits? Lusk and Jordan and Barach say: out.
> 
> Where is _sola fide_ (defined by the WCF and BC as receiving and rest or resting and relying)? Norm Shepherd says: out.
> 
> Where is the imputation of Christ's active obedience? Shepherd says: out.
> 
> Where is the distinction between law and gospel? They ALL say: out.
> 
> Aren't these established facts?
> 
> You really should read CJPM. If you send me your surface address I'll send you one at no cost. [no this is not a global offer, but I don't have Gabriel's email address or phone so this is the only way to contact him]
> 
> rsc



I really don't believe that the particular people I've read or spoken with believe that we are "in by grace, stay in by works." I believe they speak about salvation in a temporal/covenantal aspect, which, if this was not the case, I would agree with this assessment. I'm not saying that it is "right" or "wrong" to do so, I'm just saying that I don't believe that they are preaching the Canons of Trent as the Gospel.

Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, etc. all believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ in Justification, exactly as WCF states. They have both, at least, explicitly stated this to be the case. That doesn't mean they don't talk about Justification from "other angles" at times. Again, I'm not saying this is "right" or "wrong," but it should be taken into account and context should be ascertained before passing any judgment on what they may or may not be denying as far as Justification goes, which is, of course, of the utmost importance, doctrinally speaking.

As far as merit is concerned, I don't believe they use the word, but many of them appear to defend the concept, but under the descriptor of union with Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, propitiation, and so forth. Therefore, if one is united to Christ by faith, they are counted as having fulfillment of the Law, propitiation of sins, and so forth. I could be wrong on this, as it hasn't really been that great of a focus of mine, honestly.

As far as Norm is concerned, he believes what the WCF says about saving faith, i.e.,



> By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; *and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come*. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.



Our "eternal" Justification before God is initiated and only by the "principal acts of saving faith" (i.e., accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone); but the other aspect of saving faith (i.e., a change in actions, or works as a result of true saving faith) is still part and parcel of the SAME saving faith. It is not distinguished here by the divines as two different faiths, but the one, same, justifying faith. So, we are truly Justified by faith ALONE initially, and further proof of our Justification before the world and before God at the last judgment is our "change in life" after our being Justified by resting in Christ by faith. I hope that makes sense, I'm just trying to say exactly what WCF says here.

The distinction between Law and Gospel is not abandoned, but, as far as I can tell, is only applicable in certain contexts. There are other ways and cases where this scheme does not make the most sense with Scripture. In other words, Israel wasn't given the Law so that they may receive Gospel... God redeemed them by grace (Gospel) and then as part of that, gave them the Law (which was a gracious act!). I could be confusing the issue, though, so forgive me if that's the case.


----------



## nominalist747

I agree with Gabe here mostly, especially with reference to WCF's definition of faith. I'm not sure I'd say that's what Shepherd says--I definitely find more to disagree with in Shepherd than in others.


----------



## nominalist747

And DW's distinction between law and gospel is a distinction between how it is received by the hearer: to the one who has faith, everything is gospel, i.e., it all points to the work of Triune God unto redemption, while the one who hasn't faith looks to himself and his own ability and tries to work his way in on his own even when Christ is preached.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Gabe,

You are quite wrong on a number of things.

1. I've seen FV proponents advocate a modified version of "in..stay in" on the web. The whole covenant nomist structure controls their understanding of covenant and justification.

Notice that I didn't say, "stay in by works." I said stay in by cooperation with grace which they really believe. That's the whole point of putting people on the hook by baptismal union with Christ! 



> I believe they speak about salvation in a temporal/covenantal aspect, which, if this was not the case, I would agree with this assessment.



They aren't entitled to set up a two-level soteriology! Who gave them that right? Who authorized them to set up a "covenantal" scheme that is effectively Arminian and the to flee, as it suits them, dialectically, to a theoretical doctrine of election -- which has no practical force in their system? 

I discussed all this at length in the Conf. Presbyterian article. Did you read it? Have any of the FV folk actually read it?

I will not concede their right to set up a dialectical, bifurcated soteriology. Schilder was dead wrong to do it and so are they. At least Schilder could give orthodox catechetical answers. These cats can't seem to do that, at least Norm Shepherd couldn't.



> I'm not saying that it is "right" or "wrong" to do so, I'm just saying that I don't believe that they are preaching the Canons of Trent as the Gospel.



Not in so many words, but they are resurrecting the condign merit scheme, without realizing that. I told John Barach that at Synod Escondido in 2001. They've also resurrected congruent merit by virtue of their future justification system. Ask Theo Hoekstra about that or John Kinnaird. 



> Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, etc. all believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ in Justification, exactly as WCF states.



Arminius used orthodox words too, but did he mean by them what Dort meant? No. I've seen Doug's strong affirmations of the IAO, but I've also seen him say things that contradicts the same. 

The FV want to use orthodox terms and then contradict them and scream when we complain about it. They can't have it both ways.



> As far as merit is concerned, I don't believe they use the word, but many of them appear to defend the concept, but under the descriptor of union with Christ.



The FV boys in print routinely deny merit as a category. See John Barach. See Rich Lusk. 



> As far as Norm is concerned, he believes what the WCF says about saving faith, i.e.,



You're quite wrong here. In 1974 Norm said explicitly, as I show in the book, that we justified through "faith and works." Then, he revised his language to "faithfulness." That's the language of his 2000 book. 

Gabe, in his book he moves from Adam to us, not in re sin, but in re justification! That move is structurally Pelagian. 

Norm is past defending on faith in the act of justification. I've read virtually every word Norm has published and he denies what you're affirming here.

For Norm, sanctity isn't just the fruit of justification or something that accompanies true faith, it is a constituent of true faith, part of what makes true faith what it is. In other words, it's "formed faith." 

As you know or should know, the Reformation rejected the very notion of formed faith. Faith doesn't function as instrument because it contains our, Spirit-wrought, sanctity but because it receives and rests in Christ's obedience for us. Christ's alien righteousness is the power of faith, not anything in faith, not even anything Spirit-wrought and the confession is absolutely explicit about this.

Norm is part of a movement that is dissatisfied with the Reformation definition of faith in the act of justification. It happened in the 1540's, again in the 1640's, in the 18th century, in the 19th century and again with Shepherd. He's the heir of a long tradition of dissatisfaction with _fides formata Christo_.

Our eternal justification is grounded in Christ and received through faith alone. Full stop.

In the nature of things, as WCF 11 and BC 24 make clear, that faith is always accompanied by other graces, but those graces are nothing but evidence and fruit of justification. Full stop. Norm won't have this. This doesn't produce the sort of sanctity he wants. It's not fast enough. I don't know, but he and the FV with him, want to find a way to wedge sanctity into faith in the act of justification. 

Yes, it's the same faith, but faith only justifies as it rests in Christ. Show me where the FV accepts this. 

Your qualification about law and gospel is passing strange since they all repudiate law and gospel as "Lutheran." Sandlin (who says he's not FV?) Frame. The whole lot of them. Norm repudiated the law gospel distinction as Lutheran and Pete Lillback tried to defend the same proposition in his PhD thesis. That's why the FV all love that book.

Gabe, like Josh Smith, you're to fix their theology.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

That isn't the Reformed doctrine of law and gospel.

This is what comes of the FV making up stuff as they go along.

There's a whole chapter on this in CJPM.

rsc



nominalist747 said:


> And DW's distinction between law and gospel is a distinction between how it is received by the hearer: to the one who has faith, everything is gospel, i.e., it all points to the work of Triune God unto redemption, while the one who hasn't faith looks to himself and his own ability and tries to work his way in on his own even when Christ is preached.


----------



## MW

Point 1 about apostasy only brings back confusion when apostasy is understood according to the FV way of stating it. The little chapter in the Confession on the doctrine of adoption is crucial here. *ALL* THOSE THAT ARE JUSTIFIED are NEVER CAST OFF. The FV must acknowledge that the reformed doctrine of apostasy does not allow for the idea that the apostate was ever REALLY justified.

On point 4, I imagine any aberrant theology could pick out a few statements from the writings of the Westminster divines and think they are striking a note from the tradition. It is probably the case that the fencing of the original statements has been broken down to allow a broader application than the divines permitted. When we look at point 8, it is clear that this is in fact the case. The divines made their statements within the theological categories of the invisible and visible church distinction. One may not obliterate that distinction and then apply their statements about the privileges belonging to the members of the visible church to some invented category of the neo-theologian's choosing. You might very well strike a note from the tradition, but it will be in the service of an opposing tradition's song.

And then there is point 6. "FV is not puritanism." There is the departure point so far as praxis is concerned. The practice of Puritanism is based on the reformed theology of Word and Spirit. Assurance is grounded on the promises of the Word being applied by the testimony of the Spirit to the individual's conscience. The FV grounds assurance solely on the objectivity of Word and sacraments. It provides a practical theology of Word without the Spirit. Sensing that all subjectivity cannot be denied in coming to assurance, they supplement the witness of the church in the place of the testimony of the Spirit. Listen, we are told, to the Scriptures speaking to the church and addressing the church as elect. You are a member of the church; therefore, you are elect. Have they done away with the practical syllogism? Not in the slightest. They have simply adjusted the minor premise to suit their substitution of the Church in place of the Spirit.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> Point 1 about apostasy only brings back confusion when apostasy is understood according to the FV way of stating it. The little chapter in the Confession on the doctrine of adoption is crucial here. *ALL* THOSE THAT ARE JUSTIFIED are NEVER CAST OFF. The FV must acknowledge that the reformed doctrine of apostasy does not allow for the idea that the apostate was ever REALLY justified.
> 
> On point 4, I imagine any aberrant theology could pick out a few statements from the writings of the Westminster divines and think they are striking a note from the tradition. It is probably the case that the fencing of the original statements has been broken down to allow a broader application than the divines permitted. When we look at point 8, it is clear that this is in fact the case. The divines made their statements within the theological categories of the invisible and visible church distinction. One may not obliterate that distinction and then apply their statements about the privileges belonging to the members of the visible church to some invented category of the neo-theologian's choosing. You might very well strike a note from the tradition, but it will be in the service of an opposing tradition's song.
> 
> And then there is point 6. "FV is not puritanism." There is the departure point so far as praxis is concerned. The practice of Puritanism is based on the reformed theology of Word and Spirit. Assurance is grounded on the promises of the Word being applied by the testimony of the Spirit to the individual's conscience. The FV grounds assurance solely on the objectivity of Word and sacraments. It provides a practical theology of Word without the Spirit. Sensing that all subjectivity cannot be denied in coming to assurance, they supplement the witness of the church in the place of the testimony of the Spirit. Listen, we are told, to the Scriptures speaking to the church and addressing the church as elect. You are a member of the church; therefore, you are elect. Have they done away with the practical syllogism? Not in the slightest. They have simply adjusted the minor premise to suit their substitution of the Church in place of the Spirit.




As usual, excellent thoughts, Rev. Winzer.


----------



## nominalist747

*Fixing theology and other comments*

I don't see it fixing their theology, but rather reading their theology as charitably as possible, when they also assert their adherence to the confessions. Wilson or Wilkins says, "Yes, I affirm what the WCF says here about this." I take that at face value and try to reconcile their other statements with that. I have so far found that generally the statements are reconcilable when properly qualified, as all of our language must be.

I don't think they are creating a bifurcated soteriology: real salvation, salvation properly so called, is only by grace alone through faith alone on the basis of the full work of Jesus Christ for His specific people, chosen before the foundation of the world, and it seems that Wilkins, Wilson, and most other repeatedly affirm this. But their point is two perspectives on the same reality: how we view it, through history and the church, and how God views it from eternity. Their use of terms like "salvation," etc. are usually qualified by quotation marks or by the phrase "in some sense," by which indicators I take them to be using the language analogically (or perhaps "homonymously" as Aristotle would say, like calling a statue's eye an eye--since the nature of an eye is to see, but the statue's eye cannot, yet we call it an "eye"). Salvation properly so-called belongs now and will belong only to the decretally elect, but those who are chosen and ordained merely to a temporary "faith" (and the quotes mean that in its true nature faith perseveres, so if it's temporary it is not faith properly so-called) do receive some benefits in history that bear a resemblance to those received by the truly elect, and so those temporary "believers" do in some sense participate and receive the blessings of the new creation, i.e., the blessings of "salvation" (viewed as the restoration of all things, not simply on an individual level). This seems to be what is in view in Heb. 6:4-6, or 1 Cor. 10:1-6. 

As to the law and gospel issue, DW's framing is not by any means identical with the historic Reformed view, but does that make it heretical? If read in context, his concern is that the Word of God not be divided up by us, but rather than it should do the dividing. I find this a laudable concern in a day of strong dispensationalism--and it seems to fit with Paul's use of Deut. in Rom. 10--the original context of the Deuteronomy passage seems to be entirely law, but Paul takes it as gospel, when seen rightly (cf. Rom. 9:32, where the problem with the Jews seems to be one of perspective: they viewed something as by works which was really by faith). Is Psalm 24:3-6 law or gospel? That depends on how you read it: if you look at it and say, "Well, I'd better get busy washing my hands, and I'll be sure to put a post-it note on the fridge not to follow idols, and I'll..." then, you are receiving it as law and it will be law to you. But if you look at it and move on to vv. 7-10 and say "The Lord of glory Himself, pure in all His ways, gained that blessing for me through His righteousness and salvation (v.5) and is now offered to me here in His Word and in the Supper..." then it is gospel. Same passage, different effect. So I find that there is something in DW's approach here that is helpful and accords with Scripture, even if it is not strictly the usage of the Reformed tradition.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

fredtgreco said:


> As usual, excellent thoughts, Rev. Winzer.



 I sometimes wish all criticism was spoken with such clarity because it leaves detractors very little space to disagree. I know, for my part, that I have far less ability to write in a way that is hard to find reproach with. I believe that _some_ (though surely not all) of the rebellion in the FV is caused by men who have their hackles up over _words_ and perceived offenses and have difficulty seeing the substance of the critique.

