Federal Vision and Commonalities
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
they're both heretics
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
"When exegetes and dogmaticians get together it is noticeable that they tend to sniff suspiciously at each other, as dogs do, uncertain whether they can be friends."
--J.I. Packer
--J.I. Packer
ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Puritan Board Freshman
I've been reading into this issue, and I just don't see the big fuss. I don't understand how they are anti-gosple either. Most the Federal Vision guys preach sound sermons and I know Schlissle has a very healthy church. That is doing many good things in advancing the gospel. I can't believe has harsh and arrogant some of you guys have been.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Whroof-Whroof
***sniffing***
***sniffing***
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Specifically (besides Jesus, etc.), what do those who believe in FV have in common with R. Catholics? [/quote]
There are at least 4 ways in which the FV (I understand that the FV is a loose affiliation, but for the purposes of discussion I'll treat them as a group) is like Rome:
1) They both think of the prelapsarian state in similar ways. For Rome and for the FV Adam was in need of grace by virtue of being human. This is because Rome thinks of grace as perfecting nature. They think of salvation as a matter of "being." As creatures we lack being or divinity. What we need is divinity. We get this by grace. Before the fall we were given "super added grace" to help us keep our natural concupiscence (sinful desires) under control. At the fall we lost that grace. So the fall was a fall from grace not just a violation of the law.
Thus Jordan and Barach, two prominent FV writers, speak of Adam's need for "maturity" not "obedience to the law." This sets the stage for the confusion of grace and law. They uniformly deny the traditional Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works.
For both Rome and the FV the state (or covenant) of grace is both a matter of grace and law unto final justification (see below).
The confessional Protestants, in contrast, did not think that Adam was in need of grace before the fall because nature, before the fall, is not defective. We deny that we had concupiscence before the fall. For us, grace renews fallen nature. For the orthodox Reformed, law is one thing, grace is another. The covenant of grace, relative to justification, is not legal. The second Adam fulfilled the covenant of works on behalf of his people. This is the legal basis for the covenant of grace.
2) Both Rome and the FV speak of baptism and union with Christ in similar ways.
According to Rome, baptism initiates one into the state of grace and one remains in the state of grace by cooperation with grace or faithfulness.
This is almost exactly how the FV fellows speak. They speak of baptism uniting every baptized person ("head for head") to Christ and initiating one into the covenant of grace in a provisional way. The baptized must remain in the covenant of grace by "faithfulness," or by "trusting and obeying." It is possible to lose what one was actually given in baptism and thus to fall from the covenant of grace.
According to the confessional Reformed, baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, a recognition that one is in the covenant of grace. It does not unite every baptized person to Christ.
See: http://www.modernreformation.org/Ref-RomeChart1.pdf
http://www.modernreformation.org/Ref-RomeChart2.pdf
3) A third similarity between at least one of the FV authors and Rome is the denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Of course Rome has condemned imputation in favor of infused righteousness. One of the more visible proponents of the FV, Rich Lusk has utterly and publicly repudiated the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.
4) Finally, several of them have taught the doctrine of a two-stage doctrine of justification. Rome teaches that the baptized person is initially justified until he falls from the grace of baptism.
After confirmation life is a journey toward eventual justification at the judgment when God declares one fully sanctified (usually after purgatory) and therefore justified.
Some of the FV partisans teach that, there is an initial justification by grace through faith (or faithfulness) and a second whereby, at the judgment, believers will be justified partly on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ and partly on the basis of intrinsic sanctity and righteousness.
Hitherto no confessional Protestant theologian or confessional document has taught anything other than a definitive, single-stage, justification. We do teach that there will be a vindication at the judgment, but that is qualitatively different from justification. Vindication is a recognition and validation of what was already declared on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness.
rsc
Dr. Clark's analysis is well done and very accurate.
I think that part of our problem as Protestants is that we do not understand (or really make any attempt to understand) the complex and well-thought out doctrines of Rome. We think we can get away with just saying "Rome teaches salvation by works." when in reality it is not that simple. That is why we don't see the commonalities FV has with Rome, because the crass "salvation by works" summary is insufficient. Rome's commonalities with FV are more along the lines of the way they view the covenant, assurance and the like (again, read Dr. Clark's well reasoned post).
It is also important to remember that this is a new trajectory of theology (not completely new, since it has historical roots, including the Mercerberg theology of the 19th century and the Tractarian movement, but new on the present scene). So we have not really seen the "fruit" of this theology yet.
I think that part of our problem as Protestants is that we do not understand (or really make any attempt to understand) the complex and well-thought out doctrines of Rome. We think we can get away with just saying "Rome teaches salvation by works." when in reality it is not that simple. That is why we don't see the commonalities FV has with Rome, because the crass "salvation by works" summary is insufficient. Rome's commonalities with FV are more along the lines of the way they view the covenant, assurance and the like (again, read Dr. Clark's well reasoned post).
