# Mercersburg Theology



## The Original Secession (Dec 12, 2020)

I am looking for some good resources on Mercersburg theology, namely something that would break its historic development, milieu, distinctives, critiques of those distinctives, and the impact it has had on American Reformed Theology going forward. So basically anything you have on Mercersburg! 
​


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 12, 2020)

Just read about the FV debate of today, and you'll run across historical references to it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 12, 2020)

D.G. Hart's bio of John Williamson Nevin would be helpful: https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/john-williamson-nevin-high-church-calvinist-hart.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Dec 12, 2020)

James Good, _History of the Reformed Church in the U.S. in the Nineteenth Century_ will give you an overview and critique. His own dad was involved in the controversy.





History of the Reformed Church in the U. S. the Nineteenth Century: Good, James I., The Bord of Publication Refomed Church i: 9781140488163: Amazon.com: Books


History of the Reformed Church in the U. S. the Nineteenth Century [Good, James I., The Bord of Publication Refomed Church i] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. History of the Reformed Church in the U. S. the Nineteenth Century



smile.amazon.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 12, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Just read about the FV debate of today, and you'll run across historical references to it.


That’s interesting. I didn’t realize there was a connection. Would you mind briefly explaining?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> That’s interesting. I didn’t realize there was a connection. Would you mind briefly explaining?



FV guys really picked up on Nevins rich sacramentology. Of course, as someone who holds to Nevin's views on the Supper, I don't think they lead to FV.

Nevin reacted (rightly, I believe) to the hyper-revivalism going on. Nevin saw that Revivalist Christainity really had a hard time applying Calvin's view of the Church and Sacraments.

Think of it this way: how does God promise to meet us? Does he meet us in a mighty experience normally or by Word, Water, and Eucharist?

Mathison has a good overview of it in _Given for You. _Hart's bio is good, too.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 12, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> FV guys really picked up on Nevins rich sacramentology. Of course, as someone who holds to Nevin's views on the Supper, I don't think they lead to FV.
> 
> Nevin reacted (rightly, I believe) to the hyper-revivalism going on. Nevin saw that Revivalist Christainity really had a hard time applying Calvin's view of the Church and Sacraments.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this! I ended up watching this video and found it helpful, as well. Not to get too off topic, but I once thought of purchasing Emanuel Vogel Gerhart's works from Logos (they're only $35.99), but I was unsure of Mercersburg Theology. Do you think his _Institutes_ are a valuable resource?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Thanks for this! I ended up watching this video and found it helpful, as well. Not to get too off topic, but I once thought of purchasing Emanuel Vogel Gerhart's works from Logos (they're only $35.99), but I was unsure of Mercersburg Theology. Do you think his _Institutes_ are a valuable resource?



He really influenced Nevin, but to get at the heart of the matter, just read Nevin. His classic is _Mystical Presence _(and mystical doesn't mean what it means today). Then read Anxious Bench.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2020)

Here is a review article that I wrote several years ago in which some of the dangers of the Mercersburg Theology are mentioned. I would agree with Jacob on its good points, though I do recall D. G. Hart saying in a lecture that I attended that J. W. Nevin read too much of Hegel into Calvin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Not to get too off topic, but I once thought of purchasing Emanuel Vogel Gerhart's works from Logos (they're only $35.99), but I was unsure of Mercersburg Theology. Do you think his _Institutes_ are a valuable resource?



You may find the following article helpful: Richard A. Muller, ‘Emanuel V. Gerhart on the “Christ-Idea” as fundamental principle’,_ Westminster Theological Journal_, 48 (1986), 97–117. Since you may read the two volumes of Gerhart's _Institutes_ and his _Introduction to the Study of Philosophy_ for free on the Internet Archive, I would not spend that amount on the Logos edition of his works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2020)

My criticisms of Nevin:
1) His polemical style borders on obsessive.
2) You don't need Hegel to make any of the good points he is trying to make.