I feel a little awkward about how this thread began because Jon was responding to me. He actually felt like we had cut, in an honest way, to the core of some of our concerns with the FV. I entered into the comment section of Barlow's blog to try and see if I could sense where some of them were coming from. Now, I admit to being quick-tempered and impatient, but there is some serious baggage with some FV folk who are like cornered animals lashing out at any they don't know. It's simply an analogy and I don't really think they're "animals" but most of their posting is not putting forward _positively_ what they believe but responding _negatively_ to those they view as simply attacking them. The preponderance of FV writing and thought is presented by negation because they seem to spend all their time telling their opponents what they don't believe rather than clearly articulating what they do. That's all said because, when you're on the defensive all the time, I think it makes it hard to view any dialogue that challenges your perspective as anything but a frontal attack.

Thus, at least with Jon, I was trying to lay out clearly what I believed the disagreement was. I'm gratified that he read our interaction on Conditional Election and believed we were at the heart of the issue. What ends up happening with posts like the one on the Warfield list is that it immediately shuts down the listening for some. Why? Because the man is treated as an object of pity, worthy of little respect for his convictions. I hope I don't have to go into the Scriptures to articulate how we ought not to unnecessarily give offense.

For his part, Jon was very gracious to me on his "turf" and I just wanted to extend him the same courtesy here in a forum he cannot respond to. I hold out hope that many who are attracted to the FV for some American excesses that Rev. Winzer and Dr. Clark have articulated in different ways can understand that one does not have to buy into re-definitions of core Reformed doctrines but simply understand them better. Where the dialogue stalls as personal affronts or being overly defensive it has little chance of success. I'm very grateful that I have examples on this Board that have helped me be less offensive so I can be more constructive.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> ...one does not have to buy into re-definitions of core Reformed doctrines but simply understand them better.



Well stated, Rich. The best defence against error is the faithful exposition of the whole truth.


----------



## nominalist747

*Notes on Rev. Winzer's comments*

The FV do acknowledge that the apostate are never REALLY justified. Wilkins, e.g., says: "It would be unwise to call this 'losing one's salvation,' but it would be unbiblical to say that nothing was really lost." This seems to mean that they did not REALLY have salvation, in the confession's sense, but that really had SOMETHING that looked like salvation. For example, the gifts on Pentecost were the down payment of final, REAL salvation for Peter, etc. But if there was someone who preached on that day who later fell away (at least a hypothetical possibility, cf. Heb. 6:4-6; Matt. 7:22), then they really had the same gift Peter had, but it was not a down payment, because the full reward did not come to them later. Why not? Because of God's fully unconditional decretal election.

They also don't obliterate the visible/invisible distinction _in substance_. Why not? In substance, isn't this a necessary distinction between church members who are save and church members who are finally lost? I don't see that the FV obliterates the substance here, given the fact that they repeatedly emphasize that mere profession or mere participation in the sacraments without a true Biblical faith do not save, but rather condemn. As to "invented categories of the neo-theologian's choosing," I have heard Mike Horton use the terms "historical" and "eschatological" for the church, so simply using new terms does not mean you've denied the confession (Dr. Clark, I know you don't think that DW and MH mean the same thing, but can you back me up that MH does use the terms?).


----------



## nominalist747

*Lashing out*

In response to Rich, it seems that the FV spend a great deal of time explaining what they are not saying because many of their discussions began with the attack by the RPCUS, which opened the discussion by condemning them, having not spoken to the men themselves nor to their sessions. Moreover, some of their critics use language that the FV themselves do not in order to explain their views (e.g., the language of infusion, or ex opere operato, or cooperation with grace), or less subtly lump them in with Rome, so that they have to explain why those terms do not in fact apply to them or why they don't mean what Rome means. So if you don't think you meant what your critic said you meant, you kind of have to say, "no, that's not what I said or what I meant."


----------



## MW

nominalist747 said:


> ...(and the quotes mean that in its true nature faith perseveres, so if it's temporary it is not faith properly so-called)...



This is the point they simply do not make clear, and it is left deliberately vague. Because it is deliberately vague it tends to excite formalism. Consider the observations of Westminster divine, Richard Vines, in his sermons on Rom. 2:28, 29. Regrettably, those who accept the New Perspective will not regard his use of this passage as pertinent; but the observations will at least demonstrate what the historic position is.



> First, Here we have an excellent example, for preaching of distinguishing doctrine, especially to such professors, whose pride and outwardness in the true religion makes them seem to themselves to be somebody when they are indeed nothing...
> 
> Secondly, The argument whereby the apostle convinces a Jew, a professed member of the church, to be nothing, that is, as to his own benefit or God’s acceptation, is his outwardness and formality in religion; and the formality that abounds in our churches, and the outwardness in religion, goes far to prove that we are Christians and no Christians...
> 
> Thirdly, a Jew, or Christian (be they what they will be), merely conversant in the outwards of religion, is not that indeed which he takes himself to be, and desires to be called.
> 
> Use 1. First, I say hence: Can our outward Christian give any good account of any momentous difference between himself and the Jew outwardly? I confess, comparing the privileges of the Jew with the Samaritan, our Saviour asserts the pre-eminence of the Jew: salvation, saith he, is of the Jews; and so I might speak, and follow it profitably, that such is our profession above the Papist. But I am speaking now of the Jew outward and inward. The Jew reckoned himself a Jew by his descent from Abraham, and by his profession of that religion established by Moses, whereof he had not the power: and pray, what do you Christians reckon yourselves by, what is your faith that you pretend to have to Christ, but a kind of traditional story from our ancestors; or taken up from common report milked into you, when you sucked the breasts, by custom and education, without any work of the Gospel on your hearts...
> 
> Use 2. Secondly, If this be true doctrine, then rest not till you find in yourselves some proof of an inward work, some brokenness and softness of heart, the heart of stone taken away, some newness of spirit, something of Christ Jesus. Had the Jew found out the entrails of his religion, he had found Christ there over and over; but he dreamed of a national salvation (as I may almost say), by virtue of a covenant that had inwards in it, but he saw little. Let me say to you, you have spiritual ordinances: look for Christ in them, he is the kernel of all ordinances. Go to God and pray, Lord it is thy covenant-promise to put thy law into the inwards of thy people, Jer. 31:33; and that there called inwards, the apostle calls the writing of the law in the heart and mind, Heb. 8:10...


----------



## MW

nominalist747 said:


> The FV do acknowledge that the apostate are never REALLY justified. Wilkins, e.g., says: "It would be unwise to call this 'losing one's salvation,' but it would be unbiblical to say that nothing was really lost." This seems to mean that they did not REALLY have salvation, in the confession's sense, but that really had SOMETHING that looked like salvation. For example, the gifts on Pentecost were the down payment of final, REAL salvation for Peter, etc. But if there was someone who preached on that day who later fell away (at least a hypothetical possibility, cf. Heb. 6:4-6; Matt. 7:22), then they really had the same gift Peter had, but it was not a down payment, because the full reward did not come to them later. Why not? Because of God's fully unconditional decretal election.



You are left having to say what you think he SEEMS to mean. The reason is, because he does not say it. The FV proponent only needed to say what you have said. It was that simple. What he does say is that SOMETHING has been REALLY lost.



nominalist747 said:


> They also don't obliterate the visible/invisible distinction _in substance_. Why not? In substance, isn't this a necessary distinction between church members who are save and church members who are finally lost? I don't see that the FV obliterates the substance here, given the fact that they repeatedly emphasize that mere profession or mere participation in the sacraments without a true Biblical faith do not save, but rather condemn. As to "invented categories of the neo-theologian's choosing," I have heard Mike Horton use the terms "historical" and "eschatological" for the church, so simply using new terms does not mean you've denied the confession (Dr. Clark, I know you don't think that DW and MH mean the same thing, but can you back me up that MH does use the terms?).



It is the using of these terms in an unconfessional way that is the problem. The members of the "historical" church are described by the FV as receiving benefits which, in Westminster's formulation, belong to members of the invisible church. Meanwhile, some members of this "historical" church shall ultimately be cut off, so that they are not a part of the "eschatological church," whereas the members of the invisible church are members of the eschatological church in the Westminster formulation. The words and the substance are different.


----------



## Magma2

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> More than anything, I would want this whole controversy to be settled through understanding, peacemaking, and charity ... not separation! I think many of the mature pastors and laypeople among the FV movement want this as well. . .
> 
> Just my thoughts!



"Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, 'I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,' says the Lord. 'AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,' Says the Lord Almighty."

Just God's thoughts.


----------



## Magma2

Saiph said:


> Is the "fruit" spoken of here more acts of mercy and marks of godly character than things like supernatural phenomenon ? Can we take this to mean that one can exorcise demons in the name of Christ and not be "in" Christ ? God would then be actively expelling the demonic spirit from an individual, by the means of an apostate believer.



"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"


----------



## Theoretical

> I don't see it fixing their theology, but rather reading their theology as charitably as possible, when they also assert their adherence to the confessions. Wilson or Wilkins says, "Yes, I affirm what the WCF says here about this." I take that at face value and try to reconcile their other statements with that. I have so far found that generally the statements are reconcilable when properly qualified, as all of our language must be.



I think it is naive and dangerous to take questionable statements on critical doctrines (which justification really is) at their face value when dealing with an _officer of the church_. It is a sign and tendency of our speculative, individualistic age that everyone has to have his own specific "take" on this doctrinal matter and that we have to owe that person a lot of charity on this opinion, no matter how strong or weak it may be. 

On critical doctrine, I would afford a _teacher or pastor_ almost no charity if he started talking even remotely aberrantly about the Trinity or the Resurrection. While I have no sympathies with the FV movement as I have come to know of it, I do see why some might be drawn to it; nonetheless, when a whole group of teachers and pastors start using ambiguous language about one of the most critical doctrines of the Faith, I as a confessional presbyterian have absolutely no obligation to given them a benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof is on them before my denomination and its confessional standards. The standards stand, and challenges to them (implied or direct) must prove why the confessions should be amended, not why the confessions should just bend to their will. Don't like the inflexible standards of a confessional church? Fine, set up a different denomination or go to a church that is non-confessional, but do not try to redefine the confession to say something it does not say. 

This is arguing over the core of the Gospel (Justification and Covenantalism) and indeed what the Christian faith is, and all of this ambiguous and confusing usage of classical doctrines is VERY worrisome to me as a confessionalist coming out of both mainline and more evangelical thought. Both backgrounds used words carelessly and it was unclear what people believed by their speech. Needless to say, doctrinal quality is nonexistent and numerous "sincere" people are wrong to the point of damnable error, especially in the former.

At my grandmother's funeral, I heard that her resurrection was complete (it was a PCUSA service), with no reference ever to a future bodily resurrection. Now, am I going to give these ministers the benefit of the doubt as to their doctrine on resurrection? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Confessions are a hedge against doctrinal error on critical issues, because they require the contesting side to prove its theological case (i.e. the burden of proof is on the innovator). I am extremely grateful my denomination has a confession of faith that requires some measure of subscription for officers, as it at least means there's a set of standards for teaching that *should* be followed. Quoting random chunks of the WCF to prove a particular point is every bit as bad as proof-texting a verse or part of a verse from the Word to prove a random assertion, and it proves every bit as much as the latter. 

I've been on the outside - this year is the first of my 21 years that I've spent in an even remotely Reformed church that is based on confessionalism. Every bit of rhetoric I've heard from FV advocates of using these words in unsusual ways smacks of liberalism and doctrinal compromise.

Finally, calling Dr. Clark and other anti-FVers _mean_ is beside the point. These are serious issues, and I really don't care whether someone is acrid or nice about these matters, when talking within the Church. We live in too "nice" of a culture, as a quote mentioned. Machen was called mean and nasty in his day, yet everything he said in _Christianity and Liberalism_ is arguably MORE true now than it possibly was in the 1920s.


----------



## non dignus

Scott,

very well said.


----------



## MW

Theoretical said:


> ...this year is the first of my 21 years that I've spent in an even remotely Reformed church that is based on confessionalism.



Scott, the part about the standards standing and not bendiing to the will of individuals is priceless -- wisdom beyond years. Blessings!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Magma2 said:


> "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, 'I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,' says the Lord. 'AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,' Says the Lord Almighty."
> 
> Just God's thoughts.



So now you're accusing a myriad of committed Christians "unbelievers?"

You just legitimized the point about Puritanical elect-detector-ism.

Simply rediculous, absurd, and detrimental to the movement of this discussion thus far. Uncalled for. Immature. To infinity.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Gabe,

Its like saying there are over 1 Billion Christians in the world. Ok, now how many of those are Roman Catholics? RC are not Christians. FV leads/is (to) RCism.

I would _never_ say, "myriad(s) of committed Christians (are) "unbelievers?"" I would say that proponents of the FV heresy are _not_ Christian at all. There is a chasmic difference.

One can't deny the Gospel and be a Christian. Its biblically and theologically impossible.

For the FV proponents to redefine the church, redefine *justification*, redefine sacraments, redefine and/or exclude the *active/passive obedience of Jesus Christ and His work* (!!!), (and subsequently disagree with orthodoxy by redefining the Reformed Confessions in their major points on soteriology, not to mention to butcher historical theology as the church has known it), is to change the Gospel to some other garbage that "sounds good" and lures people in deceptively. Satan is not sitting around with a red suit and pitchfork. He is preaching through those "committed" people that teach destructive heresies. 

There is only one Gospel. Regardless how committed one is to a particular "gospel" (little "g"), does not give them the right to be labeled "Christian."

