BobVigneault
Bawberator
Which just backs up Pastor Keister's assessment that he is a 'troll first class' and that FVers are particularly drawn toward and beyond the innovative and nuanced fringes of orthodoxy.
Another FVist goes Papist
- Thread starter dannyhyde
- Start date
- Status
Which just backs up Pastor Keister's assessment that he is a 'troll first class' and that FVers are particularly drawn toward and beyond the innovative and nuanced fringes of orthodoxy.
Anne,
You're just further showing how you don't get it. You're not supposed to think. You're supposed to fawn, drool and obey every word NT Wright says. If Wright says that Borg is a Christian who "loves Jesus passionately" who are we to let a little think like the most fundamental doctrine in Christianity (the resurrection) stand in the way?!?
Gryphonette
Moderator
Thing is, that makes sense, considering their affection (in most instances) for N.T. Wright, etc.
Just because a favored theologian gets some fairly significant stuff wrong (eg. Wright's egalitarianism) doesn't mean we can't learn Important Truths from him.
Well, if they have Important Truth to impart even though they also are imparting a fair amount of junk, then why not give an ear to everyone imparting junk?
There are valuable lessons to be learned from almost all theologian-types!
Well, except for fundamentalist no-accounts like Piper, Mohler, etc. Wouldn't want to waste time looking for Important Truth from the likes of them. No point carrying it to foolish extremes.
Just because a favored theologian gets some fairly significant stuff wrong (eg. Wright's egalitarianism) doesn't mean we can't learn Important Truths from him.
Well, if they have Important Truth to impart even though they also are imparting a fair amount of junk, then why not give an ear to everyone imparting junk?
There are valuable lessons to be learned from almost all theologian-types!
Well, except for fundamentalist no-accounts like Piper, Mohler, etc. Wouldn't want to waste time looking for Important Truth from the likes of them. No point carrying it to foolish extremes.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Some are, some aren't. I know some who do spout that, but then again, I have used Wilson's arguments against Maclaren in other debates with Emergent folk. But Wilson said he got his arguments against EC from Bahnsen/Van Til/David Wells
javajedi
Puritan Board Freshman
This has been my concern all along. Its the generation being raised on this junk that is at the biggest risk.
I have expressed this to people I gave talked with about FV. It seems to me that the 'leaders' who teach new/novel doctrines but have had sound, Biblical training (not that they remain sound) and, like the FV folks, claim orthodoxy (small 'o') will remain where they are. Its the next generation that will take it to its logical conclusion and be lost. The leaders and those originally grounded will be very slow to reject orthodoxy. But the next gen. will not have that grounding. I think the 'fruit' will really be seen in years and decades to come - way to late for many. We are seeing the 'firstfruits' now, just wait for the big harvest to come. Sad, very sad.
I completely agree. This trend is repeated over and over and over. Usually the first generation retains its semi-orthodoxy but the heirs of such views usually drift off into various heresies. For instance, I've told a lot of people that in 1-2 generations, the Calvary Chapel movement will drift into a cult. Why? Because they fit the historical recipe for such things - end times obsession with little core orthodox doctrinal interest.
I've always been most critical of the FV leaders for their arrogance and naiveté over the fact that being unclear is a huge liability. Frankly, I don't believe they're being unclear in their statements that benefits that can only be enjoyed by union with Christ in His death and resurrection (forgiveness of sins, justification, etc) are said to accrue to people by their covenant participation "to some extent" even if they are reprobate.
Parse it until you're blue in the face. The mere fact they are willing, for years, to keep whining "I've been misrepresented" ought to be a huge alarm bell ringing for Godly Pastors. That they don't get it is an indictment on their character. If ELDERS have been wrangling for 5 years trying to make sure they understand them clearly and after 5 years still can't adequately state their beliefs in a manner acceptable to the proponents THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG.
I get passionate about this because I can't believe how foolish these men are that think this ambiguity will benefit their members. If Elders in Christ's Church are suspicious of the conclusions to be drawn from statements then, you can be sure, that people in the pews are drawing those same conclusions.