The Mystical Presence and the Doctrine of the Reformed Church (Nevin)


Nevin taught himself German so he could read Neander in the original. Even in Pennsylvania, Nevin was attacked for criticizing slavery. Part 1: The Mystical Presence Argument: if the Incarnation i…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2020)

Given Ligon Duncan's recent notoriety, this quote might be timely. And it explains the differnce between Nevin and other parts of American Reformeddom.








Huh?!?


Over at Ref21, Ligon Duncan supplies a drive-by quote from Herman Bavinck that the Mississippi pastor directs against John Williamson Nevin. Here is the the Bavinck quote: In a comparatively sound …




oldlife.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 13, 2020)

As a brief corrective to Jacob, I believe Nevin and the Mercersburg theologians were correct on the Lord's Supper, but not on baptism. Keith Mathison is excellent (and, I believe, correct) on the Mercersburg theologians and the Lord's Supper. However, he does not really delve much into the overly high view of baptism that Mercersburg theologians had. Now, it can be argued that the FV guys took Mercersburg theologians beyond what the original authors would have intended. That is possible, and the point has not, to my view, been investigated very thoroughly. The precursors to FV are not just Mercersburg, but would also include elements of Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd, theonomy, and the hermeneutics of James Jordan.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> As a brief corrective to Jacob, I believe Nevin and the Mercersburg theologians were correct on the Lord's Supper, but not on baptism. Keith Mathison is excellent (and, I believe, correct) on the Mercersburg theologians and the Lord's Supper. However, he does not really delve much into the overly high view of baptism that Mercersburg theologians had. Now, it can be argued that the FV guys took Mercersburg theologians beyond what the original authors would have intended. That is possible, and the point has not, to my view, been investigated very thoroughly. The precursors to FV are not just Mercersburg, but would also include elements of Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd, theonomy, and the hermeneutics of James Jordan.



You're correct on Baptism.

You are also correct, and I would take it a step further, that Klaas Schilder (who I appreciate for his heroic stance against the Nazis and the compromised Dutch Reformed church (official) of the time) is far more of an influence on FV than Nevin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 13, 2020)

“The precursors to FV are not just Mercersburg, but would also include elements of Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd, theonomy, and the hermeneutics of James Jordan.”

Linking FV to theonomy makes as much sense as linking FV to Moses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J. Van Vliet (Dec 13, 2020)

From what I am aware, notable biographies of John Nevin include those written by:

From 1800s
A.R. Kremer
Theodore Appel

1960s 
James Hastings Nichols 

1990s
James Wentz

2000s
D.G. Hart

I am currently finishing up Harts biography- my first book covering any content on mercerburg theology. It seems to lack detailed explanations on theology nevin developed approaching and after his retirement from the seminary; I also would be grateful if someone could suggest which of these biographies or other books that they've read that more clearly describes Nevins theology!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2020)

RWD said:


> “The precursors to FV are not just Mercersburg, but would also include elements of Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd, theonomy, and the hermeneutics of James Jordan.”
> 
> Linking FV to theonomy makes as much sense as linking FV to Moses.



Lane @greenbaggins probably does not mean theonomy narrowly considered, but that certain opinions which circulated within the theonomy movement were a factor in the emergence of the Federal Vision. I would, of course, agree that any assertion that holding a theonomic view of the judicial laws makes one disposed to Federal Visionism is mistaken.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 13, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Lane @greenbaggins probably does not mean theonomy narrowly considered, but that certain opinions which circulated within the theonomy movement were a factor in the emergence of the Federal Vision.



Perhaps you’re correct. If so, that would be a much less ambitious theory than that held by others who’ve tried to impugn theonomy by FV association. But if that’s all that’s being suggested, that FV came from the opinions of certain theonomists, well we might also observe that FV came from the opinions of certain Calvinists.

In other words, if we’re not talking about the theological _trajectory of ideas_ (i.e FV is _linked_ to theonomy), but rather we are merely observing that the opinion of FV was held by persons who held another opinion called theonomy, then why stop there? Why not also observe that opinions circulated within the Reformed movement were a factor in the emergence of theonomy itself (as well as FV)?