Its certainly not absurd to stand fast to one Gospel, _ad infinitum_.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Gabe,
> 
> Its like saying there are over 1 Billion Christians in the world. Ok, now how many of those are Roman Catholics? RC are not Christians. FV leads/is (to) RCism.
> 
> I would _never_ say, "myriad(s) of committed Christians (are) "unbelievers?"" I would say that proponents of the FV heresy are _not_ Christian at all. There is a chasmic difference.
> 
> One can't deny the Gospel and be a Christian. Its biblically and theologically impossible.
> 
> For the FV proponents to redefine the church, redefine *justification*, redefine sacraments, redefine and/or exclude the *active/passive obedience of Jesus Christ and His work* (!!!), (and subsequently disagree with orthodoxy by redefining the Reformed Confessions in their major points on soteriology, not to mention to butcher historical theology as the church has known it), is to change the Gospel to some other garbage that "sounds good" and lures people in deceptively. Satan is not sitting around with a red suit and pitchfork. He is preaching through those "committed" people that teach destructive heresies.
> 
> There is only one Gospel. Regardless how committed one is to a particular "gospel" (little "g"), does not give them the right to be labeled "Christian."
> 
> Its certainly not absurd to stand fast to one Gospel, _ad infinitum_.



Man is not saved by the confession of a doctrine, no matter how accurate one may think it is. You do not know the hearts of men. You don't even know the hearts of RC Christians worldwide. There are elect even among the RCC, as horrible as their theology may be.

This is shameful.

I want nothing to do with this kind of thinking.


----------



## Romans922

But Gabe, if you knowingly deny the active obedience of Christ, then Christ's life has no meaning (which is part of the gospel). Part of the gospel taken away is no gospel at all.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Romans922 said:


> But Gabe, if you knowingly deny the active obedience of Christ, then Christ's life has no meaning (which is part of the gospel). Part of the gospel taken away is no gospel at all.



So which divines at Westminster fought to keep the "active obedience" phrase out of the Confession again? I guess they're in hell.


----------



## BJClark

In reading all of these things it causes me to wonder...if what it said is true...why are these men still TE's??? 

Why haven't they just chosen to leave instead of choosing to stay and create five years of friction? 

I will be asking my pastor when I see him


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Josh, 

Mike's never used those terms in my presence and I've never seen him using them.



> Clark, I know you don't think that DW and MH mean the same thing, but can you back me up that MH does use the terms?)


----------



## Theoretical

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Man is not saved by the confession of a doctrine, no matter how accurate one may think it is. You do not know the hearts of men. You don't even know the hearts of RC Christians worldwide. There are elect even among the RCC, as horrible as their theology may be.
> 
> This is shameful.
> 
> I want nothing to do with this kind of thinking.


Gabe,

No one is saved by believing in a certain set of doctrines, but one can certainly be considered not Christian and expected to be damned if remaining in that belief on a host of different doctrines, despite whatever sincerity the person has in religious exercise. While obviously not fully knowing the heart at the moment the person dies, we still do not call Muslims or Unitarians Christians I hope. By your logic, I'm afraid we could never ever classify any heretical or anti-Christian church and segment of professing believers because we can't know the heart of the believer. 

Soteriology: Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and outright 5-point Arminianism
Trinitarian or Nature of Christ issues: Arianism, Modalism, Nestorianism, Unitarianism etc...
Issues regarding the Resurrection
Issues regarding Scriptural Authority
The list goes on and on.

*Clarification to the first point* What I meant to say was that mere intellectual assent, no matter how orthodox, cannot save, but denial of cardinal doctrines can certainly lead the Church to say repent or you will be damned to an individual.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let's remember that this thread is: "Why Some are Attracted to the Federal Vision"

It's not that I disagree that if somebody's full conclusions lead them to reject the Gospel they are lost but I honestly believe that it's at this point that any who might be on the edge of the issue stop listening. Can we not be those who attempt to _persuade_ those who are confused and save our ire only for the demonstrably impenitent?


----------



## BJClark

SemperFideles;




> It's not that I disagree that if somebody's full conclusions lead them to reject the Gospel they are lost but I honestly believe that it's at this point that any who might be on the edge of the issue stop listening. Can we not be those who attempt to _persuade_ those who are confused and save our ire only for the demonstrably impenitent?



I have a question, from the various people who post here, how many within your congregations understand the issues at hand?

Meaning, if the average church goers don't understand what is going on, how can they discuss with or persuade someone THEY may know who is under one of these TE's? 

I know many people know how to share with say Mormons or JW, and the like, but how can they share with those within their own denomination if they don't even understand there is a battle going on within?

My pastor has mentioned it a few times in terms of the fact we were sending one of the RE's to the GA to discuss the Federal Vision Issue, but had I not been reading here, I wouldn't have known what he was talking about. 

And I imagine there are many within the congregations who don't have a clue as to whats going on. Unfortunately many probably don't care, but I'm sure there are some who if they knew and understood the issues would be lifting up prayers for those who are going into the front lines of the battlefield against these things. 

Thats the main reason I am reading up on it, and trying to get a better understanding of the battle, so that I can KNOW how to pray more effectively for those who are on the front lines. 

And yes, it is a battle, though not of the flesh; which is what I tend to see happening with some of the verbal attacks going on; it appears many are forgetting it's a spiritual battle and not a phyiscal one, and I believe if more congregants were praying, then this battle could be over sooner rather than still fighting it 5 or 6 years from now. I've only just heard about this pretty much since I've been posting here, while had I known and understood earlier I could have been praying about it and for those involved.

Just one more thing to discuss with my pastors.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Free CP Journals to FV Apologists*



R. Scott Clark said:


> I discussed all this at length in the Conf. Presbyterian article. Did you read it? Have any of the FV folk actually read it?


Scott,
I can't say, but if they haven't, I will offer to give a free review copy of the 2006 issue to the Revs. Wilkins or Wilson if they post me at my [email protected] to request it noting this offer. Also, to sweeten the deal, I'll entertain a critical (i.e. scholarly interaction) response to run in the 2007 issue if either of them care to interact with the piece (I would need text due before April 1st). Of course you would be given space for a response Scott.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bobbi,

I think very few know what's going on actually. My pastor in CA is well aware but I know (from talking to them) that many in the congregation are oblivious. This is why I think we ought to be cautious in our speech because some of the sheep don't fully understand the issues and see similarities between themselves and those being accused. This is why the FV is so dangerous in many ways but also goes to the reason why we ought to draw out the differences _very carefully_ and not resort to very quick pronouncements that they don't understand.

In other words, it may be apparently obvious to us what the final conclusion is in the matter but it helps others who are confused if we spell out the steps _patiently_ to them so they can understand themselves. I'm the kind of person that, with technical things, can often connect the dots very quickly in my mind and arrive at the "...that won't work..." far before others that work with me. I don't presume that others understand my conclusion so I walk them to the same conclusion by explaining the steps along the way rather than presenting the conclusion beforehand presuming that they understand all the steps I've taken.

I'm not saying that all who are sympathetic to the FV are uninformed. I am saying, however, that there are the "run of the mill" sheep that might be influenced to stay away with it if the opponents are careful to avoid declaring the conclusion strongly and browbeating them that they don't see it as clearly as they. GA's and Synods will eventually rule the teaching out of bounds in good order but lets be patient with those we can persuade to stay away in the meantime.


----------



## turmeric

So let me see if I understand this...
The FV folks claim that they are just saying that it's possible to be in the visible church and not actually be in the invisible church, something we all agree with.

But, for sume reason that isn't yet clear, they keep hammering this point, using language that seems to say that one can lose his salvation if he isn't faithful, anong other things. Then, when someone objects, after saying we don't understand them, they say something that sounds even _less_ confessional.

I'm with Rich, if this is just a semantic issue, why do they keep on? There's got to be a substantive disagreement somewhere.


----------



## BJClark

Meg,




> I'm with Rich, if this is just a semantic issue, why do they keep on? There's got to be a substantive disagreement somewhere.



This has been my conclusion as well, IF it were JUST semantics why has it been on going for FIVE years (or more)??


----------



## Magma2

Theoretical said:


> Gabe,
> 
> No one is saved by believing in a certain set of doctrines



Maybe for a different thread, and I think I get your point, but one _is_ saved by believing a certain set of doctrines:

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." The gospel, rightly understood, consists of some very specific doctrines, chief among them is justification which is by belief alone. Wilkins and other FV defenders and advocates deny this. They believe in justification by faithful obedience, which is another way of saying justification by faith and works. Certainly you don't think a person is saved by some sort of existential encounter or that belief in a person is somehow different from belief in what that person thinks? The man who you've chosen for your avatar didn't think so.

On a different note, I'm still unclear why Steve Wilkins has not been brought up on charges of heresy? If Gabe is correct and Wilkins and other FV men are good Christian men and brothers in Christ, then we should desire their coming under discipline all the more. As previously mentioned, aside from whether or not any of these men can even be remotely considered Christians much less brothers, I am more curious to see if the church courts in the PCA will or will not tolerate the preaching of another gospel along side the one true gospel like OPC courts have decided per the precedents set in their handling of the Shepherd controversy and the Kinnaird trial.


----------



## BJClark

Rich,




> I think very few know what's going on actually. My pastor in CA is well aware but I know (from talking to them) that many in the congregation are oblivious. This is why I think we ought to be cautious in our speech because some of the sheep don't fully understand the issues and see similarities between themselves and those being accused. This is why the FV is so dangerous in many ways but also goes to the reason why we ought to draw out the differences _very carefully_ and not resort to very quick pronouncements that they don't understand.



If your pastor is aware, has he considered writing up a statement or newsletter explaining the issues at hand and ask that your congregation be praying about this issue?

In other words..Sound the trumpet concerning the battle at hand, and ask that ALL be praying for those on the frontlines addressing these issues.




> I'm not saying that all who are sympathetic to the FV are uninformed. I am saying, however, that there are the "run of the mill" sheep that might be influenced to stay away with it if the opponents are careful to avoid declaring the conclusion strongly and browbeating them that they don't see it as clearly as they. GA's and Synods will eventually rule the teaching out of bounds in good order but lets be patient with those we can persuade to stay away in the meantime.



it's not even about brow beating anyone to draw any conclusions, it's about informing those within their OWN congregations as to what is going on, and asking them to Pray.

I went in and discussed this with my pastor this morning, and asked if he would/could type up a newsletter for our congregation explaining the issues one by one--so that our congregation is aware of what is going on within the PCA as a whole, so that we as a congregation know what we NEED to be praying about. This being a spiritual battle, prayers need to be going up...for the Holy Spirit to go before and prepare the way those fighting the battle on the front lines.

Eph 6:10-24

Especially 18-24 concerning prayer and knowing what to pray for.


----------



## Theoretical

Magma2 said:


> Maybe for a different thread, and I think I get your point, but one _is_ saved by believing a certain set of doctrines:
> 
> "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." The gospel, rightly understood, consists of some very specific doctrines, chief among them is justification which is by belief alone. Wilkins and other FV defenders and advocates deny this. They believe in justification by faithful obedience, which is another way of saying justification by faith and works. Certainly you don't think a person is saved by some sort of existential encounter or that belief in a person is somehow different from belief in what that person thinks? The man who you've chosen for your avatar didn't think so.
> 
> On a different note, I'm still unclear why Steve Wilkins has not been brought up on charges of heresy? If Gabe is correct and Wilkins and other FV men are good Christian men and brothers in Christ, then we should desire their coming under discipline all the more. As previously mentioned, aside from whether or not any of these men can even be remotely considered Christians much less brothers, I am more curious to see if the church courts in the PCA will or will not tolerate the preaching of another gospel along side the one true gospel like OPC courts have decided per the precedents set in their handling of the Shepherd controversy and the Kinnaird trial.


Yeah, thanks for the corrective on that issue, I don't know why I missed making that point more clear. I guess I was trying to say that while you can never know ultimately about someone's salvation, no matter how orthodox he/she is, at least as far as the Church is concerned, on the other side of the coin, unbelief or heresy can certainly lead us and especially our congregations to make the judgment that unless the person repents of these views, he will not inherit eternal life.

Apologies for the lack of clarity earlier.


----------



## Theoretical

turmeric said:


> So let me see if I understand this...
> The FV folks claim that they are just saying that it's possible to be in the visible church and not actually be in the invisible church, something we all agree with.
> 
> But, for sume reason that isn't yet clear, they keep hammering this point, using language that seems to say that one can lose his salvation if he isn't faithful, anong other things. Then, when someone objects, after saying we don't understand them, they say something that sounds even _less_ confessional.
> 
> I'm with Rich, if this is just a semantic issue, why do they keep on? There's got to be a substantive disagreement somewhere.





BJClark said:


> Meg,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been my conclusion as well, IF it were JUST semantics why has it been on going for FIVE years (or more)??



 As a layman still very much trying to figure out what's being said, and not liking what I'm hearing one bit from that side as I do learn it, I totally agree with your points. Semantics is a great cover for egregious error, and has been throughout church history.


----------



## BJClark

Magma2;



> On a different note, I'm still unclear why Steve Wilkins has not been brought up on charges of heresy? If Gabe is correct and Wilkins and other FV men are good Christian men and brothers in Christ, then we should desire their coming under discipline all the more. As previously mentioned, aside from whether or not any of these men can even be remotely considered Christians much less brothers, I am more curious to see if the church courts in the PCA will or will not tolerate the preaching of another gospel along side the one true gospel like OPC courts have decided per the precedents set in their handling of the Shepherd controversy and the Kinnaird trial.



Have you asked your pastor about this?

I asked my pastor this morning why if they hold to these views are they STILL TE's in the PCA, he said there are group of Theologians (an ad hock committee) that is being formed to address this. Not quite sure when all of this is to take place...but I'm curious why it's taken FIVE years to get it done.