So pity this soul as someone who was a sheep with shepherds who cared more for their theological novelty than for his eternal soul. Save your ire for the Shepherds.
How many more converts will we hear about where they say: "Well, he didn't understand us the same way you guys don't.... Boo hoo! Poor me the FV Pastor! Why can't anyone understand me?!"
Run for political office with that excrement. When you face the King of Kings at the throne of judgment, all that foolishness will be called to account!
Gryphonette
Moderator
Bingo once, bingo twice, bingo eighty-seven times over!
It's particularly true that the 2d "generation" will go whole hog to Cathodoxy since the FV insists the RCC and OC's are true churches, with doctrine not that much worse than the local evangellycal church. What on earth is there to stop their children from becoming RC or Orthodox, then? And what protest could their FV pastors or parents legitimately raise?
It's unnerving how often the only real doctrinal problem an FV'er will have with Rome is the pope. The papacy's a pest, naturally, but in fact is hardly the most problematic doctrine held by the RCC. Trouble is, to many FV'ers the rest of the RCC's doctrines can be finessed away. Baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation no longer seem that strange and wrong; icons and statues are acceptable and even beneficial; even the existence of a priesthood is no longer a hindrance, considering how the distance between the congregation and the pastor has been increased with the heightened emphasis on "the authority of the Church with a Capital C".
Once they can explain away the papacy, the last doctrinal hurdle has been crossed, and the FV-to-Rome train has taken on another passenger.
It's extraordinarily depressing.
It's particularly true that the 2d "generation" will go whole hog to Cathodoxy since the FV insists the RCC and OC's are true churches, with doctrine not that much worse than the local evangellycal church. What on earth is there to stop their children from becoming RC or Orthodox, then? And what protest could their FV pastors or parents legitimately raise?
It's unnerving how often the only real doctrinal problem an FV'er will have with Rome is the pope. The papacy's a pest, naturally, but in fact is hardly the most problematic doctrine held by the RCC. Trouble is, to many FV'ers the rest of the RCC's doctrines can be finessed away. Baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation no longer seem that strange and wrong; icons and statues are acceptable and even beneficial; even the existence of a priesthood is no longer a hindrance, considering how the distance between the congregation and the pastor has been increased with the heightened emphasis on "the authority of the Church with a Capital C".
Once they can explain away the papacy, the last doctrinal hurdle has been crossed, and the FV-to-Rome train has taken on another passenger.
It's extraordinarily depressing.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree completely. And if it is really the case that their teachings are inscrutable even to studied the reformed minds, then they should not be teaching at all. Teaching requires a minimum level of competence at being clear. Someone who cannot make himself clear, even to seminary professors, is not qualified to be a teacher in the church.
It seems that worldview changes often take a generation or two to really work themselves out. I think of Darwin, for example, who affirmed evolution and atheism and yet retained Victorian morality. That morality was anchored to something else and he was living on borrowed capital that his heirs did not have or want.
The current teachers all have vested interests in their current careers and positions. Changing is very costly and hard. I suppose some could be in touch with the Coming Home Network or something like that.
The former NSA student in question has given his thoughts on why he ought not be considered representative of the FV.
And I think it bears remembering that FVists are not the only ones who convert to Rome.
And I think it bears remembering that FVists are not the only ones who convert to Rome.
The facts remain the same he was influenced by their teaching as his original title states
("On How The Federal Vision Made Me Catholic") regardless of if the FV accepted him or not.
Also reading the comments you can see how some others may convert through the influene of NPP.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9575787&postID=3929020688383210696&isPopup
Mary, I believe you actually know this person, so of course you may know the situation much better than we can. I also understand that there is a difference between someone leaving, say, the PCA for Rome (Matatics) and someone being led to Rome by hanging out with, say, Cardinal Newman. My point is simply that we should not allow ourselves to make uncritical cheap shots: they are bad strategy, even if emotionally satisfying, because they permit of such easy tu quoque comebacks.
