# Have they no other defense?



## toddpedlar (Nov 22, 2007)

It's really sickeningly amusing that all the FV folks can do is claim "we're misunderstood". Here, from a blog that claims neutrality, is yet another "defense": 

Quoting Sam Duncan, lead prosecutor, the blog author writes:



> For the layman, who is not familiar with this topic, the Federal Vision basically teaches that membership in a local church makes one elect; once one is elect, his salvation may be lost; baptism results in regeneration; and justification is achieved through both faith and good works.​
> Now, with all due respect to Mr. Duncan as a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America I take great issue with his summary understanding of the Federal Vision controversy. Nothing of what he states to the "layman" is accurate -- not by any stretch of the imagination. What does this say about the lead prosecutors understanding on this matter? I think it clearly shows that he is very ignorant of the issue at hand and if he is allowed to hold this position, as given to him by the SJC, it is a great travesty.



So it's all (as usual) the same. "The FV folks are just misunderstood".

Haven't they anything better to offer? [of course this is rhetorical, you know  ]


----------



## tellville (Nov 22, 2007)

I really haven't paid any attention to the Federal Vision at all. I know very little about it and rarely ever read the FV threads. But is that summary given at the top what they actually believe? 

Also, is this "misunderstanding" the same thing as when an Arminian is told they deny Total Depravity? In the Arminian's mind, he adheres to Total Depravity, but in practicality he actually doesn't (he uses prevenient grace to get around this). Thus, for example, when an FV's is told they believe the elect can lose their salvation they feel offended because they don't believe that, but in practicality this is what they are actually teaching?


----------



## Josiah (Nov 22, 2007)

I hope that the SJC sees through the hollow "were misunderstood" arguments.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 22, 2007)




----------



## Gryphonette (Nov 22, 2007)

Here's what I've understood to be a general description of the FV, which an FV'er even agreed with:

Being in the church, period, is a type of temporal salvation. If one believes there is a lesser, temporal salvation, then there is going to flow from that a lesser, temporal election; a lesser, temporal justification; a lesser, temporal regeneration; a lesser, temporal adoption; and a lesser, temporal sanctification. (If there's a lesser, temporal glorification, though, I'm missing it.)

Considering how the FV tends to lessen to the point of obliteration any difference between the OC and the NC, and considering how prevalent in the Old Testament were typologies (is that the appropriate word?), I'm thinking that perhaps the FV views this lesser, temporal 'golden chain' to be essentially a typology of the real deal golden chain. Not very elegantly put, but maybe still comprehensible? This regeneration, i.e. the lesser, temporal regeneration effected by baptism, foreshadows that regeneration, i.e. the actual regeneration and new birth given by the Holy Spirit; this justification, i.e. being officially placed in the Church, foreshadows that justification, i.e. what the FV calls the "Final Justification", and so on.

I daresay this is an alternate way to explain those verses in Scripture declaring that "you and your children" would be saved so that all one's children _are_ saved, even though they might still not wind up in glory. If being in the Church is a type of "salvation", then by golly, everybody in the Church is elect, regenerated, justified, adopted, and being sanctified, albeit in a lesser, temporal sense.

====

Anyway, that's how I've understood it.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 22, 2007)

It almost sounds Dispensational. I also don't understand why they make such a fuss over something which apparently is only a type of something, if it exists at all. It seems by now, if they realize that trained theologians are mistaking their view for heresy, that they'd stop insisting on it so much, since it doesn't apparently mean anything very important. What does this "lesser golden chain" do for them that is so worth fighting for?


----------



## Gryphonette (Nov 22, 2007)

turmeric said:


> It almost sounds Dispensational. I also don't understand why they make such a fuss over something which apparently is only a type of something, if it exists at all. It seems by now, if they realize that trained theologians are mistaking their view for heresy, that they'd stop insisting on it so much, since it doesn't apparently mean anything very important. What does this "lesser golden chain" do for them that is so worth fighting for?


Okay, _that_ part I've not quite got nailed down. 

You've put your finger on one of the most baffling questions about the FV, which is 'What is the POINT?'

It strikes me as an essentially pointless exercise, since they doggedly insist that the list of those who have their names engraved on the palms of the LORD's hands is fixed and unalterable.

This being so, I can't imagine what the benefit is of concentrating so much upon those only possessing a false faith. It's barking strange.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> > It almost sounds Dispensational. I also don't understand why they make such a fuss over something which apparently is only a type of something, if it exists at all. It seems by now, if they realize that trained theologians are mistaking their view for heresy, that they'd stop insisting on it so much, since it doesn't apparently mean anything very important. What does this "lesser golden chain" do for them that is so worth fighting for?
> ...



From my understanding their point is that they are being true to the biblical text versus turning the Bible into a systematic theology book. For instance, in Paul's various letters to the churches he will address the church as the "elect" or the "saints" or those who are "in Christ". Therefore they make the assumption that all who are in the church are elect as Paul did not make any distinction between who were actually elect and who were not. 

So as to not through the Reformed Faith totally out the window, they have created two types of election to meet Paul's phrasiology, ie; decretively elect covenant members (ECM's) and non-decretively-elect covenant members (NECM's). With this distinction you have now covered all bases so you can say that you still hold to the WCF (decretive view) and are Reformed (or at least within the "Reformed Tradition") with the bonus of being able to say that you are also being true to the Bible (non-decretive covental view). It also helps to find some Puritan who also was "true to the Bible" (closet FV). It doesn't matter who but if they were at the Assembly or knew someone at the Assembly or thought they knew someone at the Assembly, that's a plus. 

So in regards to salvation and the ordo salutis the ECM's are in for sure but what about the NECM's??? Since the NECM's are apart of the CoG they must get some benefit in some sense? (*Note: In FV Theology always use the term "in some sense". In what sense is not important its just important to use "in some sense"* ). To keep a level playing field with election, the NECM's get all the benefits of that the ECM's get. All the promises of Scripture are for them (yah!!  )..... with one exception... Perserverance!! 

So the next time you're reading your Bible and you come across passages like those in Romans 8, those promises are for you!!....maybe.


----------