----------



## wsw201

BJClark said:


> SemperFideles;
> 
> I have a question, from the various people who post here, how many within your congregations understand the issues at hand?
> 
> Meaning, if the average church goers don't understand what is going on, how can they discuss with or persuade someone THEY may know who is under one of these TE's?
> 
> I know many people know how to share with say Mormons or JW, and the like, but how can they share with those within their own denomination if they don't even understand there is a battle going on within?
> 
> My pastor has mentioned it a few times in terms of the fact we were sending one of the RE's to the GA to discuss the Federal Vision Issue, but had I not been reading here, I wouldn't have known what he was talking about.
> 
> And I imagine there are many within the congregations who don't have a clue as to whats going on. Unfortunately many probably don't care, but I'm sure there are some who if they knew and understood the issues would be lifting up prayers for those who are going into the front lines of the battlefield against these things.
> 
> Thats the main reason I am reading up on it, and trying to get a better understanding of the battle, so that I can KNOW how to pray more effectively for those who are on the front lines.
> 
> And yes, it is a battle, though not of the flesh; which is what I tend to see happening with some of the verbal attacks going on; it appears many are forgetting it's a spiritual battle and not a phyiscal one, and I believe if more congregants were praying, then this battle could be over sooner rather than still fighting it 5 or 6 years from now. I've only just heard about this pretty much since I've been posting here, while had I known and understood earlier I could have been praying about it and for those involved.
> 
> Just one more thing to discuss with my pastors.



Unfortunately, not many in the pews know much if anything about the Federal Vision, much less its implications. It may be that some pastors believe that if you ignore it then, like other fads, it will just go away. Some, I think, don’t really understand what all the fuss is about because they do no understand the implications of this view of Scripture. 

Also, unfortunately, I and a number of folks in our congregation have had to deal with these issues up close and personal for many years. We understand FV and the implications.

For what it's worth, this is my take on all that I have read so far:

What JWD Smith noted about the FV, that “Their (the FV proponents) use of terms like "salvation," etc. are usually qualified by quotation marks or by the phrase "in some sense," by which indicators I take them to be using the language analogically…” to me goes to the heart of the issue. It’s the point that the AAPC Session makes in their statement on salvation and baptism. Unfortunately, using the phrase “in some sense”, which is used repeatedly in Rev. Wilkins written response to the LA Presbytery as well as his oral exam, can only leave one wondering “in what sense?” Mr. Smith says that he takes it in an analogical sense. How is everyone else supposed to take it? Why not in a real sense? A metaphysical sense? An existential sense? What sense??? Is the person in the pew suppose to guess? Is determining what sense Scripture is speaking suppose to be like taking a multiple choice test? What if you get it wrong? what are the implications? Can Eph chapter 1 really be speaking in two different senses about the same relationship? Do we have to through out the laws of non-contradiction? 

What is the real difference between the decreed elect and the covenantal elect anyway? The FV pastor says that “since Paul did not differentiate between the decreed elect and the covenantal elect in his letters to the churches, we shouldn’t either. Therefore all those who are in the Church are elect, in some sense. Besides, how can we know the mind of God as to who He has decreed to be elect? So both have a real vital relationship with Christ and all the promises of Scripture are for both, in some sense. Both are called, justified and sanctified and baptized into Christ, in some sense. Both have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which has drawn them out of sin and death and into the Kingdom of Christ, in some sense. They are both in Christ’s Church out of which there is no ordinary means of salvation, in some sense.”

Unfortunately for the person in the pew, there is the ever present “BUT”. But, the FV pastor says, “you may only be covenantally elect not decretively elect!” So what!! There really is no difference! Remember how Paul addressed the Churches! They are all elect! “But”, the FV pastor will say, “There is a small but significant difference, which is that the covenantally elect are missing one promised gift from God, that is the gift of perseverance!” How do I know whether I have this gift? The FV pastor will tell you, “Don’t apostatize”, hold fast to the promises of Christ that you are His in faith, you have been baptized, you are a member in good standing in the Kingdom of God, hold on to these to the end and you will know that God has given you this gift!” But, the person in the pew may ask, “Does not Scriptures promise that “He, who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Php 1:6)?” Can not all the elect whether covenantally or decretively claim this promise of perseverance?” The FV pastor will say” In some sense yes, and in some sense no. It all depends on what sense Scripture is speaking to at that point. Either way you can claim it, BUT…I can tell you this, if you do all the other things that I have told you, you can expect salvation! But if you do not do these things, then the curse of the covenant will be upon you.” But Scripture tells us that many will say on the last day before the judgment seat of Christ, “Lord, Lord, I have prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name”. Didn’t they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that made them capable of calling Christ Lord and do such miracles in his name? And Scripture give us no indication that these people ever apostatized during their time here in the historical church? So why are they being cast out? The FV pastor will say, “Well in “some sense”, they really didn’t have the gift of perseverance. The promise of Php 1:6 wasn’t really for them otherwise Christ would have welcomed them into their final rest. Ultimately we have to wait for our Final Justification to see who has been non-meritoriously faithful to the Covenant and let God sort out who He has given the gift of perseverance. Always remember Deut 29:29!” But this is not fair! God has promised all the benefits of Christ to me! I relied on those promises and did not apostatize. I was baptized; I was a member of the Kingdom! I had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, in some sense!

But what about Romans 8? Is Paul not talking to the whole church, ie; the elect, when he says that there is “no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus?” Have not all who are in the historical church been baptized into Christ? Doesn’t baptism signify that we actually have a vital relationship with Jesus and all the benefits ours?” The FV pastor will say” Remember what I said about baptism? I said in some sense! Regarding Romans 8, Scripture can speak covenantally or decretively. Look at the context, in some sense the passage is covenantal and in another sense it’s decretive. Maybe in one sense it’s both”. 

So in a real sense, if the FV truly reflects the Reformed Faith, we can’t attain to a full assurance until the Final Judgment/Justification. So one might as well turn to Rome. If I fulfill their requirements I know I can be saved. I might have to spend a 1,000 years or so in the purifying flames of Purgatory, but after that I will be Justified and Glorified.


----------



## Magma2

BJClark said:


> Magma2;
> 
> Have you asked your pastor about this?
> 
> I asked my pastor this morning why if they hold to these views are they STILL TE's in the PCA, he said there are group of Theologians (an ad hock committee) that is being formed to address this. Not quite sure when all of this is to take place...but I'm curious why it's taken FIVE years to get it done.




in my opinion reports by study committees are nice, but really don't accomplish anything. The OPC recently finished one that some have praised, others have criticized as pretty drapes over a coffin (see _The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up_ @ http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=227). But what has the OPC's report accomplished, even if we agree with those who praise it? What defender or advocate of the FV has been removed from office or driven from the OPC to their proper home in Idaho? One of the report's authors is also one of Norm Shepherd's and John Kinnaird's most well known supporter and loyal defender, Richard Gaffin. Yet, I'm told by some that the OPC report proves the OPC is sound. I fail to see how this follows, but my guess it provides the excuse most need to accommodate errors rather than having to confront those who teach them. Plus, committee reports make nice wallpaper. 

As for my Session, up until recently most of these men were almost completely in the dark. I did give them each a copy of Paul Elliot's "Christianity vs. NeoLiberalism" last year which evidently didn't fall completely on deaf ears, praise God. Besides, our church has seen a fairly significant influx of FV refugees from area churches like the one in Hampton and one right here in VA Beach so I think there is that added incentive to get up to speed.

Regardless, it's much easier to vent on boards like this one and endlessly discuss the nuances of FV and their use of the word "elect" than it is to confront these men in the courts and to do it correctly and in order so that it might be adjudicated properly and to God's glory. I don't have any expertise in this area, which is why I asked the question of the more able men on this forum. Still haven't gotten any answers, so maybe I will try my pastor after all.


----------



## Magma2

wsw201 said:


> So in a real sense, if the FV truly reflects the Reformed Faith, we can’t attain to a full assurance until the Final Judgment/Justification. So one might as well turn to Rome. If I fulfill their requirements I know I can be saved. I might have to spend a 1,000 years or so in the purifying flames of Purgatory, but after that I will be Justified and Glorified.




     

Simply a great post. Expand it send it to Trinity Foundation and I bet John Robbins will publish it. Of course, you can try always try New Horizons.


----------



## BJClark

Magma2;



> I fail to see how this follows, but my guess it provides the excuse most need to accommodate errors rather than having to confront those who teach them.



This is what makes me sad....how is that truly taking a stand for Christ?? 



> Plus, committee reports make nice wallpaper.



This was funny... 



I know our session isn't in the dark about the issue, one of our RE's went to the GA to address the issue, but even with the Session knowing and understanding it doesn't help the average person in the pew not knowing...They really do (in my opinion) have a need to know, so they can be praying.

To me, it's like being infected with a deadly disease and the doctor never telling you, your infected, even though he knows. How can you effectively help fight the disease if you don't know you've been infected?


----------



## BJClark

wsw201;



> Unfortunately, not many in the pews know much if anything about the Federal Vision, much less its implications. It may be that some pastors believe that if you ignore it then, like other fads, it will just go away. Some, I think, don’t really understand what all the fuss is about because they do no understand the implications of this view of Scripture.



What makes them think it will just go away? It's been ongoing for a number of years and hasn't "Gone away" YET!!

Same type of thing...in reverse, you've been told you have a disease yet refuse to acknowledge it's existance and thus refuse to do anything about it...


----------



## RiverCritter

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> For the FV proponents ... redefine the church, redefine *justification*, redefine sacraments, redefine and/or exclude the *active/passive obedience of Jesus Christ and His work* ...



I have to agree somewhat with this summary. I too, for reasons I'd rather not get into, feel strongly drawn to what I hear from some FVers. I have been corresponding via e-mail with an FV pal for a _years_ and still dunno what they mean. Early on it sounded little different from old Continental Reformed theology. Maybe even Lutheranism in a way. But with all the new meanings for common theological terms, it's like learning a whole 'nother language to get any sense of what they actually mean.

If it's no different from "visible and invisible," why invent new terms or redefine old ones to say the same thing?

*Or is all this really just about paedocommunion?* While I sympathize with paedocommunionists, it almost looks like they're willing to turn the whole Reformation on it's head just to get denominational rulings that prohibit paedocommunion reversed. I'm not suggesting that the issue of paedocommunion is unimportant - it surely is - (and sorry if this sounds really immature of me) but turning every other fundamental issue upside down just to "win" the paedocommunion argument is worse than separating over it. Is FV just an elaborate argument for justifying paedocommunion?

Fine, argue for paedocommunion.... but to overturn _Sola Fide_ in favor of _Sola Fide Formata_ is an assault on Protestantism itself, isn't it? I wouldn't go the stake for paedocommunion either way. But I'd like to believe I would die for _Sola Fide_.

Still trying to figure out what they've been trying to say for all this time,
Robin


----------



## wsw201

Magma2 said:


> Simply a great post. Expand it send it to Trinity Foundation and I bet John Robbins will publish it. Of course, you can try always try New Horizons.



How about Biblical Horizons?


----------



## gwine

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Man is not saved by the confession of a doctrine, no matter how accurate one may think it is. You do not know the hearts of men. You don't even know the hearts of RC Christians worldwide. There are elect even among the RCC, as horrible as their theology may be.
> 
> This is shameful.
> 
> I want nothing to do with this kind of thinking.



Maybe you want nothing to do with this kind of thinking now, but you did, my dear brother. From  this thread posted on 12/2/2005 at 02:35 AM you responded to a comment I made about using the word 'popish'.



> I'm quite alright with using words like Papist and Romish, and you should be too, Gerry. *They are not our brothers*.



I have emphasized part of the quote - it was not so in the original.


----------



## BJClark

these may help many of us understand more clearly the issues at hand..

http://d.dominodeveloper.net/gsmythe/home.nsf/f21ee91c64a30fa3882570900056e584/2b3eff6a86e66ec98825709a0065b8ca!OpenDocument

http://d.dominodeveloper.net/gsmythe/home.nsf/f21ee91c64a30fa3882570900056e584/4b310c5362e2e911882570ea0081e1f2!OpenDocument

http://d.dominodeveloper.net/gsmythe/home.nsf/f21ee91c64a30fa3882570900056e584/50b3a1794878effe882570ea00829f56!OpenDocument


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BJClark said:


> Rich,
> 
> If your pastor is aware, has he considered writing up a statement or newsletter explaining the issues at hand and ask that your congregation be praying about this issue?
> 
> In other words..Sound the trumpet concerning the battle at hand, and ask that ALL be praying for those on the frontlines addressing these issues.
> 
> it's not even about brow beating anyone to draw any conclusions, it's about informing those within their OWN congregations as to what is going on, and asking them to Pray.
> 
> I went in and discussed this with my pastor this morning, and asked if he would/could type up a newsletter for our congregation explaining the issues one by one--so that our congregation is aware of what is going on within the PCA as a whole, so that we as a congregation know what we NEED to be praying about. This being a spiritual battle, prayers need to be going up...for the Holy Spirit to go before and prepare the way those fighting the battle on the front lines.
> 
> Eph 6:10-24
> 
> Especially 18-24 concerning prayer and knowing what to pray for.



A lot has been discussed in this thread since I posted and it's sometimes hard to get the sense of my words.

First, I believe Wayne captured the heart of the issue in his post. Great post Wayne. It actually compliments my post regarding confusion in the pews.

It's not that my former pastor is not laboring against this but there is a difference in the way you labor against something among Elders and the way in which you protect the uninformed against them.