Obviously that is not very interesting, which is why I suspect there might be a bit more to the guilt by association. But if the theory is more ambitious, some meat should be added to the bones. Namely, how do the epistemic and ethical considerations of theonomy relate to a doctrine that would collapse soteriology into ecclesiology?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2020)

RWD said:


> Perhaps you’re correct. If so, that would be a much less ambitious theory than that held by others who’ve tried to impugn theonomy by FV association. But if that’s all that’s being suggested, that FV came from the opinions of certain theonomists, well we might also observe that FV came from the opinions of certain Calvinists.
> 
> In other words, if we’re not talking about the theological _trajectory of ideas_ (i.e FV is _linked_ to theonomy), but rather we are merely observing that the opinion of FV was held by persons who held another opinion called theonomy, then why stop there? Why not also observe that opinions circulated within the Reformed movement were a factor in the emergence of theonomy itself (as well as FV)?
> 
> Obviously that is not very interesting, which is why I suspect there might be a bit more to the guilt by association. But if the theory is more ambitious, some meat should be added to the bones. Namely, how do the epistemic and ethical considerations of theonomy relate to a doctrine that would collapse soteriology into ecclesiology?



That has always been my problem with the argument. Even if every FVer was a theonomist prior to embracing the FV, correlation does not equal causation. You would also have to argue that since every FVer was a Trinitarian or a Calvinist before embracing the FV, that Trinitarianism and Calvinism caused the FV. It is a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 14, 2020)

Let me clarify. There are plenty of theonomists who hate the FV, including some on the PB. It is less theonomy itself, than the impulse of hyper-continuity between OT and NT that theonomy holds that is in common with the FV. Neither FV nor theonomy hold to very much in the way of discontinuity between the testaments. I am not claiming that theonomy in and of itself leads directly to the FV. Almost all FV'ers are or were theonomists, and the idea of continuity on steroids, as it were, is in common. The FV takes what it likes from a variety of sources. Ron is correct to point out that this includes confessional Reformed theology (although the FV tends to redefine things rather a lot).


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 14, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Let me clarify. There are plenty of theonomists who hate the FV, including some on the PB. It is less theonomy itself, than the impulse of hyper-continuity between OT and NT that theonomy holds that is in common with the FV. Neither FV nor theonomy hold to very much in the way of discontinuity between the testaments. I am not claiming that theonomy in and of itself leads directly to the FV. Almost all FV'ers are or were theonomists, and the idea of continuity on steroids, as it were, is in common. The FV takes what it likes from a variety of sources. Ron is correct to point out that this includes confessional Reformed theology (although the FV tends to redefine things rather a lot).



Thanks for that, Lane. I appreciate the clarification.

As an aside, I never saw FV as extreme continuity with the OT. Perhaps there’s a continuity with those within Israel who thought _wrongly_ about circumcision and external covenant status, but I don’t see that as continuity with what was actually revealed to Israel regarding children of promise and the physical mark of inclusion that needed to be improved upon by faith. So, if FV isn’t a result of extreme or hyper-continuity to OT teaching, then I don’t see how it can be mapped to theonomy on that basis, even if theonomy were a result of hyper-continuity.

I’ll have to give that one more thought.

Again, thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 14, 2020)

Ron, the rhetoric of the FV usually says something like "tear out that sheet of paper in your Bible separating the OT from the NT!" Believe me, they are hyper-continuity. That is what is behind the covenant renewal worship of Jeff Meyers (in his book on worship, he maps the entirety of Christian worship to the Levitical sacrifices of the first few chapters of Leviticus). It is also what is behind the hermeneutic of James Jordan and Peter Leithart. For example, every instance of the number 7 is a reference to the creation week in their interpretation (here they are also both deeply indebted to the Medieval quadriga). 