Coincidentally, I did something I don't do regularly and stopped by the Bayly blog. David Bayly had some thoughts on this particular FVist becoming a Papist.
I do agree, cheap shots are never helpful & I honestly thank you for that reminder.
The only point I want to stress is that I believe FV theology can lead people to misunderstand justification & because I think it is a very real danger, it should be pointed out when it has, in light of not one but many who have actually gone from FV to Roman Catholicism.
Last edited:
Ruben,
I apologize if you believe that my scathing criticism of the FV is intended to either be a cheap shot or an easy criticism. My point was not meant to scholarly convince a man that there is a nexus between FV theology and a conversion to Rome. My point is that a lack of clarity combined with theological novelty causes for instability.
There is a phenomena ongoing in Pentecostalism right now - burn out. Many of the neo-Atheists you meet come from neo-Pentecostal Churches. It's not possible to connect a doctrinal connection from one pole to the other yet there is a gut appreciation why the one pole leads to the other pole.
Well now there I can agree with you, Rich. There is a difference between the occasional, imperfect logic of people's actions, and strict deductive demands of theological positions. My concern is solely that people not weaken their case by falling into the mistake of thinking that any stick is good enough to beat an opponent with. And I think that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a lecherous, gnostic oneness pentecostal.
lololong
Puritan Board Freshman
As one who grew up catholic in Europe and converted to protestantism 16 years ago in a church that is now FV (AAPC), I thought I would give you my 2c.
The FV IS leading people to Rome. The liturgy, the theology,the imagery.. are all too close to what I was raised in.
Because of my background and the mercy of God, I was able to see it quite clearly, and never embraced the FV/AAPC teaching. I told the session that I was not about to go back to Rome, and our family left several years ago.
It really pains me to see what is happening.
The FV IS leading people to Rome. The liturgy, the theology,the imagery.. are all too close to what I was raised in.
Because of my background and the mercy of God, I was able to see it quite clearly, and never embraced the FV/AAPC teaching. I told the session that I was not about to go back to Rome, and our family left several years ago.
It really pains me to see what is happening.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
I agree. I spent 10 years in Catholicism. I've ran into a fellow who left our church for the FV while shopping in Wal-Mart one evening. At first he explained why he had not been to church and was going elsewhere. I just flat out asked him if he was FV. I then asked him what the general FV (and his) view on the Doctrine of Justification was and he replied that he believed in Sola Fide. After that he qualified he response with what seemed to me to be a Catholic teaching on justification. His response to my observation was the Protestants "misunderstand" the Catholic teaching on Justification and that Catholics are not so bad after all and blah, blah, blah. I wanted to tell him that I taught CCD for six years and know what the differences are but he had to go and so we parted. It was a sad occasion for me.
Sola Gratia!! Sola Fide!!
lololong
Puritan Board Freshman
Before the changes in theology came the changes in the liturgy: the robes, the repeats, the kneeling...very high church and basically almost the exact replica of what I grew up with. We were just missing the altar boys(Ruston was ahead of us on that one) and the chanting. Then in theology came the baptism...a baby baptized was saved and is sins washed away- the church became the only place for salvation - relationship with God was through the church, not personal - the sacrements became central and dominants before the preaching of the Word - Symbolism was in everything and everywhere. And of course one can lose his salvation (that you acquired at baptism). To stay saved, you have to believe AND keep the covenant...looks very much like salvation by works to me, just like in the RC. Worship had become for me a very difficult thing and I was not looking forward to Sunday.
I was glad when we left 3 1/2 years ago.
I was glad when we left 3 1/2 years ago.
I am sorry to hear about your experiences Lolo and Zack. As A former altar boy, I feel your pain.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
You must be getting nasty PMs. I am sorry to see that.
Gryphonette
Moderator
I spent a dozen years as an RC, and could not possibly agree more. There's an unnerving similarity between FV and RC doctrine.
Even though the FV doesn't use the term "infusion", that's what their "justified by covenantal obedience" is at heart, so far's I can tell. One is initially justified at baptism....this is a huge FV doctrine, is it not?....but to remain justified requires sanctification. Sanctification is not actually a fruit of justification in the sense that traditional Reformed theology says, but instead there is a symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification.