Wayne draws out very clearly why I have found this so dangerous, regardless of whether or not you accept that the FV is all about parsing words (which I don't, I think there are consequences):


> Wilkins written response to the LA Presbytery as well as his oral exam, can only leave one wondering “in what sense?” Mr. Smith says that he takes it in an analogical sense. How is everyone else supposed to take it? Why not in a real sense? A metaphysical sense? An existential sense? What sense??? Is the person in the pew suppose to guess? Is determining what sense Scripture is speaking suppose to be like taking a multiple choice test? What if you get it wrong? what are the implications? Can Eph chapter 1 really be speaking in two different senses about the same relationship? Do we have to through out the laws of non-contradiction?
> 
> What is the real difference between the decreed elect and the covenantal elect anyway? The FV pastor says that “since Paul did not differentiate between the decreed elect and the covenantal elect in his letters to the churches, we shouldn’t either. Therefore all those who are in the Church are elect, in some sense. Besides, how can we know the mind of God as to who He has decreed to be elect? So both have a real vital relationship with Christ and all the promises of Scripture are for both, in some sense. Both are called, justified and sanctified and baptized into Christ, in some sense. Both have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which has drawn them out of sin and death and into the Kingdom of Christ, in some sense. They are both in Christ’s Church out of which there is no ordinary means of salvation, in some sense.”
> 
> Unfortunately for the person in the pew, there is the ever present “BUT”.


Who really expects the man in the pew to make this distinction?! Some people are sometimes too smart for their own good but in some ways they're just downright dumb. They wave off this issue saying: "Well this is a debate among Pastors and such and they're supposed to be sophisticated enough to not draw the wrong conclusions...." No, it's not just being read by TE's and Pastors and those confusing *have a responsibility to be clear!* FV proponents will argue with me until they're blue in the face that the FV is not unconfessional but the opportunity for misinterpretation, _even granting that it might be orthodox_, makes it just as dangerous.

*BREAK, BREAK*

Now everyone can see that I'm passionate that the error be dealt with quickly.

But, I was arguing for how we ought to relate to the man in the pew who is confused by these things. As I argued, we ought to be _gentle_ and patient and not presume that he understands the conclusion in the matter. If he has at all grown sympathetic to the cause and read a million posts from the FV saying "...they mischarecterize us..." then stating the conclusion of the matter before you've patiently discipled the man to understand the error could end up closing him down and making him think there is truth to "...all they do is mischaracterize..." thing.

As for those who are oblivious about it because they just don't read about such things - some of them need to be trained in the basics anyhow. I don't think it does any good to catalog all the errors in front of a Church body oblivious to the errors. Train them on the truth and deal with error that you know they've gotten themselves into it but don't expose them to error and try to get them to parse this debate.


----------



## nominalist747

*Horton on the historical/eschatological*

From his article at http://www.modernreformation.org/mh04permadd.htm: (emphasis added)



> Augustine, one of the key sources for this invisible-visible church distinction, can be improved on by reference to eschatology. In other words, _*the proper distinction is not between two types of churches, one "inner" and another "outer," but rather two eras of the one church's existence: "this present age" and "the age to come." *_This is the import of the parable of the wheat and weeds: Jesus will sort things out in the end. But for now, the visible church is a garden of wheat and weeds and sometimes we cannot tell them apart. In this age, the church is compromised; in the next, it is glorified -- completely purged of being, as we lament in the hymn, "by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed." The distinction between the present and the future condition of the church is the corporate analogue to the paradoxical life of the individual believer as "simultaneously justified and sinful." But just as we are definitively new creatures in Christ, despite our continuing battle with sin, the church really is the site of God's covenantal grace. Like any family, it has its problems, but because it is Christ's family, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). To this church Christ has entrusted the keys of the kingdom, so that "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (v. 19). Just as the individual believer is a work in progress, so corporately the church even in its weakness is the place where the age to come breaks in on this present evil age. It is not because of anything intrinsic to the church itself, but because the ministry of the keys has been entrusted to her. _*It is through its ministry of Word and Sacrament, as well as discipline, that the Spirit makes us taste the heavenly reality of God's sabbath rest. Even the nonelect in the visible church experience through this ministry some measure of the kingdom reality,*_ as they have been "enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" (Heb. 6:4-5)...It [the church] is not a vague, abstract, invisible reality, but a tangible, concrete, visible one -- amid all the counterevidence.



There you go--I knew I'd heard it somewhere from MH. So you can't take folks out to the woodshed just for the terminology they use. 

On the second emphasis, what is the kingdom reality? It is salvation (Rev. 12:10), forgiveness and adoption (Col. 1:13-14), etc. So MH holds that the nonelect experience these things "in some measure." The FV approach ("in some sense") seems very similar to me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JWD,

After everything that has been written, do you actually believe that this is about _words_? Have you actually been reading the threads where, over and over, it is repeated that the semantics are not the issue but the _substance_?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

And by the way, you asked Dr. Clark:


> I have heard Mike Horton use the terms "historical" and "eschatological" for the church, so simply using new terms does not mean you've denied the confession (Dr. Clark, I know you don't think that DW and MH mean the same thing, but can you back me up that MH does use the terms?).


To which Dr. Clark replied that he hadn't heard Dr. Horton use those terms. In your quote, he does _not_ nor does he ever imply that the benefits that are said to _only_ accrue to the elect accrue to everyone in the visible Church in some sense. He is merely restating Confessional language that those who fall away do participate in benefits.

I would suggest you go back and read the thread about the difference between the historic use of Conditional election and the way the FV uses it here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18377


----------



## nominalist747

*Reply to Scott Hooker*



Theoretical said:


> I think it is naive and dangerous to take questionable statements on critical doctrines (which justification really is) at their face value when dealing with an _officer of the church_. It is a sign and tendency of our speculative, individualistic age that everyone has to have his or her own specific "take" on this doctrinal matter and that we have to owe that person a lot of charity on this opinion, no matter how strong or weak it may be.



I think you've gotten me backward, here: I don't take the questionable statements at face value, but rather the unquestionable ones. When a guy says "faith is the alone instrument of justification," (which DW has said: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2923) I believe him, so that when he goes on to say that good works are necessary to salvation, I assume that by the latter he does not mean to deny the former. So I don't automatically believe everyone has a right to their specific take, necessarily, but I try to avoid speculation and individualism by believing a man, especially a pastor in good standing, to be telling the truth.



> On critical doctrine, I would afford a _teacher or pastor_ almost no charity if he/she started talking even remotely aberrantly about the Trinity or the Resurrection. While I have no sympathies with the FV movement as I have come to know of it, I do see why some might be drawn to it; nonetheless, when a whole group of teachers and pastors start using ambiguous language about one of the most critical doctrines of the Faith, I as a confessional presbyterian have absolutely no obligation to given them a benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof is on them before my denomination and its confessional standards. The standards stand, and challenges to them (implied or direct) must prove why the confessions should be amended, not why the confessions should just bend to their will. Don't like the inflexible standards of a confessional church? Fine, set up a different denomination or go to a church that is non-confessional, but do not try to redefine the confession to say something it does not say.



Granted, but in general the FV don't challenge the standards, they agree with them, but don't treat them as exhaustive. No one has said that the WCF should be done away with, or that in should be altered to change the definition of justification. Just thinking that the standards are not completely sufficient and exhaustive, however, is not grounds for heresy (e.g., there are WSC profs who think a new confession would be a good thing). 




> Every bit of rhetoric I've heard from FV advocates of using these words in unsusual ways smacks of liberalism and doctrinal compromise.



Except for the fact that only reason they want to use the words in those ways is that Scripture uses the terms in those ways, not because of some rationalism. And can I just observe that the accusation of liberalism and compromise sounds odd from someone who can refer to a "teacher or pastor" as "he/she"?


----------



## MW

nominalist747 said:


> On the second emphasis, what is the kingdom reality? It is salvation (Rev. 12:10), forgiveness and adoption (Col. 1:13-14), etc. So MH holds that the nonelect experience these things "in some measure." The FV approach ("in some sense") seems very similar to me.



There are kingdom privileges other than salvation and forgiveness. E.g., the Pharisees saw the miracles of Christ. Miracles were a sign the kingdom of God was amongst them -- the finger of God. Hence they experienced the powers of the world to come. One might speak assuredly (without vagueness) of kingdom privileges, such as baptism and the preached Word, as being given to those who do not belong to the eternal kingdom of heaven. This does not imply that the same people are partakers of what baptism represents or that they are doers of the Word and not hearers only.


----------



## nominalist747

*Reply to Rich*

Rich,

You just said that MH never uses the terms "historical" and "eschatological," but he clearly means those things in substance. So now you're saying that MH doesn't say it because he doesn't use those words. Isn't this an instance of looking at the words instead of the substance? And the post I was replying to insisted that the problem was replacing the terms, while DW emphasizes in several places that he is trying to keep the substance of the distinction with different language. There, then, it did seem to be an issue of the words: the use of different words was taken to mean a denial of the substance, when it is not necessarily the case. 

And MH does say that the nonelect experience the kingdom reality, but isn't the kingdom reality a benefit that only _truly_ comes to the elect? And isn't the reality of the kingdom true forgiveness, adoption, and salvation? So "kingdom reality" can be taken to refer to the benefits that truly come to the elect. Again, you point out that MH doesn't use certain words, when it seems that the substance is there.


----------



## nominalist747

armourbearer said:


> There are kingdom privileges other than salvation and forgiveness. E.g., the Pharisees saw the miracles of Christ. Miracles were a sign the kingdom of God was amongst them -- the finger of God. Hence they experienced the powers of the world to come. One might speak assuredly (without vagueness) of kingdom privileges, such as baptism and the preached Word, as being given to those who do not belong to the eternal kingdom of heaven. This does not imply that the same people are partakers of what baptism represents or that they are doers of the Word and not hearers only.



Right, and the FV repeatedly say that the difference between the elect and nonelect in the covenant community is in fact the latter--the elect are doers of the Word, while the nonelect are hearers only. And 1 Cor. 10:1-6 says that those who fell away partook somehow in what the sacraments represented, i.e., Christ Himself.


----------



## MW

nominalist747 said:


> Right, and the FV repeatedly say that the difference between the elect and nonelect in the covenant community is in fact the latter--the elect are doers of the Word, while the nonelect are hearers only. And 1 Cor. 10:1-6 says that those who fell away partook somehow in what the sacraments represented, i.e., Christ Himself.



One who experiences "forgiveness" is more than a hearer of the Word, he is a partaker of what the Word promises to the children of God. Wilkins states that forgiveness can be lost. You know this, which is evident from the fact that in your previous post you tried to include forgiveness in kingdom blessings to the non elect.

Concerning 1 Cor. 10, yes, they partook of Christ SACRAMENTALLY. But sacramental participation is only effectual with respect to the elect. Hence sacramental participation in Christ does not necessarily mean that they were REALLY in Christ. Only on the basis of the FV understanding of "sacramental efficacy" could one leap from SACRAMENTAL to REAL participation in Christ. Such a view destroys the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified by confusing them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

nominalist747 said:


> Rich,
> 
> You just said that MH never uses the terms "historical" and "eschatological," but he clearly means those things in substance. So now you're saying that MH doesn't say it because he doesn't use those words. Isn't this an instance of looking at the words instead of the substance? And the post I was replying to insisted that the problem was replacing the terms, while DW emphasizes in several places that he is trying to keep the substance of the distinction with different language. There, then, it did seem to be an issue of the words: the use of different words was taken to mean a denial of the substance, when it is not necessarily the case.
> 
> And MH does say that the nonelect experience the kingdom reality, but isn't the kingdom reality a benefit that only _truly_ comes to the elect? And isn't the reality of the kingdom true forgiveness, adoption, and salvation? So "kingdom reality" can be taken to refer to the benefits that truly come to the elect. Again, you point out that MH doesn't use certain words, when it seems that the substance is there.



You really are frustrating to interact with because you don't take the time to read people for what they said:

You said that you wanted Dr. Clark to back you up on the use of the _terms_ historical and eschatological Church, I merely replied that Dr. Clark had said he had never heard him use those _terms_. I do not agree, at all, that MH uses the words with even remotely the same substance as the FV does. It is one thing to say that the non-elect participate externally by partaking of the sacraments, it is quite another to say that they do so just like the elect but only a difference in degrees perhaps.

Let's just make this really simple: the forgiveness of sins. The FV use passages where Paul addresses a congregation and use words that apply to the elect. The FV says: "Well Paul is addressing this congregation, he knows some are likely reprobate, so forgiveness of sins applies to them in some sense too."

That is NOT what Michael Horton would ever say so the terms have real difference in substance and they're NOT saying what Rev. Winzer just said either.

They are saying that, while in the Church, because they're in Christ (in some sense), they have forgiveness of sins in some sense. We say there is NO sense in which their sins are forgiven even temporally. Yes they participate in the hearing of the Word and in the Sacraments but they never have faith that rests in Christ, _which, alone, is the instrument of their justification_ and unites them to Christ and gives them a benefit like forgiveness of sins.

Let me ask you a simple question: Have you read the thread that I just referred to you or not? If you haven't then please read it before you post in this thread again. If you forgot where the link is, here it is again: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18377


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Yes they participate in the hearing of the Word and in the Sacraments but they never have faith that rests in Christ, _which, alone, is the instrument of their justification_ and unites them to Christ and gives them a benefit like forgiveness of sins.



Thiis is the crucial point. If they follow the Westminster formulation, forgiveness of sins belongs to the justified state. As I noted earlier, that little chapter on adoption -- so few words, so great matter -- teaches explicitly "ALL those that are justified" are "NEVER cast off." It is true that castaways might give a temporal *appearance* of being in a justified state and of having their sins forgiven. Westminster theology allows fully for the presence of phenomenological believers. But it does not allow for the apostasy of any who are *real* partakers in spiritual blessings.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> There are kingdom privileges other than salvation and forgiveness. E.g., the Pharisees saw the miracles of Christ. Miracles were a sign the kingdom of God was amongst them -- the finger of God. Hence they experienced the powers of the world to come.



Let's not forget . . . 

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God."


----------



## Magma2

nominalist747 said:


> And MH does say that the nonelect experience the kingdom reality, but isn't the kingdom reality a benefit that only _truly_ comes to the elect?



Without question. 

Answer (WLC 31)

With whom was the covenant of grace made?

