# Back to basics?



## Myshkin (Mar 30, 2005)

I am a new member here, so I'm hoping this isn't an old question:

What about the book "Back to Basics", ed. by David Hagopian?

In light of the FV and NPP controversy, what are we to think of this book?

I am not in agreement with the FV or NPP. Is the perspective in this book the precursor to these movements? Or are these movements a straying from what is proclaimed in this book?

This concerns me since the FV proponents have now been found to use orthodox lanaguage with heterodox meanings. Added to this that Sproul, Bridges, Adams, Beisner, Boice, and others recommend it with Sproul giving a foreword. Have these men been duped and are now recanting their praise of this book? Or is this book orthodox and different from the controversy today?

In the judgment of charity I'm assuming this book does not reflect what is being taught today by Wilson.

I would greatly appreciate some clarity from those in here who have high discernment, for covenant theology and ecclessiology are topics I am just now being exposed to for the first time. Perhaps a review of this book in light of today's discussions would be helpful also.

Thank you for your time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2005)

From what I understand it does not teach full-fledged Federal Visionism. At the same time, Wilson also contributed to the book of essays dedicated to Sproul Sr, _After Darkness, Light_. I think that a FVisionist could read the book and say, "Yes, but..."


----------



## AdamM (Mar 31, 2005)

I think when you look at the Federal Vision (The NPP is a bit of a different issue) it is important to recognize that the many of their concerns are valid ones that many of us share. The radical individualization we see (me & my Jesus), antinomianism, the lack of understanding of the sacraments and dumbed down worship are all real problems that need to be addressed, so it´s possible to read works by many non-Federal Vision authors that hit on the same themes. The problem with the Federal Vision is that their proposed cures are in my opinion are often times worse then the original disease. So the solution they propose for individualization is to objectify the Covenant to such an extent that the doctrine of individual conversion gets eliminated or at best put in a back corner somewhere. The same goes for the sacraments, to combat a weak understanding of the sacraments, they propose what I think ends up being an opus operatum view (grace is conferred by the sacrament itself w/o reference to faith.) To combat antinomianism, following Norman Shepherds´ lead they propose a definition of faith that turns the faith alone in sola fide into faithfulness (a mix of faith + nonmeritorious works i.e. covenantal obedience.) 

So it´s not that authors like Sproul, Piper and Horton ever were pro-Federal Vision, it´s just that they see the same problems, but look at the Federal Vision proposals for solutions as at best unhelpful and at worst dangerous. 

A good resource to help you learn more about these issues is the web site www.teachingtheword.org. Just click on the "œjustification" tab on the left hand bar and you will have access to a bunch of articles written on the subject. Also the lecture by Dr. Pipa "œContemporary Attacks on Justification" available at sermonaudio.com is great (and free for the download.) I will try to post the link below:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=4604214913


----------



## Myshkin (Mar 31, 2005)

Ok, let me throw this back at you to see if I am articulating properly what you both are saying.

The content of the book is orthodox. FV proponents such as Wilson who contributed to the book agree with this orthodoxy. Non-FV proponents also agree that it is orthodox.

The FV is now taking this orthodoxy and adding to it or redefining it, and by doing both they end up denying what they start out affirming. So it is more a case of them going beyond the reformed orthodoxy of this book, rather than against it. (which ends up being against it anyways)

And the reason they are going beyond orthodoxy is to combat legitimate concerns. So the FV's have the correct diagnosis of certain problems with the church today, but they have the wrong prescription. They have overreacted from one extreme to another.

Is this correctly what you are saying?

Also, have you read it and would you recommend it?

Thank you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2005)

Sadly I haven't read it, although I have been wanting to for a long time. I think the Federal Visionists, some of them anyway, will take certain aspects of the book and use it to teach young ones in the faith. They do this, perhaps, knowing that full-orbed federal visionism will be too convoluted for a real young person to grasp. But as a basic teaching source, I think it is pretty good.


----------

