Brief rundown of FV theology?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fred Greco has a good article on Puritan's Mind on NT Wright/NPP that is a good place to get a foundational understanding of that vein of the controversy.
 
While the Confessions are dehistoricized from the Reformation and Protestant Scholastic contexts in which they arose, it seems people will be able to say they subscribe because of ad hoc agreement with the words, even when they are at odds with its tenor and scope.
You can pin that on a wall to describe the way the Confessions are handled at times.

My very first Presbytery meeting I broke the "gentlemen's rule" in not talking during my first Presbytery meeting as a new Elder a number of years ago. A candidate for ministry was being examined who held to Paedocommunion and he presented a paper on why he believed in PC. A good number of the TE's and RE's had the opinion that "...he explained why he believes this so why are we pulling him through a knothole on this issue...?" The problem was that his paper was contradictory to our Standards. At one point the candidate even stated that he could read the Confessions in such a way that he agreed with the words of the Confession (even though propositionally they contradicted his own view). That was, again, good enough for enough men present that he was approved for ordination by about 66% of the Elders in attendance. It's not just the FV that are treating our Confessions with a "reader response" theory. The sad irony is that I imagine that more Elders would be constructionists with respect to our U.S. Constitution (and be up in arms about the way the Supreme Court rules) than there are Elders who treat our Church's constitution in the same manner.

Seriously? 66%, while a majority of "yays", should have at least called for a review of his position. Did presbytery make him vow to "not teach" the view?
 
You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.

I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.

The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.

I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.

From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.

I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.
 
You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder

The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.

I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?
 
You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.

I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.

The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.

I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.

From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.

I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.

There are shades/gradations of the acceptance of Shepherd's NPP-esque justification theory within the FV guys, and as far as I know, the Rushdoony fans don't even like (for example) Wilson.

But you aren't being unfair.
 
You cannot separate Doug Wilson from FV. I know he has softened his take but at the end of the day, he is the FV and he is the CREC.

I don't think I totally agree with this. While Wilson is the popular FV guy for folks outside of the FV camp, inside of the camp they pretty much take their cues from James Jordan. Of course, no one will say that--he doesn't hold a special office or anything. But it is indisputable that he is the Godfather of the Federal Vision.

The origins of the FV are more complicated than James Jordan, as important as he is. You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder, Norman Shepherd (who was scheduled to speak at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference), and Peter Leithart. Those four together form the origin of the FV.

I always thought of the pillars on which the FV stands as being Jordan, Schilder, Shepherd and Rushdoony.

From Jordan they get their hemeneutics and ecclesiology, from Schilder they have (correctly or incorrectly) deduced their covenant theology, from shepherd they get their doctrine of justification, and from Rushdoony they get their ethics. Leithart is perhaps the most mature thinker in the camp.

I'm painting with a very broad brush, but I don't think I'm being unfair.

Rush was an influence, but not a big one. They all go to Jordan and Jordan pretty much dismantled Rushdoony's version of theonomy.
 
You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder

The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.

I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?

Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV

The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.
 
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

Rushdoony is usually thought of as having originated Christian Reconstructionism, and the Federal Vision arose in Reconstructionist churches. In the 80s, the Reconstructionists split over the same issues that are now associated with the Federal Vision. The FV controversy has only widened the breach.

While it is true that Jordan and other FV folks now repudiate theonomy (which is just one part of Reconstructionism), the Reconstructionist influence is still plain.
 
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

Rushdoony is usually thought of as having originated Christian Reconstructionism, and the Federal Vision arose in Reconstructionist churches. In the 80s, the Reconstructionists split over the same issues that are now associated with the Federal Vision. The FV controversy has only widened the breach.

While it is true that Jordan and other FV folks now repudiate theonomy (which is just one part of Reconstructionism), the Reconstructionist influence is still plain.