The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, *and in him with all the elect as his seed.*


Further evidence is found in Genesis when we're taught that the covenant was with Isaac, not Ishmael, even if Ishmael received some temporal blessings and protections:

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. *But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.*

FV pastors are not competent to rightly divide God's word and their minds are darkened. in my opinion this is something the average pew sitter can easily understand. A is A even if some want to play the "analogy" game.


----------



## crhoades

If one pauses long enough to read this string of catechism questions and answers below they will be left scratching their head at the hub-bub or shall I say brouhaha that has been generated. Pretty much most of the topics are addressed _confessionally_ here and should have been _subscribed_ to by all parties of the debate. Sorry to play copy-n-paste the confession but the visible/invisible, who's in who's out, the benefits, justification basically are all spelled out with scripture proofs no less. 

Pertinent passages:

WLC 61 Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church? A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.(1)
(1) John 12:38-40; Rom. 9:6; Matt. 22:14; Matt. 7:21; Rom. 11:7 ​ 

WLC 62 What is the visible church? A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion,(1) and of their children.(2) ​(1) 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 15:9-12; Rev. 7:9; Ps. 2:8; Ps. 22:27-31; Ps. 45:17; Matt. 28:19,20; Isa. 59:21 
(2) 1 Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Rom. 11:16; Gen. 17:7 ​ 

WLC 63 What are the special privileges of the visible church? A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God's special care and government;(1) of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies,(2) and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation,(3) and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved,(4) and excluding none that will come unto him.(5) ​(1) Isa. 4:5,6; 1 Tim. 4:10 
(2) Ps. 115:1,2,9; Isa. 31:4,5; Zech. 12:2,3,4,8,9 
(3) Acts 2:39,42 
(4) Ps. 147:19,20; Rom. 9:4; Eph. 4:11,12; Mark 16:15,16 
(5) John 6:37 ​ 

WLC 64 What is the invisible church? A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.(1) ​(1) Eph. 1:10,22,23; John 10:16; John 11:52 


WLC 65 What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ? A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.(1) ​(1) John 17:21; Eph. 2:5,6; John 17:24 


WLC 66 What is that union which the elect have with Christ? A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace,(1) whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband;(2) which is done in their effectual calling.(3) ​(1) Eph. 1:22; Eph. 2:6-8 
(2) 1 Cor. 6:17; John 10:28; Eph. 5:23,30 
(3) 1 Pet. 5:10; 1 Cor. 1:9 ​ 

WLC 67 What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace,(1) whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto(2) ) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit;(3) savingly enlightening their minds,(4) renewing and powerfully determining their wills,(5) so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.(6) ​(1) John 5:25; Eph. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 1:8,9 
(2) Tit. 3:4,5; Eph. 2:4,5,7,8,9; Rom. 9:11 
(3) 2 Cor. 5:20 compared with 2 Cor. 6:1,2; John 6:44; 2 Thess. 2:13,14 
(4) Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 2:10,12 
(5) Ezek. 11:19; Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:45 
(6) Eph. 2:5; Phil. 2:13; Deut. 30:6 ​ 

WLC 68 Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called;(1) although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word,(2) and have some common operations of the Spirit;(3) who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.(4) ​(1) Acts 13:48 
(2) Matt. 22:14 
(3) Matt. 7:22; Matt. 13:20,21; Heb. 6:4-6 
(4) John 12:38-40; Acts 28:25-27; John 6:64,65; Ps. 81:11,12 ​ 

WLC 69 What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ? A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification,(1) adoption,(2) sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.(3) ​(1) Rom. 8:30 
(2) Eph. 1:5 
(3) 1 Cor. 1:30 ​ 

WLC 70 What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners,(1) in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;(2) not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,(3) but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,(4) and received by faith alone.(5) ​(1) Rom. 3:22,24,25; Rom. 4:5 
(2) 2 Cor. 5:19,21; Rom. 3:22,24,25,27,28 
(3) Tit. 3:5,7; Eph. 1:7 
(4) Rom. 5:17-19; Rom. 4:6-8 
(5) Acts 10:43; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9 ​ 

WLC 71 How is justification an act of God's free grace? A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in the behalf of them that are justified,(1) yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them and did provide this surety, his own only Son,(2) imputing his righteousness to them,(3) and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith,(4) which also is his gift,(5) their justification is to them of free grace.(6) ​(1) Rom. 5:8-10,19 
(2) 1 Tim. 2:5,6; Heb. 10:10; Matt. 20:28; Dan. 9:24,26; Isa. 53:4,5,6,10,11,12; Heb. 7:22; Rom. 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:18,19 
(3) 2 Cor. 5:21 
(4) Rom. 3:24,25 
(5) Eph. 2:8 
(6) Eph. 1:7 ​ 

WLC 72 What is justifying faith? A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,(1) wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit(2) and word of God,(3) whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,(4) not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,(5) but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,(6) and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.(7) ​(1) Heb. 10:39 
(2) 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19 
(3) Rom. 10:14,17 
(4) Acts 2:37; Acts 16:30; John 16:8,9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1; Acts 4:12 
(5) Eph. 1:13 
(6) John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Acts 10:43 
(7) Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11 ​ 

WLC 73 How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,(1) not as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;(2) but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.(3) ​(1) Gal. 3:11; Rom. 3:28 
(2) Rom. 4:5; Rom. 10:10 ​(3) John 1:12; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:16


----------



## re4med

toddpedlar said:


> Well, if you've listened to any of the programs on Covenant Radio, you'll recognize that neither of the hosts (despite what they say) is on the fence with regard to FV. There is a clear commitment to essentially all the points that FV folks typically bring up - and no amount of saying "we aren't taking any position" can make it true that there isn't a position that they both hold. Don't know if any of you listened to the program with Wilkins on it, but it was softball after softball... and if true "investigative reporting" were going on, I'd think there would be a different feel to those programs.



Todd (and others),

My position is not dogmatic, Todd, and you know that as we have privately discussed it numerous times. Do I think there is some value in some of the aspects that the suppossed FV people are bringing to light? Yes. Do I agree with everything entirely. No. 

As far as the Wilkins interview is concerned, there was a great deal of concern that we be very careful on the issue of Baptism given the pending reexamination of Steve. Of course, if there were questions that you think we missed (and I am sure we did. I have never pretended to be a good interviewer -- I am just doing the best I can and learning as I go) you had every opportunity to offer questions relating to the topic in the Covenant Radio fourm. I will ask any question that is presented on the forum to my guests regardles of my personal bias. If you have questions, ask them. If you want to flesh out something than do so on the forum and we will be glad to present them. Also, in the interview with Schlissel I was more than willing to take the "devil's advocate" side of the issue and present questions from that side, and I did. My co-host even thought I was arguing with Schlissel at one point in the interview (which I wasn't). All this being considered anyone who has questions can certainly ask them on the forum. That is why it is there and plenty of notice is given of who will be coming on the show. There is also a "post-interview" thread for each guest we have on air as to allow people to respond to comments and offer more questions, etc.


----------



## re4med

NaphtaliPress said:


> Todd,
> How has Bill handled the non FV guests?



To be fair we have asked a number of anti-FV individuals to come on the program and discuss the issue. All I can do is ask them to come on and talk about it. I certainly cannot make them come on the show. Honestly, I wish they would. Perhaps some of you might encourage a few of the "experts" to accept the invites I have sent them so that we can do so. 

However, I can answer the question in a simple way: I would treat them with respect and dignity as a gentlemen. I do not see the anti-FV individuals as enemies (they are my brothers) nor do I see the FV proponents as some here on this forum (and elsewhere) as heretics necessarily, or enemies of the truth. Certainly some here will dispute that position and disagree and that is fine. Opinions are certainly plenty in this area. All I am saying is that I strive to treat all of our guests with fairness and dignity and as a Christian ought to treat them regardless of my point of view. Do I offer my points of view during the programs? Yes. Am I willing to disagree on air? Yes. Am I willing to ask hard questions? Sure. 

Keep in mind that just because I agree with some aspects of what our guests may be saying does not mean I am now a "disciple" of that guest.

Anyhow, and for the record, we are interested in having anyone on the show regardless of current thinking on the FV matter.


----------



## Magma2

crhoades said:


> If one pauses long enough to read this string of catechism questions and answers below they will be left scratching their head at the hub-bub or shall I say brouhaha that has been generated. Pretty much most of the topics are addressed _confessionally_ here and should have been _subscribed_ to by all parties of the debate. Sorry to play copy-n-paste the confession but the visible/invisible, who's in who's out, the benefits, justification basically are all spelled out with scripture proofs no less.



That would require that all FV advocates like Wilkins actually held to the Confession as containing the system of doctrine that is taught in Scripture. Wilkins claims to, but does not. Hence the hub-bub. But you do point out that in spite of some attempts to float every word in their defense into the rarified ethers of analogy and paradox, the heresies of Neo-legalism are easy to identify and we have a ready tool, complete with proofs from Scripture, by which to do it. Nice post.


----------



## Magma2

PhD said:


> To be fair we have asked a number of anti-FV individuals to come on the program and discuss the issue.



A number? Which ones?


----------



## Theoretical

nominalist747 said:


> I think you've gotten me backward, here: I don't take the questionable statements at face value, but rather the unquestionable ones. When a guy says "faith is the alone instrument of justification," (which DW has said: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2923) I believe him, so that when he goes on to say that good works are necessary to salvation, I assume that by the latter he does not mean to deny the former. So I don't automatically believe everyone has a right to their specific take, necessarily, but I try to avoid speculation and individualism by believing a man, especially a pastor in good standing, to be telling the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Granted, but in general the FV don't challenge the standards, they agree with them, but don't treat them as exhaustive. No one has said that the WCF should be done away with, or that in should be altered to change the definition of justification. Just thinking that the standards are not completely sufficient and exhaustive, however, is not grounds for heresy (e.g., there are WSC profs who think a new confession would be a good thing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that only reason they want to use the words in those ways is that Scripture uses the terms in those ways, not because of some rationalism. And can I just observe that the accusation of liberalism and compromise sounds odd from someone who can refer to a "teacher or pastor" as "he/she"?



First, sorry I didn't notice the remaining presence of he/she in my discussion. I was originally posting a portion speaking of believers in general, then changed it to only officers and teachers, forgetting to alter that. I assure you I have absolutely no desire to see women in mixed gender teaching roles for adults, and especially not as pastors within the church. My church growing up had numerous women ministers - a calamity. The original post will be corrected and so noted.

Second, my confidence in a teacher/elder/pastor's adherence to a doctrine like justification is called into question when very related issues are raised that _seem_ to be saying something quite different. One of the greatest benefits of confessions is that they are a great opportunity for branches of the Church to express very difficult doctrines clearly, precisely, and directly. After all, how much poorer and weaker would we be on an continually difficult doctrine like the Trinity were it not for the arduous and intolerant (to alternative formulations) language of the Athanasian Creed? Yes doctine is complex and should be encouraged to be nuanced, precise, and highly descriptive, particularly within church standards.

Basically, I as a student of both politics, religion, and history have a very deep fear of when the meanings of words start getting muddled. Particularly with the greatest weakness of the English language also being its greatest strength; namely, its tendency to have a host of meanings for any given word, with a new meaning being propogated over the course of say ten years. Because of this flexibility, statements on secondary matters that appear to be changes of the meaning of the word (justification in this case) must be taken seriously. One only has to look at the statements of faith of lots of evangelical churches and the doctrine preached from the pulpit that platitutes can be easily stated, with no (or a radically different) meaning behind them.


----------



## re4med

Magma2 said:


> A number? Which ones?



well, exactly, there have been three:

John Otis
Guy Waters
Calvin Beisner (who has never responded)


----------



## Magma2

PhD said:


> well, exactly, there have been three:
> 
> John Otis
> Guy Waters
> Calvin Beisner (who has never responded)



Thanks. So three. For those who did respond, what was the reason(s) they declined?


----------



## re4med

Magma2 said:


> Thanks. So three. For those who did respond, what was the reason(s) they declined?



The reasons don't really matter do they? They declined (and not because they think I am FV and they are not). The specifics are between me and them.

BTW, it should be noted that I am not FV but in todays climate it does seem that you have to be either FV or non-FV. As I stated before, there are definitely aspects of the FV paradigm that I think is helpful and needful in today's church. There are other matters that I am still wrestling with. So, contrary to my opponents, this is my poistion. Now it can dobuted and it can be denied but not without questioning my integrity.


----------



## Magma2

PhD said:


> The reasons don't really matter do they? They declined (and not because they think I am FV and they are not). The specifics are between me and them.



Fair enough.



> BTW, it should be noted that I am not FV but in todays climate it does seem that you have to be either FV or non-FV.




That's exactly right. There is no middle ground. I'm glad you're finally realizing that William. 

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"


----------



## re4med

> "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"



I would not consider them to be unbelievers. Apparently you do. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I must say that it is truly sad that you hold it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

PhD said:


> I would not consider them to be unbelievers. Apparently you do. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I must say that it is truly sad that you hold it.


----------



## Magma2

PhD said:


> I would not consider them to be unbelievers. Apparently you do. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I must say that it is truly sad that you hold it.



Why is that sad? Justification is by belief alone. Covenetal obedience and even our perseverance play no role. Read _Everlasting Righteousness_ by Bonar. Perhaps then you wouldn't be so easily fooled.


----------



## Apologia

R. Scott Clark said:


> Oh, that's good for the Reformed churches!
> 
> rsc



Sorry so late in responding.

Yes, it is good for Reformed churches. There are plenty of Reformed Preterists out there. There is an entire book from the Reformed camp against Preterism (_When Shall These Things Be_).

It is an issue in the Reformed camp, it is an issue that people have questions on, so we deal with it.

Coming up soon, we have a Reformed Partial-Preterist debating a Preterist. Again, so people can know the differences in the view.