In what has to be one of the supreme ironies of the FV, however, in their sacramentology, they have not thrown off their Baptistic roots enough. They tend to think that the sacraments operate the same way (both are primarily active on the part of the participant, and both relate to confession of faith). Hence their universal paedocommunion position. The Baptists agree with the FV on the idea that both sacraments work in a very similar way, they just come down on the opposite side of the participant question. The true Presbyterian position is that baptism and the Lord's Supper do not work the same way. Baptism is primarily passive, and is something God does, not us, whereas the Lord's Supper requires a quite active component on the part of the believer (see Berkhof).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 14, 2020)

“Believe me, they are hyper-continuity.”

I’ll need some arguments. Even synods and councils err, Lane. 

“For example, every instance of the number 7 is a reference to the creation week in their interpretation (here they are also both deeply indebted to the Medieval quadriga).”

You make my point, Brother. What you’ve identified with FV does not portray continuity with the OT. Rather, it’s continuity with error - perhaps Israel’s error or Rome’s error but not OT biblical teaching.

“In what has to be one of the supreme ironies of the FV, however, in their sacramentology, they have not thrown off their Baptistic roots enough.”

Since Baptistic roots aren’t OT roots, I fail to see FV continuity with the OT here either.

“They tend to think that the sacraments operate the same way (both are primarily active on the part of the participant, and both relate to confession of faith). Hence their universal paedocommunion position.”

An aberrant view of the sacraments or the covenant meal aren’t OT teachings. So, again, I don’t think you’ve shown that the FV error is due to OT continuity, let alone extreme continuity. Instead, you keep mapping FV to error, not Moses.

“The true Presbyterian position is that baptism and the Lord's Supper do not work the same way.”

Correct, but the aberrant view that they do work the same way is not traceable to OT sacramentology. So, again, FV isn’t carrying over OT teaching here either.

Therefore, if FV isn’t traceable to OT teaching, then it doesn’t share the continuity to OT equity that theonomy puts forth. They’re very much unrelated given that theonomy _is_ mapped to OT equity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Original Secession (Dec 14, 2020)

Really fascinating, that I was not notified of any of this discussion via email. I thought the @greenbaggins was the only person who commented!


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 14, 2020)

Ron, not sure why you're using how we might _criticize_ the FV on their (ab)use of the OT as an argument against my _characterization_ of the FV. Of course their reading of the OT is a misuse of the OT. That's what hyper-continuity is. You misread my statement of hyper-continuity and answered as if I was positing continuity of the NT/OT in the FV's position. 

You misread my statement on the Baptistic roots, as well. That was not evidence of hyper-continuity. That was ironic, in light of the hyper-continuity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 14, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> Really fascinating, that I was not notified of any of this discussion via email. I thought the @greenbaggins was the only person who commented!


You have to be vigilant, brother! Any time the Federal Vision name is dropped in a thread on Puritan Board, you can be sure it will be a humdinger. This goes double when Theonomy is mentioned _in the same thread_! You need to check back every half hour or so.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 14, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Ron, not sure why you're using how we might _criticize_ the FV on their (ab)use of the OT as an argument against my _characterization_ of the FV. Of course their reading of the OT is a misuse of the OT. That's what hyper-continuity is. You misread my statement of hyper-continuity and answered as if I was positing continuity of the NT/OT in the FV's position.
> 
> You misread my statement on the Baptistic roots, as well. That was not evidence of hyper-continuity. That was ironic, in light of the hyper-continuity.



Lane,

I’m trying to interpret your posts in a charitable and sensible way. I’m just struggling with how to make sense of your use of hyper.

Walk with me if you will...

Hyper-preterism does not distinguish between the AD 70 coming of Christ in judgment from the final judgment at the consummation. Their “hyperness” is in _shoving_ all judgment into one judgment.

Hyper-Calvinism does not distinguish the eternal decree from the sinner’s justification in time. In doing so they _shove_ temporal pardon into the eternal decree.

There are also ramifications to such hyper views. No need to anticipate Christ’s future coming and no need to witness to the lost. I think I grasp hyper in that sense. Entailed is a lack of nuance and theological distinction, which allows for shoving square pegs into round holes.

