2 Week FV discussion begins today

Status
Not open for further replies.
They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?
 
They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?

I am not sure, but it seems that a few who were RPCNA on this board ended up going FV. I know one went PCA but I am not sure of the other person I knew who slipped into it.
 
They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?

The latest Christian Renewal reports that the RPCNA Synod 2007 passed a resolution to form a study committee to review the FV.
 
They want someone to talk to, and some folks seem to think they need to accommodate that. It will be interesting to see how this goes. The RPCNA has yet to rule on this correct? Or have they tackled the FV issue yet?

The latest Christian Renewal reports that the RPCNA Synod 2007 passed a resolution to form a study committee to review the FV.
Thanks for the info.:up:
 
Leithart wrote:

The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit. Visible church, again | De Regno Christi <<

Would appreciate your critique of of this gentlemen.
 
Leithart wrote:

The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit. Visible church, again | De Regno Christi <<

Would appreciate your critique of of this gentlemen.

And this one as well (also from Leithart):

This brings us to the third problem of assurance: OK, so God is addressing me in Word and Sacrament. And I have to believe. But how do I know that my faith is real, really real, and not the temporary faith that might later be choked by the world? Call the one who raises this question Doubter 3.

To Doubter 3, I want to say simply: Keep listening to the word, believe it, consider yourself dead to sin, trust that God is feeding you at the table, pray for stronger faith and for perseverance. Don’t stand to the side of your relationship with God and try to find assurance in a scientific third-person examination. Stand before God, as He offers Himself in His Word and Sacrament, and trust Him. Throw yourself on the mercy of God, because there is no foundation more secure than that.
 
Leithart wrote:

The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit. Visible church, again | De Regno Christi <<

Would appreciate your critique of of this gentlemen.

I will quote an old author, and then show the differences between the FV and traditional Presbyterianism.

Fergusson: Not only particular believers, but also whole visible churches, are in Christ, though in a much different way: real believers are in him savingly, so as to be freed from condemnation by him, Rom. 8:1; being knit to him by the band of saving faith, Eph. 3:17, and receiving the influence of saving graces from him, John 7:38, 39. Again, visible churches are in Christ in the respects presently mentioned, only as to the better part of them, and with regard had to real believers, who always are among them; but besides this, the whole bulk of visible churches, and of visible church-members, are in Christ, so, as they enjoy from him outward privileges and divine ordinances, Ps. 147:19, 20; the communication of common gifts from the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12:8; and some measure of divine protection more than the rest of the world, Isa. 27:2, 3; and these all by virtue of their union with him; the bond whereof is the profession of his name, and of those substantial truths which relate unto him either personally or parentally; which external union betwixt Christ and the visible church is sealed up by baptism: “the churches of Judea, which were in Christ.” (Epistles, 26.)

Like the FV, traditional Presbyterians maintain that baptism is an initiatory sacrament, and unites to Christ in the sense of sealing entrance into the visible church. But unlike the FV, traditional Presbyterianism points to the fact that only "real" believers enjoy the saving benefits of Christ. Church-members enjoy benefits, but they are "outward," not "spiritual." Finally, the union itself is noted as being "external." FVers like Leithart do not make these distinctions, but speak of all in the church being partakers of spiritual benefits through union with Christ. Hence they confound things which historic Presbyterian thought has distinguished.
 
And this one as well (also from Leithart):

This brings us to the third problem of assurance: OK, so God is addressing me in Word and Sacrament. And I have to believe. But how do I know that my faith is real, really real, and not the temporary faith that might later be choked by the world? Call the one who raises this question Doubter 3.

To Doubter 3, I want to say simply: Keep listening to the word, believe it, consider yourself dead to sin, trust that God is feeding you at the table, pray for stronger faith and for perseverance. Don’t stand to the side of your relationship with God and try to find assurance in a scientific third-person examination. Stand before God, as He offers Himself in His Word and Sacrament, and trust Him. Throw yourself on the mercy of God, because there is no foundation more secure than that.

The problem here is that the WCF has a whole chapter devoted to the question of assurance, and at no point does the FVist's idea coincide with it. The WCF maintains a biblical balance between the objective and subjective aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit. The FVist transports the subjective aspect to the realm of participation in the means of grace. Hereby external criteria are made the test of a work of the Spirit of God within a man's heart. Whereas the WCF correctly upholds internal criteria in accord with the biblical view, that the Spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, Rom. 8:16. The FVist has no corresponding means of discerning this internal witness.
 