----------



## Apologia

toddpedlar said:


> Well, if you've listened to any of the programs on Covenant Radio, you'll recognize that neither of the hosts (despite what they say) is on the fence with regard to FV. There is a clear commitment to essentially all the points that FV folks typically bring up - and no amount of saying "we aren't taking any position" can make it true that there isn't a position that they both hold. Don't know if any of you listened to the program with Wilkins on it, but it was softball after softball... and if true "investigative reporting" were going on, I'd think there would be a different feel to those programs.



OK, thanks for the love and accusations. But now, let's put some money where the mouth is:

We're having Doug Wilson on tomorrow night...some of you big hitters supply me with some good hardballs. Since every board I read says no one is asking the right questions, and you think we are not on our show, give me some of these "right questions" to ask of Mr. Wilson. About 3-5 would be adequate for our show length. I don't want to ask "soft balls" so give me some hard balls to ask. We've invited everyone to ask in our forum, but since you won't come to us, I come to you.

Thanks in advance for your help,


----------



## Apologia

R. Scott Clark said:


> Yes, Judas _seemed _to be in! That's we've been saying for centuries, but he wasn't IN the covenant of grace in any substantial way. Why is is this so blinking hard to understand? He _seemed_ to be in because he was _really_ a hypocrite and he wasn't ever actually united to Christ except in a formal, outward way.



Not sure if this has been asked or addressed, being new to the board and not having time to read all of the posts so far, but I did think of something upon reading this. (regardless of what people say about me on this board, I still am studying and have questions....and yes Scott, even your book is on it's way to me as we speak...actually ordered a week ago).

The day _*before*_ Judas "went out," what was his standing in the church (congregation of followers)? How did his "pastor" treat him? Was he considered in or out of union with Christ by those serving around him? Would his fellow believers have consider him in or out of the Covenant? By what guideline was his standing considered? How/why did the Spirit work through him and why did Christ serve him communion, knowing he was never _really_ in?

These are some of the questions I ponder. By what standard do we judge people next to us in the pew, to determine if they are in or out? How does my pastor know who to include and exclude in his declarations of faithfulness and pardon of sin? How does he address our congregation....Hello saints...and those hypocrites just faking it...welcome!?

If Judas was never IN anything, what was he, and what was he considered that day before he fell, and what did he fall from if he was never part of anything to fall out of (I think someone did ask this similar question, so sorry if a repeat)?

Thanks


----------



## tewilder

BJClark said:


> wsw201;
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them think it will just go away? It's been ongoing for a number of years and hasn't "Gone away" YET!!
> 
> Same type of thing...in reverse, you've been told you have a disease yet refuse to acknowledge it's existance and thus refuse to do anything about it...



In your denomination (PCA) the Federal Vision is being address on two tracks. 

1) A study committee has been set up. The committee will report to the General Assembly, but this will have no normative status. Still the report, as something commissioned by the General Assembly, could be viewed given a general sense of how the PCA sees things.

2) There is a judicial process in progress about the views of one particular FV writer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Apologia said:


> OK, thanks for the love and accusations. But now, let's put some money where the mouth is:
> 
> We're having Doug Wilson on tomorrow night...some of you big hitters supply me with some good hardballs. Since every board I read says no one is asking the right questions, and you think we are not on our show, give me some of these "right questions" to ask of Mr. Wilson. About 3-5 would be adequate for our show length. I don't want to ask "soft balls" so give me some hard balls to ask. We've invited everyone to ask in our forum, but since you won't come to us, I come to you.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help,



Here are some hardball questions:

1. The Reformed camp has always recognized that we treat people like Judas with the "judgment of charity". We don't know who the Elect are so we disciple all _presuming_ they are Christians. For instance, Jesus knew Judas was apostate but He still discipled Him from the beginning as an Apostle - reproving them all equally and not giving special treatment to Judas. Yet the Scriptures say that Judas was never a believer from the beginning. In the eyes of God, was Judas ever forgiven his sins on the basis of Christ's righteousness?

2. More generally, the Federal Vision teaches a temporary or historical union with Christ to be distinguished from a full or final union with Christ when the true believers are vindicated at the judgment. The basis of this teaching are passages in Ephesians 1 and elsewhere where Paul addresses the entire Church Body and speaks of forgiveness of sins, being united to Christ, etc. The Federal Vision argues that, because Paul is addressing a wide audience, that Paul's language refers both to those both predestined to glory and those elected to reprobation. They further argue, then, that instances of this language demonstrate that the reprobate have some of the benefits that the Reformed Confessions have _always_ confined to the Elect. One of them being forgiveness of sins as the above. The questions are, without equivocation:

Is there ever a time, historically or finally, when God looks at a person who is ultimately reprobate (never regenerated) and sees that person as forgiven, covered by the Blood of Christ and having Christ's righteousness applied to that person? Is there _ever_ a time that the person temporarily possesses those gifts and then loses them.

If the basis for the forgiveness of sins is Covenantal union with Christ and you say yes to the above (even equivocating on language) then does that not repudiate the historic Reformed position that the _instrument_ of our justification is a faith that rests upon the finished work of Christ? How does a reprobate person ever possess that faith that rests upon Christ?

3. If you and the others in the FV camp are all orthodox and merely misunderstood by the majority in the Reformed camp then what right do you have to be disrupting the unity of the Church in haggling over words? It would seem you've tried far too long to get people to accept new language if we're all really singing the same tune in substance. If there is something different about what you teach then why don't you offer a critique of the _defects_ of historic Reformed theology? Why don't you explain why you believe it has been necessary to tear apart Churches and Presbyteries? What is this core doctrine that the Reformed Churches have been missing, that you discovered, that requires ths upheaval?



Apologia said:


> Not sure if this has been asked or addressed, being new to the board and not having time to read all of the posts so far, but I did think of something upon reading this. (regardless of what people say about me on this board, I still am studying and have questions....and yes Scott, even your book is on it's way to me as we speak...actually ordered a week ago).
> 
> The day _*before*_ Judas "went out," what was his standing in the church (congregation of followers)? How did his "pastor" treat him? Was he considered in or out of union with Christ by those serving around him? Would his fellow believers have consider him in or out of the Covenant? By what guideline was his standing considered? How/why did the Spirit work through him and why did Christ serve him communion, knowing he was never _really_ in?


It has been answered. As noted, Judas was treated as if he was a believer. It's not a question of peering into the hidden counsel of God and the Church doing the job of dividing the sheep from the goats in day to day ministry. But Christ always knew His own and He says so about Judas. The question I have for you that I posed to Doug Wilson (if you ask it): Were Judas' sins ever covered in Christ's blood? Was the obedience of Christ ever imputed to Judas on his behalf in the eyes of God? Did Judas ever have a faith that completed rested on the work of Christ? _That_ is the core issue of union with Christ.



> These are some of the questions I ponder. By what standard do we judge people next to us in the pew, to determine if they are in or out? How does my pastor know who to include and exclude in his declarations of faithfulness and pardon of sin? How does he address our congregation....Hello saints...and those hypocrites just faking it...welcome!?


He _doesn't_ know and so he exhorts and reproves as if he does. What he _must not do_ is then go the extra mile and say: "Well if I'm supposed to treat them all the same, then God must be doing the same thing...." Look at the passage in Acts regarding the shipwreck in Malta and how Paul warns all the men not to abandon ship or their lives would be lost. This was _after_ he had special revelation that _everybody_ would be spared.



> If Judas was never IN anything, what was he, and what was he considered that day before he fell, and what did he fall from if he was never part of anything to fall out of (I think someone did ask this similar question, so sorry if a repeat)?



Judas was an Apostle. He was in the Covenant. He was blessed to see, up front and personal, the works of God. He was called to repentance. He was blessed in every way. He was commanded to repent and rest on Christ's work. He _never_ did. His sins were _never_ forgiven Him on the basis of the finished work of Christ which requires that we _believe_ and not just participate in.


----------



## Apologia

Thanks for the questions, we will use them.

If anyone has more, you can post to our forum direct so we'll see them before the interview:

http://covenantradio.com/forum/index.php?topic=28.0

Questions though on your comments:



SemperFideles said:


> It has been answered. As noted, Judas was treated as if he was a believer. It's not a question of peering into the hidden counsel of God and the Church doing the job of dividing the sheep from the goats in day to day ministry. But Christ always knew His own and He says so about Judas. The question I have for you that I posed to Doug Wilson (if you ask it): Were Judas' sins ever covered in Christ's blood? Was the obedience of Christ ever imputed to Judas on his behalf in the eyes of God? Did Judas ever have a faith that completed rested on the work of Christ? _That_ is the core issue of union with Christ.



But wait, I think it does come down to a peering into the hidden counsel of God, that seems to be the main issue that started this whole controversy. The 2002 Pastor's Conference was a conference for pastor's on how to deal with the day to day issues of the physical church they were over. It was all about how to deal with life on Earth in the church. 

The WCF is dealing with theology from God's point...theological accuracy and systematic views of God's working behind the scenes. but it appears to me that he conference was from a ground up approach for pastor's on how to deal with assurance and issues in the congregations. If a congregation member, like Judas, came to his pastor and said "what evidence can I have that I am in?" and the pastor said look to your baptism and put your faith in Christ and his promises from that, and stay faithful to Christ, how is that wrong, and what should be said. That seems to be one of the issues that stemmed from the original 2002 conference, right? I don't recall them ever addressing the behind the scenes working of God, but the visible, external workings in the congregations, ad the objectivity of the covenant process.

Maybe I am still missing something.



SemperFideles said:


> He _doesn't_ know and so he exhorts and reproves as if he does. What he _must not do_ is then go the extra mile and say: "Well if I'm supposed to treat them all the same, then God must be doing the same thing...." Look at the passage in Acts regarding the shipwreck in Malta and how Paul warns all the men not to abandon ship or their lives would be lost. This was _after_ he had special revelation that _everybody_ would be spared.



Again, I am confused some, as this language you use is what I recall hearing said at the 2002 Conference in dealing with the church body. Paul referred to all of the members of a church in his letters as Saints, yet exhorted them to remain faithful, as if they had something they could lose. The conference speakers commented to respond just like this, and they have been taken to task. 

This is why there is such a confusion in this FV situation. I hear people say "they teach such-and-such which is heresy" ...then I find other Reformers saying the same thing, and even Scripture examples.

Maybe I missed something again, cause I don't recall the speakers saying God treats the the same way behind the scenes. Actually, I find very little of God telling us how his working behind the scenes are perceptible enough to us to make clear cut judgments like this.



SemperFideles said:


> Judas was an Apostle. He was in the Covenant. He was blessed to see, up front and personal, the works of God. He was called to repentance. He was blessed in every way. He was commanded to repent and rest on Christ's work. He _never_ did. His sins were _never_ forgiven Him on the basis of the finished work of Christ which requires that we _believe_ and not just participate in.



So Judas was IN Covenant? He had the Spiritual gifts of the Apostles, he was blessed, enjoyed communion with Christ, and in every way acted like a believer and received the blessing of that union. So he was In Covenant, but not really IN Covenant? I am still a bit confused...up until the day he left, how would anyone have known he wasn't really in? As long as he remained obedient, he was considered in, until such time as he fell (fell from the Covenant) and became disobedient? Isn't that FV teaching, that we treat people as believers, and assure them of their status as long as they remain faithful, until such time as they prove other wise? And if so, then while they were faithful, they had all of the blessings and gifts of being in the Covenant until they left it?

In other words, up until the day before Judas left, what was he missing spiritually that could be seen, known, or determined by him to be missing? What part of Covenant union did he not participate in up till then? Did he know all along that he had not put real faith in Christ, or had real repentance? Did he know he was going to fall from his position, and was just faking it? Did anyone around him see it coming? Why did everyone else thing it could be them that would betray Jesus...did they not have real, genuine assurance? What visible evidence could they look to as a sign they were a distinct, call out people?

Sorry so many questions, I am just getting a bit more confused now. have you listened carefully to the 2002 lectures to see how you are saying similar things to them?


----------



## greenbaggins

I have an additional question for your show, Apologia. 

WCF 15 teaches that *none* may expect pardon without repentance, which is defined as evangelical repentance, a saving faith. This excludes any kind of "less-than-final" temporary forgiveness of sins. How can Wilkins, for one, assert that there is a non-permanent forgiveness of sins in the face of WCF 15?


----------



## Apologia

greenbaggins said:


> I have an additional question for your show, Apologia.
> 
> WCF 15 teaches that *none* may expect pardon without repentance, which is defined as evangelical repentance, a saving faith. This excludes any kind of "less-than-final" temporary forgiveness of sins. How can Wilkins, for one, assert that there is a non-permanent forgiveness of sins in the face of WCF 15?



Can you be more specific where Wilkins makes this comment so that the full quote can be used when discussing it with Wilson...


----------



## greenbaggins

Pp. 59-61 of Federal Vision. The blessings for apostate members of the covenant include justification (of which forgiveness of sins is an inseparable part); Christ sacrificed for them, died for their sins. Then, on pg. 61, Wilkins says that they had been "cleansed from former sins" (a la a misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:9).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeff,

Do you want to argue with the questions or ask them?

First, you come here and you say: "Well I haven't read anything of what you've written on this thread and others so forgive me if this has been covered."

I ask very specific questions, qualifying _exactly_ what people believe are the consequences of their writings and then you start qualifying and saying: "Are you sure that's what they're saying?"

***BREAK***

*THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MOST OF US THINK THEY ARE SAYING WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING.*

***END BREAK***

What is so scary about asking those questions?

If you don't want to ask the question then fine but those questions, among others, go to the heart of the issue.

Do you really think this issue began and ended at a 2002 Pastor's Conference? Seriously?

There haven't been any questions? No articles? No trials? Just complete silence? The 2002 Pastor's conference was the last word on this?

When challenged on these points these are the kinds of questions that keep coming up.

Look, I'm sorry if I seem impatient but I don't know why you, a person trying to be responsible here, wouldn't just take the time to read through this entire thread and get the sense for where people are. While you're at it I would read (from start to finish) these two threads:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18274
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18377

If you're still confused after those two threads as to "What I mean by my questions" then please ask them again here. Otherwise, I believe it is disingenuous of you to express genuine interest in finding out why the confessionally Reformed are having problems with this theology. The answers to all your questions are contained therein.

