Congratulations. Welcome to the PB btw.
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.
This is doubtless a dumb question but, well, who IS he? I keep hearing his name over the past few years as the FV has grown, but I'm unclear on precisely who he is? Is he a pastor, like Steve Wilkins? Is he a theologian on staff at a seminary somewhere or other?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!
it is even more obvious "more dialog" is not needed
This is doubtless a dumb question but, well, who IS he? I keep hearing his name over the past few years as the FV has grown, but I'm unclear on precisely who he is? Is he a pastor, like Steve Wilkins? Is he a theologian on staff at a seminary somewhere or other?
And so perhaps I’ve no business in this conversation. But then, if that’s what the issue is, then I don’t think the supposed FV, whatever it is, ever had any interest in reviving that kind of RC. God has 99.99% of His believers in “non-Reformed” churches these days, and that’s got to be significant.
This is doubtless a dumb question but, well, who IS he? I keep hearing his name over the past few years as the FV has grown, but I'm unclear on precisely who he is? Is he a pastor, like Steve Wilkins? Is he a theologian on staff at a seminary somewhere or other?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!
it is even more obvious "more dialog" is not needed
Since the PCA GA, I've been wondering what will come of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church's affiliation with the PCA. Any thoughts?
Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but I'd been under the impression that individual, permanent regeneration is pretty well foundational WRT Reformed soteriology. I would have thought it's a requirement for being considered Reformed/Calvinist.He is not a pastor, although he has done some kind of church work for the past 30+ years. He has a writing ministry under the auspices of several local churches. His writing output is HUGE.
He was writing and saying this stuff in the seventies. Technically, it's not new.
Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but I'd been under the impression that individual, permanent regeneration is pretty well foundational WRT Reformed soteriology. I would have thought it's a requirement for being considered Reformed/Calvinist.He is not a pastor, although he has done some kind of church work for the past 30+ years. He has a writing ministry under the auspices of several local churches. His writing output is HUGE.
He was writing and saying this stuff in the seventies. Technically, it's not new.
Have I been wrong all these years?
What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.
What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.
I don't really think it's fair to lump Schilder in with "FV ideas." His views on the covenant may have some superficial affinities to some FV formulations, but that's as far it goes. He was orthodox on justification, was not a postmillenialist, and did not hold to paedocommunion.
WOW, I didn't realize it would take something that serious. But from their perspective, why would they want to stay at this point? Wouldn't they want to move their denominational affiliation to something that more resembles their beliefs? (I'm not sure who adheres to the FV/NPP teachings so I have no idea where they would go?)I am not PCA, and the following is oversimplifying, but at one time when the issue was raised th e only way to remove AAPC from the PCA was to bring a charge against the whole Presbytery (which I gather is very hard to do). Things might have changed now.
Judging from the Schilder/Hoeksema exchange, Schilder held the external/internal covenant idea as represented in the earlier quotation by Fergusson and historic Presbyterianism. Would this be a fair assessment?
But Jordan's on record as denying it; from a footnote (#21) in the Mississippi Valley report on the FV/NPP:What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.
Unless my understanding of the doctrines of sovereign grace is completely whoppy-jawed, what Jordan said in those quotes is in no way compatible with them."The Bible does not teach that some people receive incorruptible new hearts, i.e., that some people are as individuals 'regenerated.'" "My thesis is that there is no such thing as 'regeneration' in the sense in which Reformed theology since Dort has spoken of it. The Bible says nothing about a permanent change in the hearts of those elected to heaven." "My position: everyone who is baptized has been given the same thing. No one has been given a permanently changed "regenerated heart," James Jordan, Thoughts on Sovereign Grace and Regeneration: Some Tentative Explorations," Occasional Paper No. 32 (Niceville, Fla.: Biblical Horizons, 2003), 1, 7, 7, as quoted by Carl D. Robbins, "The Reformed Doctrine of Regeneration," in The Auburn Avenue Theology, 164.
But Jordan's on record as denying it; from a footnote (#21) in the Mississippi Valley report on the FV/NPP:What I meant was that the FV ideas are not "just recent like of only 5 years ago since Jordan was writing them 35 years ago (and that is not even mentioning Schilder from early 20th century)." No, I am not denying regeneratioon or the reformed doctrines.
Unless my understanding of the doctrines of sovereign grace is completely whoppy-jawed, what Jordan said in those quotes is in no way compatible with them."The Bible does not teach that some people receive incorruptible new hearts, i.e., that some people are as individuals 'regenerated.'" "My thesis is that there is no such thing as 'regeneration' in the sense in which Reformed theology since Dort has spoken of it. The Bible says nothing about a permanent change in the hearts of those elected to heaven." "My position: everyone who is baptized has been given the same thing. No one has been given a permanently changed "regenerated heart," James Jordan, Thoughts on Sovereign Grace and Regeneration: Some Tentative Explorations," Occasional Paper No. 32 (Niceville, Fla.: Biblical Horizons, 2003), 1, 7, 7, as quoted by Carl D. Robbins, "The Reformed Doctrine of Regeneration," in The Auburn Avenue Theology, 164.
Yet I've been told he's scheduled to be a speaker at a PCA church before too long.
Why? Why would a PCA church want someone to come who denies individual, permanent regeneration?
BTW, that last bit's directed at whoever might have a theory.
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).