What I can't figure out is what he makes of 2 Cor. 13:5...

And this one as well (also from Leithart):

This brings us to the third problem of assurance: OK, so God is addressing me in Word and Sacrament. And I have to believe. But how do I know that my faith is real, really real, and not the temporary faith that might later be choked by the world? Call the one who raises this question Doubter 3.

To Doubter 3, I want to say simply: Keep listening to the word, believe it, consider yourself dead to sin, trust that God is feeding you at the table, pray for stronger faith and for perseverance. Don’t stand to the side of your relationship with God and try to find assurance in a scientific third-person examination. Stand before God, as He offers Himself in His Word and Sacrament, and trust Him. Throw yourself on the mercy of God, because there is no foundation more secure than that.
"Test yourselves [to see] if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves. Or do you not recognize for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless you fail the test."

Isn't this precisely the opposite of the advice given? Mind, his last sentence is inarguable, and right on the money: "Throw yourself on the mercy of God, because there is no foundation more secure than that."

Still, Paul wasn't giving the same counsel as Pastor Leithart.

 
Leithart wrote:

The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit. Visible church, again | De Regno Christi <<

Would appreciate your critique of of this gentlemen.

I will quote an old author, and then show the differences between the FV and traditional Presbyterianism.

Fergusson: Not only particular believers, but also whole visible churches, are in Christ, though in a much different way: real believers are in him savingly, so as to be freed from condemnation by him, Rom. 8:1; being knit to him by the band of saving faith, Eph. 3:17, and receiving the influence of saving graces from him, John 7:38, 39. Again, visible churches are in Christ in the respects presently mentioned, only as to the better part of them, and with regard had to real believers, who always are among them; but besides this, the whole bulk of visible churches, and of visible church-members, are in Christ, so, as they enjoy from him outward privileges and divine ordinances, Ps. 147:19, 20; the communication of common gifts from the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12:8; and some measure of divine protection more than the rest of the world, Isa. 27:2, 3; and these all by virtue of their union with him; the bond whereof is the profession of his name, and of those substantial truths which relate unto him either personally or parentally; which external union betwixt Christ and the visible church is sealed up by baptism: “the churches of Judea, which were in Christ.” (Epistles, 26.)

Like the FV, traditional Presbyterians maintain that baptism is an initiatory sacrament, and unites to Christ in the sense of sealing entrance into the visible church. But unlike the FV, traditional Presbyterianism points to the fact that only "real" believers enjoy the saving benefits of Christ. Church-members enjoy benefits, but they are "outward," not "spiritual." Finally, the union itself is noted as being "external." FVers like Leithart do not make these distinctions, but speak of all in the church being partakers of spiritual benefits through union with Christ. Hence they confound things which historic Presbyterian thought has distinguished.

Thanks for the quote from Fergusson Rev. Winzer. It's helpful. :up:
 
Excepting the 'usual suspects' type stuff as noted already, I think some of this is turning out to be instructive. Hart is very on point I think in his comments. That said, I'm still not sure how many forums should be continued to be afforded the FV advocates. I mean, how much rope do you need from these guys to hang themselves?

As GreenBaggins has noted, a two week FV "discussion" begins today, hosted "by De Regnis Christi, an RPCNA pastor, which will feature Douglas Wilson, John Muether, and Richard Lints" and some others (but not Dr. Clark ;)).
 
Dear Matthew,

Thanks for the clear explanation of the differences between the FV and classical Presbyterianism.

[...] Church-members enjoy benefits, but they are "outward," not "spiritual." [...]

It's interesting that John Owen seems to have a half-way house explanation between this. He's willing to admit that the Spirit does a work in church members who ultimately aren't true believers. The Spirit works incompletely in them, working a legal faith, not a true faith. Indeed, Owen argues that they even exercise spiritual gifts! His proof is Matt. 7:22 "Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name", prophesy being a spiritual gift. I was a little taken back when I first read Owen saying this.

God bless.
 
How does "did we not prophesy in your name" necessitate the presence of Spirit-given spiritual gifts?

Anyone can "prophesy" and attach Christ's name to it, after all.

If the Holy Spirit does, in fact, work temporarily in people so they have legitimate reason to believe they're regenerated, then the FV is right.
 
I think it is interesting that FV moves the divide from what we can see versus what we can't (visible/invisible Church) to within God's decree itself (elect to covenant/elect to salvation).
 