Mind, now! There is certainly a significant difference in reality between true RC soteriology and FV soteriology, make no mistake about that. The problem is the FV provides a stepping stone between Reformed soteriology and RC soteriology. Once one accepts any sort of symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification, it's not a giant leap to full-fledged RC doctrine.
There are also similarities between the FV view of the sacraments and the RC view; plus the whole "the Church IS salvation" angle sounds very RC.
It's like that Taylor Whozit said, the FV is a keyhole for the RCC.
Even though the FV doesn't use the term "infusion", that's what their "justified by covenantal obedience" is at heart, so far's I can tell. One is initially justified at baptism....this is a huge FV doctrine, is it not?....but to remain justified requires sanctification. Sanctification is not actually a fruit of justification in the sense that traditional Reformed theology says, but instead there is a symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification.
Mind, now! There is certainly a significant difference in reality between true RC soteriology and FV soteriology, make no mistake about that. The problem is the FV provides a stepping stone between Reformed soteriology and RC soteriology. Once one accepts any sort of symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification, it's not a giant leap to full-fledged RC doctrine.
There are also similarities between the FV view of the sacraments and the RC view; plus the whole "the Church IS salvation" angle sounds very RC.
It's like that Taylor Whozit said, the FV is a keyhole for the RCC.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
I agree with this. FVism is replacing Anglo-Catholic/High Anglicanism as the halfway house to Rome. Eventually a sort of romanticism takes over and FVism doesn't seem like the real McCoy and so EO or RC look authentic and historical. Seems like recycled Tractarian-Newmanism (which pulled me into Rome) repackaged for a new generation.
Good points. What I've noticed among FV primarily is the "...we think you guys gooned up Reformed theology so we're going to re-construct it by going back through Augustine to reconstruct it ourselves..." attitude.
Thus, you have Churches with sort of an eclectic "slapping together" of liturgical and theological ideas from centuries past.
But then the Church must seem like a personal collection of theological ideas to some after awhile. They look around and realize that there are probably 50 Christians on the entire planet that are actually worshipping just like them and they start to feel a bit cultic and not very catholic.
Since their theological ideas and forms approximate closely to certain elements, I would imagine that the "man in the pew" probably figures it's best to get respectable and "really go ancient". Better to go to a place that has a real institutions that have been doing this stuff for centuries than stick around the dinky building where a few guys have been cutting and pasting a crazy mosaic for the past 5 years.
I would be very surprised if any did.
As a former Roman Catholic I don't think I would have left Roman Catholicism if all I had I read was FV material.
It was the gospel pure & simply understood with no caveats that led me out of Rome. When I read Romans, by the grace of God I saw my need for Christ & Christ alone as my Redeemer. I know the FV is not the same as Roman Catholicism but I believe the gospel becomes lost in FV sacremontology to the point that the need for a belief in Jesus Christ alone as savior is not clearly seen. To be clear I'm not saying the FV does not believe in faith alone, it's just that as a person in the pew to me the message the FV puts forth is confusing. That's just my opinion & maybe I'm wrong in which case time will tell.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
On a practical point, comparing salvation via FV versus RC, I would go with RC any day. You may have to burn off sins in purgatory for a few thousand years (unless you have some nice relatives who can pitch in a few bucks to shorten your stay), but as long as you haven't committed a mortal sin, you will get to heaven!
With FV you can delude yourself into thinking that you have been the most faithful covenant keeper the church has ever known and when it comes the final judgment and your "final Justification" you all the sudden find out that you got short changed by the Holy Spirit and didn't get the gift of perserverance. Next stop? Lake of Fire!!
With FV you can delude yourself into thinking that you have been the most faithful covenant keeper the church has ever known and when it comes the final judgment and your "final Justification" you all the sudden find out that you got short changed by the Holy Spirit and didn't get the gift of perserverance. Next stop? Lake of Fire!!
- Status
