2 Week FV discussion begins today

Status
Not open for further replies.
He will surely regret posting that, if he hasn't done so already.

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!
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?

Obviously he thinks he's hot stuff, but I don't actually know much of anything about him, and his response (ordained in the ARC and a member of a CREC church) doesn't provide significant illumination.
 
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?

There was a letter from him in Christian Renewal a while back indicating that he teaches at Biblical Theological Seminary in St. Petersburg, Russia.
 
Sounds like dear old James doesn't know what the Federal Vision is either, so who is he to say someone shouldn't be involved with the discussion.

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.

That was the rest of the quote on his criticism of Reformed Christianity taken from his response to the blog entry broken-fixed-whatever

Poor old James.... He just can't get out of his own way, can he?
 
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!
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?



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.

I have met him a number of times. While I don't agree with much of what he said, he is a gifted speaker and does interact with the text. I have seen friends discuss biblical issues with him in person and in the conversation he will force you to be on your exegetical/biblical theological toes.

Am I defending him? No, not necessarily. Just offering my observations.
 
it is even more obvious "more dialog" is not needed
:amen:

Since the PCA GA, I've been wondering what will come of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church's affiliation with the PCA. Any thoughts?

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.
 
Has he been denying permanent, individual regeneration since the 70s?

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.

Have I been wrong all these years?
 
James Jordan has been around for a long time. He was involved with that fiasco in Tyler TX. It was a real mess. As J. has noted he is a voracious writer. You can check out some of his stuff at his Biblical Horizons web site. All in all its pretty fringe stuff. Without the web I don't think anyone would pay much attention to him.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
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?)
 
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?

My reading of Schilder suggests that he in fact rejects the external/internal distinction in the covenant and instead works with a different distinction. There are still two ways of being in the covenant: legally and vitally (same as Geerhardus Vos, Louis Berkhof and Herman Bavinck).

There's a great essay on this here.

With respect to the covenant of works, Schilder emphasized the continuity with the covenant of grace, but yet allowed for differences and did indicate that these two could be described as separate covenants. His views on this are more nuanced than some allow.

I'm not interested in defending Schilder on these points. I'm just describing his position.
 
I didn't think YOU were. Denying permanent, individual regeneration, that is.

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.
But Jordan's on record as denying it; from a footnote (#21) in the Mississippi Valley report on the FV/NPP:

"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.
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.

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. :D
 
No problem. The drawback to internet communication.

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.
But Jordan's on record as denying it; from a footnote (#21) in the Mississippi Valley report on the FV/NPP:

"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.
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.

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. :D
 

Thankyou, it is a very good clarifying essay. I fully agree Schilder does not belong with the FV, because of the distinctions he made. Only I would submit that legal/vital is all that is really meant by external/internal covenanting in the language of traditional reformed theologians. The external covenanting is "in foro Dei," which alleviates Berkhof's difficulty. It may be that by Berkhof's time it had come to mean nothing more than what takes place in foro ecclesiae; but the old theologians had no problem with using terms like election and union with Christ with reference to external covenanting.
 
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).

Dear Fred, that is true, especially when it comes to the work of the Spirit in the OT for Owen. However, when he speaks of the reprobate exercising spiritual gifts (in a new covenant context) that's altogether another thing. Spiritual gifts edify the church.

For example, I have a friend who 15 years ago led many many people to the Lord as a church worker. My friend also discipled them in bible study for a few years. However, my friend no longer names the name of Christ and has no contact with the church or Christians. The people that my friend led to Christ and discipled are still going on in the Lord. This is one of many stories I could recount (some who led people to the Lord and discipled them also died no longer professing Christ).

How do we interpret this? For what it's worth I suspect they never were Christians, but God in his inscrutable ways used them nonetheless to build his church. That's basically Owen's take as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top