Clark-Tillian
Puritan Board Freshman
Fred Greco has a good article on Puritan's Mind on NT Wright/NPP that is a good place to get a foundational understanding of that vein of the controversy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can pin that on a wall to describe the way the Confessions are handled at times.While the Confessions are dehistoricized from the Reformation and Protestant Scholastic contexts in which they arose, it seems people will be able to say they subscribe because of ad hoc agreement with the words, even when they are at odds with its tenor and scope.
My very first Presbytery meeting I broke the "gentlemen's rule" in not talking during my first Presbytery meeting as a new Elder a number of years ago. A candidate for ministry was being examined who held to Paedocommunion and he presented a paper on why he believed in PC. A good number of the TE's and RE's had the opinion that "...he explained why he believes this so why are we pulling him through a knothole on this issue...?" The problem was that his paper was contradictory to our Standards. At one point the candidate even stated that he could read the Confessions in such a way that he agreed with the words of the Confession (even though propositionally they contradicted his own view). That was, again, good enough for enough men present that he was approved for ordination by about 66% of the Elders in attendance. It's not just the FV that are treating our Confessions with a "reader response" theory. The sad irony is that I imagine that more Elders would be constructionists with respect to our U.S. Constitution (and be up in arms about the way the Supreme Court rules) than there are Elders who treat our Church's constitution in the same manner.
And few other FV guys have Wilson's linguistic skill and connections with mainstream evangelicals.
You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.
The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.
from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology,
You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder
The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.
You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.
The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.
I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.
From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.
I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.
You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.
I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.
The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.
I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.
From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.
I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.
You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder
The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.
I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
Rushdoony is usually thought of as having originated Christian Reconstructionism, and the Federal Vision arose in Reconstructionist churches. In the 80s, the Reconstructionists split over the same issues that are now associated with the Federal Vision. The FV controversy has only widened the breach.
While it is true that Jordan and other FV folks now repudiate theonomy (which is just one part of Reconstructionism), the Reconstructionist influence is still plain.
The difficulty is that the Federal Vision is in some ways rather broad. It would probably be pretty tough to show that Rich Lusk, for instance, is a theonomist. However, I used to be a member of a church CREC church that embraced the Federal Vision and theonomy wholeheartedly.
In my experience, the older men who are involved with the Federal Vision were either in reconstructionist camp at one time, or still in it today, almost to a man.
thanks for all the reading material. It's a lot to digest.
Quick question: is it bad enough to consider the broader movement a heresy?
Is Doug Wilson a bad man?
I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source:
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source:
Yeah. It's called 'the internet'.
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
Before I was familiar with his face, I used to say Phil Johnson reminded me of Doug Wilson. Well, no more.
I'll give the benefit of trust to the website. Given what it says, he's got a colossal lack of discernment at the very least and is arguably unqualified to be an elder/his church not a real church. Phew.
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.
For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.
For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.
Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book What We Believe argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).
I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.
It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.
For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.
Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book What We Believe argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.
But he may be moving in that direction...