Frankly, that you do not even know _why_ we are asking them at this point is quite shocking given that you've been interacting on this subject for a while. For my part, when I interacted with the FV folk on this they believed that thread on Conditional Election was very respectful and bore in to the heart of the matter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The other thing I notice Jeff is that you didn't answer a single one of my questions concerning Judas. You cannot answer a question with a question. If you want to answer the question and qualify your answer then answer it. I was very clear in how I expressed Judas' participation in the Covenant.

Let me ask _you_ again: Were Judas' sins _ever_ covered by Christ's sacrifice?

It's one question. Surely that is not a confusing question is it?


----------



## Apologia

SemperFideles said:


> Do you want to argue with the questions or ask them?



I believe you need to go back and re-read my comments, you misunderstood me obviously. I was not questioning your questions at all, I thanked you for the questions, told you we would ask them, and then went beyond the questions to ask questions about your comments to my previous comments, which you addressed later in your post, after you gave the questions. My comments were about your second set of comments, not your questions.. 



SemperFideles said:


> I ask very specific questions, qualifying _exactly_ what people believe are the consequences of their writings and then you start qualifying and saying: "Are you sure that's what they're saying?"



I don't recall you asking _*me*_ any questions, you made comments about my previous comments to someone else, and I was carrying on the dialog you started in responding to my previous posts.



SemperFideles said:


> What is so scary about asking those questions?
> 
> If you don't want to ask the question then fine but those questions, among others, go to the heart of the issue.



Again, I said the questions were fine, I have no problem asking, i said I would ask, and as a matter of fact a copy of the questions were sent to Mr. Wilson within 10 minutes of you asking them. So again, I think you misunderstood and therefore speak in error.



SemperFideles said:


> Do you really think this issue began and ended at a 2002 Pastor's Conference? Seriously?



well, are you saying the controversy did NOT start because of the 2002 Pastor's Conference? Is that not the conference that started it all, the one that Morecraft made a war cry over? Is that not the one that prompted the Pros and Cons book by Beisner and company? Is that not the one that provoked the 2003 FV Examined Conference, which allowed respondents to the issues? if someone is to jump into this controversy and start throwing words around like heretic and the like, would it not be important to go back to the origin and see what started this ball rolling?



SemperFideles said:


> Look, I'm sorry if I seem impatient but I don't know why you, a person trying to be responsible here, wouldn't just take the time to read through this entire thread and get the sense for where people are. While you're at it I would read (from start to finish) these two threads:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18274
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18377



Come on, be reasonable....have you stepped back to take a look at the size of this board? The sheer number of threads alone would be impossible to weed through or follow. To even entertain the idea of me doing so is absurd. Plus, i was responding today during my small breaks at work. My responses were mainly due to false accusations and mistaken remarks about me, so I initiated questions in response to my attacks. I stated I am not sure if this issue has been dealt with because it would be hard to pinpoint if it had.

Plus, I have a deadline for these questions I asked for. I need to accumulate them today to be ready to ask them tomorrow evening after work.



SemperFideles said:


> Frankly, that you do not even know _why_ we are asking them at this point is quite shocking given that you've been interacting on this subject for a while. For my part, when I interacted with the FV folk on this they believed that thread on Conditional Election was very respectful and bore in to the heart of the matter.



well mind you, I have been a member of this board for about ten hours. I have interacted on the FV issue in little spurts over the past four years since it started...little spurts. Every time I here the FV respond to the critics, the responses seem ligitimate, logical, biblical, etc. Just when you think it has been dealt with adequately, then someone else yells "they're not being asked the right questions," "they may say such-and-such, but we know they don't really mean such-and-such," and the complaints go on and on. So no, it is a bit hard to tell what the real issues are some times. 

I have heard they deny the visible/invisible church, yet in all I have read of them, they do not. But no matter how many times I here them explain they do not, I keep hearing people say they do. 

I have never heard them say anything even close to anything that would make your questions about Judas' sins being covered seem connected, so obviously I have missed something. So I am still studying it, and I am curious to the answer of that myself.


----------



## Apologia

SemperFideles said:


> The other thing I notice Jeff is that you didn't answer a single one of my questions concerning Judas. You cannot answer a question with a question. If you want to answer the question and qualify your answer then answer it. I was very clear in how I expressed Judas' participation in the Covenant.
> 
> Let me ask _you_ again: Were Judas' sins _ever_ covered by Christ's sacrifice?
> 
> It's one question. Surely that is not a confusing question is it?



And again, you didn't ask me any questions, you asked Doug Wilson questions, right? So help me out, in the three paragraphs you wrote to me (which I quoted all three in my response), where did you ask me a question that I did not answer?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I guess I just don't understand, after 4 years, why you wonder the questions are being asked. Of course their answers seem legitimate, logical, and biblical if you've only read what they wrote.

I'll be honest with you, I've liked Doug Wilson's work for a long time. He always seems reasonable and winsome. In order to understand why people keep asking questions that (in your perception) he seems to put away so easily, you have to take some time to understand the position of the people making the claims. Your qualified questions to me lead me to believe that you hadn't taken the time to really read or understand the opponents of the FV or your questions would be much more nuanced. I certainly wouldn't expect a question like: Well what about Judas? As if no Reformed critic of the FV has ever answered that question before.

I'm a busy man too so I should be more gentle and forebearing. I apologize. I don't think some of the abuse you took here is warranted. Thank you for asking my questions. I apologize for misreading that you had not asked them.

I would just urge you to become better informed on what the issues are and don't just listen to the responses. Believe me you, I know better than you can possibly imagine, why this is popular. I have dear friends that believe this and I might well be on the other side cheering against the mean Presbyterians and especially that mean guy at Westminster SoCal if I hadn't taken some time to ask some fundamental questions and get to the heart of what the objection is. 

I understand the board is large. I gave you two threads that can orient you pretty quickly on the issue. It will take you less than two hours to read them. Read them carefully and reflect on them. They were, for me, a full awakening to the FV and what the danger of its implications are. You may not walk away as convinced as I but you ought to walk away with a better understand of the _nature_ of the questions. That way if Doug Wilson begins to answer the questions using the same words but doesn't go to the heart of what the question really _is_ then you'll be better equipped to follow up with what I'm really asking.

Please also pass my regards on to Pastor Wilson. I still hold him in some esteem and enjoyed his series on child rearing. He was in the Navy and I respect his service and some of his very real wisdom in some matters. I really wish he could see how devastating this movement has been so far and even how much more devastation it could wreak and I pray he will not see the questions as pointless attacks but earnest pleas that we believe that the FV is replacing faith in the finished work of Christ with faithfulness to the Covenant as the instrument of our justification.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## re4med

I just want everyone to know as they read these posts that the questions rasied here have *already been sent* to Douglas Wilson for the Covenant Radio interview tomorrow night. I would encourage anyone here who has questions on the FV issue to ask them at the Covenant Radio website. We ask all the questions raised by anyone regardless of position or bias.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PhD said:


> I just want everyone to know as they read these posts that the questions rasied here have *already been sent* to Douglas Wilson for the Covenant Radio interview tomorrow night. I would encourage anyone here who has questions on the FV issue to ask them at the Covenant Radio website. We ask all the questions raised by anyone regardless of position or bias.



Thanks William. Noted above.

Thanks for asking my questions, even though they have a decidedly _Reformed_ bias.


----------



## Apologia

SemperFideles said:


> I guess I just don't understand, after 4 years, why you wonder the questions are being asked. Of course their answers seem legitimate, logical, and biblical if you've only read what they wrote.
> 
> I'll be honest with you, I've liked Doug Wilson's work for a long time. He always seems reasonable and winsome. In order to understand why people keep asking questions that (in your perception) he seems to put away so easily, you have to take some time to understand the position of the people making the claims. Your qualified questions to me lead me to believe that you hadn't taken the time to really read or understand the opponents of the FV or your questions would be much more nuanced. I certainly wouldn't expect a question like: Well what about Judas? As if no Reformed critic of the FV has ever answered that question before.



Well, that question was only asked because someone brought it up. And you are right, I have not taken too much time dealing with this issue, to have read the amount of writings out there. I have spent a decent amount of time talking to people, and most of the anti-FV people give me the same objections, which are merely points taken out of context by others, and spread like rumors, and they continue to spread and spread, and most of the times people spreading them have not once stopped to ask any of the proponents if that is what they really meant.



SemperFideles said:


> I'm a busy man too so I should be more gentle and forebearing. I apologize. I don't think some of the abuse you took here is warranted. Thank you for asking my questions. I apologize for misreading that you had not asked them.
> 
> I would just urge you to become better informed on what the issues are and don't just listen to the responses. Believe me you, I know better than you can possibly imagine, why this is popular. I have dear friends that believe this and I might well be on the other side cheering against the mean Presbyterians and especially that mean guy at Westminster SoCal if I hadn't taken some time to ask some fundamental questions and get to the heart of what the objection is.
> 
> I understand the board is large. I gave you two threads that can orient you pretty quickly on the issue. It will take you less than two hours to read them. Read them carefully and reflect on them. They were, for me, a full awakening to the FV and what the danger of its implications are. You may not walk away as convinced as I but you ought to walk away with a better understand of the _nature_ of the questions. That way if Doug Wilson begins to answer the questions using the same words but doesn't go to the heart of what the question really _is_ then you'll be better equipped to follow up with what I'm really asking.
> 
> Please also pass my regards on to Pastor Wilson. I still hold him in some esteem and enjoyed his series on child rearing. He was in the Navy and I respect his service and some of his very real wisdom in some matters. I really wish he could see how devastating this movement has been so far and even how much more devastation it could wreak and I pray he will not see the questions as pointless attacks but earnest pleas that we believe that the FV is replacing faith in the finished work of Christ with faithfulness to the Covenant as the instrument of our justification.



I am a seriously busy man too. I have a wife, six homeschooled kids, I work full time out of the house, run a mail order book store after hours, I maintain about a dozen web sites for other customers, I play drums in two bands, AND now I help with Covenant Radio. So i do not find as much time as I would like to study the issues more. 

I have been friends with Wilkins, Wilson, Schlissel (my pastor for a short time years back), and a great majority of other FV proponents. So i am not as quick as some to want to throw out the close to 20 years of education received from these men, especially when every time I turn around, the accusations are coming from misconceptions, and words taken completely out of context. It is frustrating, and that is why I hoped through Covenant Radio, that I would be able to see and hear issues from both sides discussed. 

So again, excuse my ignorance, i just haven't spent much time on these type boards because i just don't have the time to do so. all of today's boarding has already put me seriously behind, but it was a fun first day. 

P.S. I served time in the USAF, does that get me a little more respect? And in what used to be Biloxi, MS for four years too.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeff,

Like I said, please read those two threads. If you don't have time for that and haven't studied it much it's pretty hard to evaluate what is a real misconception. For the record, I have a former pastor who is ensconced in this. I'm not throwing away my friendship with him by informing myself. Neither can I accuse somebody like Dr. Clark of misrepresenting unless I've actually taken a little time to understand the issues.

Don't do it tonight but save those links I gave you above and read them. It should clarify things a bit. Nobody says you have to throw away friendships but you should understand why your friends are having so much trouble with nearly every Reformed Body today. You might want to equip yourself so that if any of these men are disciplined by their bodies then you understand why and can urge them, by your friendship, to repent rather than rebel against their oaths.

USAF is OK. My father is a retired Colonel in the Air Force. A bit too civilian for my taste but it's still service. 

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## Scott Bushey

I am concerned in regards to this thread in that some of the respondents are obviously pro FV. Shame on me! It is not easy policing the wire. I have many responsibilities outside of this board. Anyone joining PB knowing that the board rules clearly state that pro FV adherants would not be *approved for membership and who have in fact joined under the mask of sinfulness, will be dealt with. I believe it's called _lying_. Discussion is one thing on the subject, promoting it by advocation is another. This board, which is overseen by the RPCGA, see's FV as an attack of Christianity and heretical. Those whom are exposed (your sin will find you out) will be immediately banned. Govern yourselves accordingly. 

*


> *ATTENTION: You must hold to one of the two accepted confessions to be considered for membership, i.e. The WCF or The LBC. If you are not familiar with or are not aware of these confessions, then you probably do not hold to them as a confession; in this case, please refrain from attempting to register. If it cannot be verified from your church home and their statement of faith, it is doubtful your membership will be approved. This is the standard for membership here on PB. As stated above, we have done this in an effort to keep the discussions amicable as well as likeminded. We also will not allow anyone "pro-Federal Vision" on the board. The Federal Vision is a heretical group propagating the academic deviancy of the New Perspectives on Paul in a pastoral setting. Those adhering to the FV will not be allowed on the board, and those pro-FV found after registering will be banned. The RPCGA has deemed FV as antithetical to the Gospel, and the Westminster Confession.*



Scott


----------



## Apologia

SemperFideles said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Like I said, please read those two threads. If you don't have time for that and haven't studied it much it's pretty hard to evaluate what is a real misconception. For the record, I have a former pastor who is ensconced in this. I'm not throwing away my friendship with him by informing myself. Neither can I accuse somebody like Dr. Clark of misrepresenting unless I've actually taken a little time to understand the issues.
> 
> Don't do it tonight but save those links I gave you above and read them. It should clarify things a bit. Nobody says you have to throw away friendships but you should understand why your friends are having so much trouble with nearly every Reformed Body today. You might want to equip yourself so that if any of these men are disciplined by their bodies then you understand why and can urge them, by your friendship, to repent rather than rebel against their oaths.
> 
> USAF is OK. My father is a retired Colonel in the Air Force. A bit too civilian for my taste but it's still service.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rich



That's why I call if the US Chair Force!


----------

