Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't been following the site that closely for the last couple days - mainly looking at sites that have links to the AFVSB site - but it seems like the author is trying to be more obvious than he was before. If you look to the earlier posts, I don't think they are all that obvious. I've come across several bloggers who thought the site was legit - but really bad. I'm glad the author appears to be getting the message.

Good, maybe complaints like yours have lead to them being more obvious :)
 
Do you personally know anyone who would be deceived this–that the Reformed believe that the Bible is errant, or that the Nicene creed is unorthodox? I would guess probably not, and if so I wouldn't worry too much about the site. :)

I have interacted with "reformed" people who give equally bad arguments. There are people out there on the fringes who are very vocal on web boards and blogs who get Calvinism or some sort of reformed thought, who are 95% right, but 5% of the time they are nuts!

He will get it right on all points of the TULIP and can perfectly express the meaning or election or predestination - will give the scripture proofs and all. Then he will say Van Til is an Arminian who is burning in hell, or anyone who is going to any church but his is going to hell, or you must be perfectly convinced you are saved at all times or you're going to hell. And they are out there loudly defending the reformed faith.

So what I am saying is that despite the mistakes in theology, and the bad arguments, and the sarcasm, it still plausible to think that the site is being run by a real anti-FV'er. People will still be fooled by the site, and this at the expense of legitimate FV proponents.
 
I haven't been following the site that closely for the last couple days - mainly looking at sites that have links to the AFVSB site - but it seems like the author is trying to be more obvious than he was before. If you look to the earlier posts, I don't think they are all that obvious. I've come across several bloggers who thought the site was legit - but really bad. I'm glad the author appears to be getting the message.

Good, maybe complaints like yours have lead to them being more obvious :)
I hope so. :)
 
I think the title kind of gives it away. You might have The Old Perspective on Paul Study Bible, but The Anti-New Perspective on Paul Study Bible is a title that can only work as satire.
 
In a sense, this site gives some illumination on the subject. Whereas some FV'ers seemed unwilling (unable?) to explain the issues, you can see what they are now, albeit wrapped in satire.... What do you guys think?
 
Mega Dittos Civbert! I finally was able to spend some time reading that anti-federalist study scofield bible! yea, it almost seems legit, if not for your warning, i wonder how long it would have taken me to figure it out. And I'm polemical by nature too! Anyway, you gave me a great idea for a Calvinist Blog. I'll wax eloquent on the 5 points of Calvinism, then talk about the soteriological ramifications of an escatalogical view of the rapture. Then I'll sneak in that Carl Barth is an arminian who is in hell right now, and then say something about how you stand a better chance of being saved by being outside of my church than in it, and all the others are going to hell.

Pardon my spelling errors, but its late at night and the spell checker doesn't have those nice big 5 dollar theological words in it. You don't want to know what it said escatalogical should be.

Thanks and God Bless
 
In fact here is the article in question:

Exodus 20:11
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God created the world in six days. This naïveté betrays the anti-intellectualism of the Federal Vision.

The Modern Reformed faith has always held that the first chapter of Genesis is poetic, and as everyone knows, poetry cannot be used to convey history. Poetry always compromises accuracy.

This becomes even more clear when we notice that the sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there were mornings and evenings for the first three days, not to mention the creation of light on the first day.

The only explanation for this chronological gaffe is that God is communicating poetically rather than historically
. This violation of the law of non-contradiction leads us to the obvious conclusion that we cannot not take this account literally. Thus, the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created.

Federal Visionists wrongly accuse us of being dishonest with the text. On the contrary, our position is not only honest, but heroic. When the doctrine of the Creation ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given us, we openly rejected it. We preached against it. We took every risk.

While I am totally opposed to the Federal Vision, I understand how modern Calvinism's compromises with humanism, and the social antinomianism of many in the Reformed world, could attract people to it.

The words that have been highlighted above make me sick. :barfy:
 
Most if not all FVers affirm six day creation. Jordan has a good book refuting Kline on the subject.

I remember reading Jordan's book 10 or so years ago and liked about half of it. Then, as I recall, things went a little sideways. I was a Theonomist at the time and it predates the current FV controversy, but after that reading that book I could not take Jordan seriously. I don't recall the specifics now; I'll probably have to go and read it again.

But, more to the point, I think the FV prides itself on being very conservative on issues such as creation and women. In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).
 
In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).
Garrett Craw?
 
[nervously] This is going to sound really dumb, I expect.

In fact here is the article in question:

Exodus 20:11
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God created the world in six days. This naïveté betrays the anti-intellectualism of the Federal Vision.

The Modern Reformed faith has always held that the first chapter of Genesis is poetic, and as everyone knows, poetry cannot be used to convey history. Poetry always compromises accuracy.

This becomes even more clear when we notice that the sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there were mornings and evenings for the first three days, not to mention the creation of light on the first day.

The only explanation for this chronological gaffe is that God is communicating poetically rather than historically
. This violation of the law of non-contradiction leads us to the obvious conclusion that we cannot not take this account literally. Thus, the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created.

Federal Visionists wrongly accuse us of being dishonest with the text. On the contrary, our position is not only honest, but heroic. When the doctrine of the Creation ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given us, we openly rejected it. We preached against it. We took every risk.
Are we absolutely certain that is on the level?

It's so totally over-the-top I have a hard time believing it's sincere. I mean, "our position is not only honest, but heroic"? Who says that with a straight face?

And "the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created."

Wait a minute. It's a poetic vision intended to demonstrate how the world was definitely NOT created? As in, Genesis 1 was written for the purpose of correcting a pre-existing erroneous impression? Or did it deliberately describe one way the world could have come into being, while simultaneously - albeit implicitly - shooting it down?

What, the LORD's embarrassed at how He actually created the world? Or maybe He couldn't figure out how to describe the process so people could understand?

He, who designed and created both people and language wasn't able to write a coherent account of His creation?

It seems to me whoever wrote that is either so abysmally stupid he should have his driver's license taken away, or he's jerking our chain, and is in fact attempting to make those who are against the FV look like a bunch of dopes. :duh:
 
Y'all. The blog is satire and a joke. It is written by pro-FV people. They are being an interlocutor for the anti-fv side. I think it is obvious by now. Even though I have disagreed with FV, their interlocutor has a few spot-on criticisms.
 
Y'all. The blog is satire and a joke. It is written by pro-FV people. They are being an interlocutor for the anti-fv side. I think it is obvious by now. Even though I have disagreed with FV, their interlocutor has a few spot-on criticisms.

I see. I must confess I do not have much respect for anonymous attack blogs against the FV. There seems to be something decidedly wrong with a person who takes it upon themselves to publicly criticize others, but is not man enough to reveal his own name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top