The FV folks will likely not accept correction and will continue to attempt to gather a following. I don’t see this changing. Critical evaluation will continue to fall on deaf ears. In spite of that, the conversation provides opportunity to mitigate the influence they attempt to exert.
 
How does "did we not prophesy in your name" necessitate the presence of Spirit-given spiritual gifts?

Anyone can "prophesy" and attach Christ's name to it, after all.

Well the verse seems to suggest that the prophecy is not fake:

Matt 7:22 (NIV) Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'

It's not just people who prophesy in Christ's name but also people who cast out demons (in Christ's name) and perform many miracles. The context would suggest that these people really did prophecy, exorcise, and work miracles with reference to Christ but actually weren't truly converted.

If the Holy Spirit does, in fact, work temporarily in people so they have legitimate reason to believe they're regenerated, then the FV is right.

No there's a slight difference on Owen's view. He would believe they are not truly regenerate, it's not a temporary but a true work of the Spirit that brings about a true new birth.

On Owen's view the faith these non-regenerate people have is not true but partial (it's what he calls a "legal" faith, just one that sits in the head and not the heart as well). And these people are actually self-deceived about their Christianity. Hence, the Puritan call to test our faith per:

2Cor 13:5 (NIV) Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

Blessings.
 
What is the point? Are they adding to their aberrations? Maybe they are trying to look more confessional.

Just when you were afraid that the FVers might be able to obscure the issue, Jim JOrdan stumbles into the room and makes his typical comments. Priceless.

Partial comments quote from Broken? Fixed? Whatever | De Regno Christi by James Jordan

I’m not interested in recovering the sinfulness of harmonizing when we sing, or of having musical instruments, or of using misleading phrases like “covenant of works.” And so perhaps I’ve no business in this conversation.

Sounds more like some of them are becoming emblazoned.

Gotta love that Greenbaggins.
 
It's interesting that John Owen seems to have a half-way house explanation between this. He's willing to admit that the Spirit does a work in church members who ultimately aren't true believers. The Spirit works incompletely in them, working a legal faith, not a true faith. Indeed, Owen argues that they even exercise spiritual gifts! His proof is Matt. 7:22 "Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name", prophesy being a spiritual gift. I was a little taken back when I first read Owen saying this.

That's true, Marty. I think Owen is only saying that the Spirit stirs up natural reason and conscience, but does not renew it. In that sense it would fall short of being "spiritual" in the biblical sense as the Puritans understood it.
 
It's also important to remember that Owen saw the Spirit at work in ways in which moderns don't consider. He lists under the works of the Spirit "exalting the abilities of men" and includes under this rubric political abilities (e.g. Solomon, Saul's entrance to the kingship), moral abilities like courage (Gideon, Jeptheth) and intellectual abilities (e.g. Bezaleel and Aholiab).
 
It's also important to remember that Owen saw the Spirit at work in ways in which moderns don't consider. He lists under the works of the Spirit "exalting the abilities of men" and includes under this rubric political abilities (e.g. Solomon, Saul's entrance to the kingship), moral abilities like courage (Gideon, Jeptheth) and intellectual abilities (e.g. Bezaleel and Aholiab).

Thanks for this Mr. Greco... I think this is spot on...
 
Whoa, ho, ho. Isn't this special, and rather revealing?
Biblicism and Tradition in the Dogmatomachy | De Regno Christi

CBrown
September 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I guess I’d like to know more about Jim Jordan’s church affiliation. Who is this guy? I’d like to know what church he represents, since he’s such a high churchman.

...

James Jordan
September 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm

If you don’t know who I am, you have no business in a discussion of the Federal Vision. Please, don’t come in here and offer opinions on things you know nothing about!
...


W.H. Chellis
September 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Come now, Mr. Jordan, your ecclesiastical credentials are less than clear. I believe you were the only signer of the FV Confession without ecclesiastical credentials given. Nor does a simple google search reveal anything.

JMuether
September 26th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

C’mon Jim, CBrown asks a fair question and I have been wondering that myself. You have been claiming to believe the WCF here and there over the past 10 days, but that begs the question of how and to whom you have subscribed. On the Federal Vision statement you signed, you are described as a minister in the ARC and a member of CREC. What is the ARC and what does it mean to minister in the former and be a member of the latter?
 
That's typical of James Jordan to respond in such a way. He called me "stupid" on Blog and Mablog recently when I suggested that his doctrine of temporary faith and election reminded me of Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top