The only reason I hesitate to go that far is because, having visited, known, and lived in the same locality with a number of leading, first-generation recons and FVers, it just isn't that clear. Joe Morecraft is a hyper-Recon, but violently opposed to FV. Steve Wilkins started out embracing Reconstructionis, to be sure, but he did that at the same time he embraced Banner of Truth's neo-Puritanism. Is Iain Murray, then, responsible for FV?

As to bringing neo-Calvinism into the game, that could easily have been Francis Schaeffer, Kuyper, or to a lesser extent Van Til (in fact, Clarkians accuse Van Til of creating FV).

And if you look at Rush's doctrine of the church and sacraments, it's basically non-existent, which is not what the FV have in mind.
 
I was getting ready to say that Jacob.

FV in many ways is hyper-ecclesiastical whereas Rushdoony (mainly because of his experience with the PC(USA) and the Indian reservation then later in California) was anti-ecclesial.

While some in FV came out of CR, it was more a repudiation of Rushdoonyism than an acceptance thereof. A good example of this was Bahnsen's excoriation of James Jordan's hermenuetics.
 
The difficulty is that the Federal Vision is in some ways rather broad. It would probably be pretty tough to show that Rich Lusk, for instance, is a theonomist. However, I used to be a member of a church CREC church that embraced the Federal Vision and theonomy wholeheartedly.

In my experience, the older men who are involved with the Federal Vision were either in reconstructionist camp at one time, or still in it today, almost to a man.
 
The difficulty is that the Federal Vision is in some ways rather broad. It would probably be pretty tough to show that Rich Lusk, for instance, is a theonomist. However, I used to be a member of a church CREC church that embraced the Federal Vision and theonomy wholeheartedly.

In my experience, the older men who are involved with the Federal Vision were either in reconstructionist camp at one time, or still in it today, almost to a man.

The older generation is sort of theonomic. The younger is not. The younger realize that Jordan dismantled theonomy and see no need to press it. One could call them, I suppose, liturgical theonomists.
 
I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source: they just don't know much about the post-Reformation heritage and certainly little to nothing of Patristic and medieval reflection. Of course, this isn't entirely their fault. Baker Academic doesn't feel the need to keep Beardslee, Heppe, and Muller in print. Banner of Truth is more likely to print another piety treatise (valuable as it is) and many others are going to writeYet One More Book on the Five Points.

I lost interest in theonomy when I started reading and studying Oliver O'Donovan.
 
thanks for all the reading material. It's a lot to digest.

Quick question: is it bad enough to consider the broader movement a heresy?

Is Doug Wilson a bad man? Not to be trusted? I've really only run into him on Christopher Hitchens debate videos on youtube--apparently they had a traveling debate tour together a while back.

Where is it generally a risk that you'd run into? Given my location, I don't know if I should be alert for it creeping in to religious circles I might move in.
 
This thread has been most helpful especially with the comments on FV connections and disconnections to theonomy.
 
Before I was familiar with his face, I used to say Phil Johnson reminded me of Doug Wilson. Well, no more.

I'll give the benefit of trust to the website. Given what it says, he's got a colossal lack of discernment at the very least and is arguably unqualified to be an elder/his church not a real church. Phew.
 
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).
 
I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source:

Yeah. It's called 'the internet'.

NOt always. I learned of the Federal Vision by sitting in the pew of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church from 2004-2006 (whenever I was in town). I learned of theonomy from my pastor who studied under Bahnsen and lived with him for a while and from Lonn Oswalt, who proofread a number of Bahnsen's works (see the thank yous in Van Til: Readings and Analysis)
 
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).

I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.

For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.
 
Before I was familiar with his face, I used to say Phil Johnson reminded me of Doug Wilson. Well, no more.

I'll give the benefit of trust to the website. Given what it says, he's got a colossal lack of discernment at the very least and is arguably unqualified to be an elder/his church not a real church. Phew.

He slut-shamed rape victims (as classified under Idaho Law) and pleaded for leniency with the judges.
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/87950-A-Question-for-Doug-Wilson-Fans
 
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).

I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.

For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.

Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book What We Believe argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.
 
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).

I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.

For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.

Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book What We Believe argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.

But he may be moving in that direction... ;)
 
The influence of Rushdoony on the Federal Visionists is in their approach to neocalvinism and in their acceptance of paedocommunion (as well as their denial of the covenant of works and other technical issues).

I think the denial of the covenant of works is one of the key factors in leading to the Federal Vision movement, though prior to RJR this doctrine was called into question by John Murray. The fact that FVers are also Van Tillians is hardly a coincidence either. Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).

I always thought that was a strategic failure on the part of Van Tillians. Van Til correctly held that we have analogical knowledge of God. The Clarkians are in error on this point. But Van Tillians seemed to reduce that statement to "Well, it's just paradox and mystery." Perhaps some things are, but let's not go that route just yet.

For example, we can say a whole lot on the Trinity to alleviate the problem of apparent contradiction without having to pull the paradox card.

Precisely. One need not be a Clarkian to reject Van Tillianism. It is interesting that R. C. Sproul in his most recent book What We Believe argues for an analogical knowledge of God, but he is no Van Tillian.

But he may be moving in that direction... ;)

Maybe not. Thomas Aquinas held to analogical knowledge (and language) and Sproul is a Thomist.
 
I confess I am no Van Til expert and do not know the places in Van Til's thought where he argued for paradox and then systematized theology in that direction. Where I have understood Van Til clearly is the distinction between Theology of the Ectype and Theology of the Archetype. It's another way of stating that man is a creature and God is God. God knows certain things in Himself and man's knowledge is always analogical. God's knowledge of things is comprehensive, our knowledge is limited to what we can apprehend from that which God reveals to us in general and special revelation. This Ectypal theology is always a creaturely accommodation and never gives man univocal (the same kind) of knowledge as God's but it is sufficient to create a systematic apprehension of the truths that creatures are able to apprehend. A perfect theology of the ectype is always going to be clouded by sin (which is why we have debates on what the Scriptures teach) but even when all sin is finally removed and man is not clouded in his understanding, he will still be a creature. He will never have nor can he ever attain God's knowledge of things.

I want to add that this is not an invention of Van Til. This is classic Reformed orthodoxy on man as the creature dependent upon but distinct from the creature. Clarkianism is a departure from this fundamental hermeneutic in the Reformed tradition (and I should say that they didn't invent this but carried this conviction forward from their theological forebears as they didn't recast all theology).

God's knowledge of something being qualitatively different than our own is not an excuse for playing the Paradox card whenever it suits us. Barth, for instance, picked up on this Creator-creature distinction and concluded that theological understanding could never be a historical or textual understanding of a text revealed to us. The only way a person could understand God's Revelation, in the neo-orthodox tradition, is the encounter with the text where the text becomes the Word of God in the moment. The propositions or the events could not convey any truth in the naked text itself. This is not Reformed.

At the other end of the spectrum is the rationalist view where the text is merely a collection of logical syllogisms that need to be worked out using the laws of logic. This denies the supernatural work of the Spirit in which the external testimony of the Word and the internal testimony of the Spirit work together to cause the reader to apprehend and believe the breathed-out Word of God.

The FV advocates seem to make the error of pitting Revelation against itself where the concept of Covenant creates a set of ideas that can be held in paradoxical tension with the system of doctrine that emerges from the text. This is an inappropriate use of the theology of the ectype. The Word of God is written for and accommodate to creatures. It is not a theology that has irreconcilable contradictions in which we appeal to some higher theology of the archetype where the tension is resolved because, if true, then it is never resolved. Why? Because we're always limited to creaturely apprehension. We are to labor in the Word to properly understand, by the Spirit, what the text teaches and what the good and necessary consequences of that text teach as well. If our Covenant theology that emerges from our exegesis creates a fundamental contradiction with the system of doctrine that comes by way of GNC from the text then we haven't achieved some sort of "higher principle". Rather, we have simply not done proper exegesis to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top