That said, I find no such hyperness in what your theory purports. So, I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt and looked elsewhere. Obviously I’ve failed.

So, what’s the hyper continuity of FV? It’s not obvious to many of us. I’ve also heard FV is mapped to Gaffin, who as you know opposes Theonomy. You even acknowledge that some theonomists oppose FV. Are such theonomists being inconsistent with their presuppositions by not taking the plunge into the FV cesspool? Am I just a happily inconsistent theonomist? I’d think so if there’s a natural relationship between FV and theonomy.

As for FV relating to Theonomy, how does an aberrant view of the sacraments and conflation of salvation and the church get shoved into a particular view of OT civil law and modern day magistrates? I’m sorry but I just don’t see it. Frankly, the only shoving I see going on is I believe a vague defense being shoved into a rather incredible theory that suggests FV relates in any intelligible sense to Theonomy. I think the project is dead on arrival, but I’ll keep trying to understand. Warmly, Ron

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Original Secession (Dec 14, 2020)

py3ak said:


> James Good, _History of the Reformed Church in the U.S. in the Nineteenth Century_ will give you an overview and critique. His own dad was involved in the controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, I am fairly familiar with Good, I think I am going to have to hunt around and find some stuff on the theology though.


----------



## The Original Secession (Dec 14, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Just read about the FV debate of today, and you'll run across historical references to it.


Lane(If I may, it seems rather informal), 

It has been a while since you taught us that Roberts Rules class... anyway. I am familiar with it coming up in relation to FV, and I want to investigate it myself and see if there is any relation at all between the two systems. Sacraments are an area where I would be interested. You referenced your belief that Nevin had it right on the Lord's Supper, has anyone done a breakdown of the debate between Nevin and others? 

Someone really just needs to write a book about the history of the debate and the doctrinal distinctives of the movement. 

Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> Lane(If I may, it seems rather informal),
> 
> It has been a while since you taught us that Roberts Rules class... anyway. I am familiar with it coming up in relation to FV, and I want to investigate it myself and see if there is any relation at all between the two systems. Sacraments are an area where I would be interested. You referenced your belief that Nevin had it right on the Lord's Supper, has anyone done a breakdown of the debate between Nevin and others?
> 
> ...



Mathison's _Given for You_, already referenced, has a fine survey of the historical debate.





The Mercersburg Theology: Nichols, James Hastings: 9781556353161: Amazon.com: Books


The Mercersburg Theology [Nichols, James Hastings] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Mercersburg Theology



www.amazon.com









Coena Mystica: Debating Reformed Eucharistic Theology (Mercersburg Theology Study Series): John Williamson Nevin, Charles Hodge, Linden J. DeBie, W. Bradford Littlejohn: 9781620327678: Amazon.com: Books


Coena Mystica: Debating Reformed Eucharistic Theology (Mercersburg Theology Study Series) [John Williamson Nevin, Charles Hodge, Linden J. DeBie, W. Bradford Littlejohn] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Coena Mystica: Debating Reformed Eucharistic Theology (Mercersburg...



www.amazon.com









The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity: W. Bradford Littlejohn, Peter J. Leithart: 9781606082416: Amazon.com: Books


The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity [W. Bradford Littlejohn, Peter J. Leithart] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity



www.amazon.com





Numerous works are also on Mercersburg. They are referenced above. Littlejohn has written his own work. He is a good and legitimate scholar, but he does have his own axes to grind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 15, 2020)

RWD said:


> Lane,
> 
> I’m trying to interpret your posts in a charitable and sensible way. I’m just struggling with how to make sense of your use of hyper.
> 
> ...


I'll try once more. I am using "hyper" in the very simple sense of "extreme." That's all. By extreme continuity, I mean that the FV often doesn't seem to think that Jesus has changed much of anything. In this, they are similar to the Hebrew Roots Movement, and certain aspects of theonomy. Also, most of the FV proponents have been theonomists, or are still theonomists. As to your query about theonomists needing to "take the plunge," I already answered that above in my clarifying post. The way the FV and theonomy treat the connection between NT and OT is similar. That does not mean there is a necessary organic connection between the two. I mentioned before that there is a level of influence that theonomy has had on the FV. Any and all FV proponents have said this. 