It is also important to remember that this is a new trajectory of theology (not completely new, since it has historical roots, including the Mercerberg theology of the 19th century and the Tractarian movement, but new on the present scene). So we have not really seen the "fruit" of this theology yet.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Rome teaches "fath + works = justification"
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
trinity, incarnation, personal return of Christ
It is actually much more complicated than that. If you ever get into an argument with a good Roman apologist and use that accusation, you will get your head handed to you.
Not that you are wrong at the most "bottom line" level, but it is much more complicated. Do you know about congruent and condign merit? Donum superadditum? Nature vs. grace? What is exactly meant by supererogation? What role grace plays in the Roman system? How they view the covenant?
The point I am making is that Rome's error is not simple. We think it is, and then when FV guys say things like, "We believe in grace" or "salvation is by grace" we think that they must be on the right track, when in reality Romanists say the same thing. If you ask a Romanist how one is saved, he would say "by grace through faith." The problem is that he won't use the word "alone" and he means something different by faith (read: faithfulness) and something different by grace (read: a substance).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Thank you Fred, that was very helpful.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
John Wesley preached good sermons, too. What have you read? Have you studied scholarly works on both sides of the coin? What constitutes a healthy church? (cough.. sound doctrine)
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I agree with you, so far. But then I've only read a couple books on the subject. I'm still waiting to find something that screams "heresy! heresy!" --- I don't see what the big fuss is about either. (I was angered by one chapter written by Wilkins, but instead of putting him down publicly, I personally contacted him to ask questions first. After getting some of those questions cleared up, I stopped believing that he was saying anything heretical, even though I still disagreed with his approach.) It would be nice for some people on this board to take the time to correspond with some of those guys to ask for clarification wherever they think there is a major problem. While I disagree with a number of their conclusions, I have yet to read something that appears damaging to the Gospel. --- A lot of people are really quick to call it heresy, even though no General Assembly (that I know of) has come down with such a ruling. Right now, there are some individuals who love it, individuals who hate it, and then people like me stuck in the middle saying "what's everybody fighting about, anyway?"
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
-Rev. Ian Paisley, Free Presbyterian Church, Ulster
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Good quote!
The super-added gift. It has to do with the image of God in man, what is needed for salvation and hence what will be in the state of glorification
Here's one explanation:
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
That sounds like the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Donum superadditum has some concomitant doctrine that exalts man's will...
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Not exactly. Rome teaches justification by grace (see the sixth session of the Council of Trent) AND cooperation with grace. It is the conjunction that causes the problem. It is the conjunction that caused us to stress the SOLA in sola gratia and in sola fide.
It is this "cooperation with grace" that the Reformers called "works." As Fred says, they were correct to say that because, according to Rome, we do have to cooperate. Our works are essential to justification, but according to Rome they are empowered by grace. So, the Roman system is a gracious system, but it is also as Warfield says, a synergistic system. Fred is quite right to say that the Protestant short hand critique of Rome can mislead and thus cause us to miss the errors of the FV.
This is the difference between the Protestant definition of faith as an extraspective (outward looking) trusting and resting in Christ and his finished work and the Roman definition of faith as sanctity. For Rome, there are three theological virtues: faith, hope, and love. Rome has it that there are two stages to faith, unformed (at baptism) and "formed by love" (that is sanctity). So Rome says that faith justifies BECAUSE it works (as does the FV). We say that faith justifies because it looks to Christ and his finished work. That's why the Westminster divines were so careful to say "resting" and "receiving." We say that we are sanctified BECAUSE we are justified. These two systems are absolutely opposed.
For Rome (and for the FV) sanctification IS justification.
Rome rejects the Protestant view and the FV fellows are not content with the traditional Reformed doctrine that justification PRODUCES sanctification; Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. They call that "easy believism." Sadly, they cannot tell the difference between Martin Luther and Zane Hodges.
rsc
I just attended a RC funeral (for an infant) and the priest said this: we are granted the blessings of salvation IF we cooperate with the grace given by Christ by maintaining good works. He also stated that the child (infant) was in heaven because he had "not yet sinned." He then reminded the parents if they wanted to see him again they must be careful to continue in good works.
Robin
Unbaptised infants are said to be in "limbo" by the RCC now. So if the priest said he's in heaven the only way that could be taught as certainty is if he was baptised. The last rights may have been administered more for the parents than anything else. Ceremonies that tell the natural man that the person will go to heaven regardless of anything else are comforting to them.
My grandfather was always insistant upon Last Rites in life, but as he died the ceremony never brought him comfort. He was petrified of death to the very end.
My grandfather was always insistant upon Last Rites in life, but as he died the ceremony never brought him comfort. He was petrified of death to the very end.
- Status