I have long contemplated why it is that we have a hard time communicating when we are debating something, Ron, and I think I have come on the answer. You are so detail-oriented that I could christen you a hyper-Ramist. I am not a detail-oriented person. So when I use terms, you immediately parse my terms to within an inch of their lives. I am thinking more generally and broader picture. As a result, you tend to think I am shifting in my definitions of terms, and I tend to think you are being a bit nitpicky. You tend to think my general comments don't prove my point, and I tend to think your bar of proof is too high. If we make allowances for each other, maybe we can communicate better. Please do not interpret anything in this paragraph as a denigration of you, of whom I have the highest respect. Merely trying to delineate different characters and different ways of communicating.


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 15, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I'll try once more. I am using "hyper" in the very simple sense of "extreme." That's all. By extreme continuity, I mean that the FV often doesn't seem to think that Jesus has changed much of anything. In this, they are similar to the Hebrew Roots Movement, and certain aspects of theonomy. Also, most of the FV proponents have been theonomists, or are still theonomists. As to your query about theonomists needing to "take the plunge," I already answered that above in my clarifying post. The way the FV and theonomy treat the connection between NT and OT is similar. That does not mean there is a necessary organic connection between the two. I mentioned before that there is a level of influence that theonomy has had on the FV. Any and all FV proponents have said this.
> 
> I have long contemplated why it is that we have a hard time communicating when we are debating something, Ron, and I think I have come on the answer. You are so detail-oriented that I could christen you a hyper-Ramist. I am not a detail-oriented person. So when I use terms, you immediately parse my terms to within an inch of their lives. I am thinking more generally and broader picture. As a result, you tend to think I am shifting in my definitions of terms, and I tend to think you are being a bit nitpicky. You tend to think my general comments don't prove my point, and I tend to think your bar of proof is too high. If we make allowances for each other, maybe we can communicate better. Please do not interpret anything in this paragraph as a denigration of you, of whom I have the highest respect. Merely trying to delineate different characters and different ways of communicating.



Lane, I take no offense. I simply cannot make sense of how you are trying to connect the dots. It seems to me you have a general _feeling_ about how FV relates to theonomy but that you’re unable to articulate what appears to be a vague impression of things. I think that if there were a meaningful connection between the two it would have been clearly stated by now. But it’s not all for naught, at least for me. I’ve enjoyed traipsing through the fog with you. Our walk has also fortified my view that there’s really nothing to this guilt by association.

All the best,

Ron


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 15, 2020)

RWD said:


> As for FV relating to Theonomy, how does an aberrant view of the sacraments and conflation of salvation and the church get shoved into a particular view of OT civil law and modern day magistrates?


What is now FV used to be Tylerite Reconstructionism. It's not that theonomy simpliciter leads to FV; it's that a certain current within the Reconstructionist movement became the FV movement. There's an organic connection.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 15, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> What is now FV used to be Tylerite Reconstructionism. It's not that theonomy simpliciter leads to FV; it's that a certain current within the Reconstructionist movement became the FV movement. There's an organic connection.



Oh, I see now. It’s a Tylerite current within the broader Reconstructionist movement, which is not part of theonomy simpliciter, that provides the organic connection between FV and something other than theonomy simpliciter. Why didn’t someone say so earlier? Nothing gnostic about it. Most clear. Tyler R _became_ FV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 16, 2020)

RWD said:


> Oh, I see now. It’s a Tylerite current within the broader Reconstructionist movement, which is not part of theonomy simpliciter, that provides the organic connection between FV and something other than theonomy simpliciter. Why didn’t someone say so earlier? Nothing gnostic about it. Most clear. Tyler R _became_ FV.


That's right. Same people, same doctrine, same emphases.


----------

