Federal Vision Baptists?

[brandonadams]

It looks like the previous thread on this topic was just very recently closed so I could not post this there... but I recently finished a blog post on the topic for anyone interested:

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/federal-vision-baptists/

I argue that FV is a species of neonomianism. Baptists can't be FV, but they can be neonomian. I then show very specifically where Sandlin and Wilson agree with Shepherd's neonomianism.

 

[Dachaser]

It looks like the previous thread on this topic was just very recently closed so I could not post this there... but I recently finished a blog post on the topic for anyone interested:

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/federal-vision-baptists/

I argue that FV is a species of neonomianism. Baptists can't be FV, but they can be neonomian. I then show very specifically where Sandlin and Wilson agree with Shepherd's neonomianism.

Why does that theology to me seem to be very close to what NTWright and NPP purpose?

 

[jwright82]

It looks like the previous thread on this topic was just very recently closed so I could not post this there... but I recently finished a blog post on the topic for anyone interested:

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/federal-vision-baptists/

I argue that FV is a species of neonomianism. Baptists can't be FV, but they can be neonomian. I then show very specifically where Sandlin and Wilson agree with Shepherd's neonomianism.

How much does a Baptist have to agree with FV to be FV? It seems like merely semantics at some point. How close does one have to be with Wilson to be in the club? Can a Baptist be FV, I guess so but that doesn't answer the foundational questions I posed.

 

[RamistThomist]

How much does a Baptist have to agree with FV to be FV? It seems like merely semantics at some point. How close does one have to be with Wilson to be in the club? Can a Baptist be FV, I guess so but that doesn't answer the foundational questions I posed.

Probably if they reject some form of the law/gospel distinction, reject imputation, believe part of my justification is my spirit-wrough sanctity. These aren't semantics.

In answer to your question, Brandon gave a very thorough link in the post.

 

[Dachaser]

Probably if they reject some form of the law/gospel distinction, reject imputation, believe part of my justification is my spirit-wrough sanctity. These aren't semantics.

In answer to your question, Brandon gave a very thorough link in the post.

Isn't FV close to Wright in regards to Justification?

 

[RamistThomist]

Isn't FV close to Wright in regards to Justification?

Don't you already know the answer to this question?

 

[RamistThomist]

seems like merely semantics at some point.

I was listening to James Jordan speak at AAPC in 2004. He openly denied imputation and said we had to have no patterns of thinking. He wrote a whole essay ("Merit or Maturity") which specifically attacks the Reformed view of covenant and imputation.

This isn't mere semantics.

 

[Dachaser]

Don't you already know the answer to this question?

Not really, as they do not seem to be exactly the same, but seem close.

 

[jwright82]

I was listening to James Jordan speak at AAPC in 2004. He openly denied imputation and said we had to have no patterns of thinking. He wrote a whole essay ("Merit or Maturity") which specifically attacks the Reformed view of covenant and imputation.

This isn't mere semantics.

No no, sorry. What I meant was, they're in conferences together, some Baptists believe this or that and it's kinda like FV so it must be (or dangerously close) FV. Thats seems like merely semantics in my book. Stretching definitions so as to needlessly capture views that are fundamentally differet.

 

[jwright82]

Probably if they reject some form of the law/gospel distinction, reject imputation, believe part of my justification is my spirit-wrough sanctity. These aren't semantics.

In answer to your question, Brandon gave a very thorough link in the post.

I read that it was good but, unless I missed something, didn't address those questions I'm asking. I could be wrong I'll go back and read it just to make sure.

 

[jwright82]

Probably if they reject some form of the law/gospel distinction, reject imputation, believe part of my justification is my spirit-wrough sanctity. These aren't semantics.

In answer to your question, Brandon gave a very thorough link in the post.

Ok what about this food for thought. The average Fundamentalist Baptist has implicitly rejected all those things in my presence for years. Sure they're big on the gospel no doubt. But they can be very legalistic and neonomian, have no real understanding of the AOC (in fact only seem to recognize the POC), and really press on right living as some sort of proof of justification (I've been told I was not saved because I love horror movies) which seems like final justification. That hardly makes them FV though. I meant no disrespect to my Baptist brothers and sisters but was referring to a strict section of Baptist culture, the Fundamentalist faction, which is not the same as a reformed confessional Baptist.

 

[Dachaser]

Ok what about this food for thought. The average Fundamentalist Baptist has implicitly rejected all those things in my presence for years. Sure they're big on the gospel no doubt. But they can be very legalistic and neonomian, have no real understanding of the AOC (in fact only seem to recognize the POC), and really press on right living as some sort of proof of justification (I've been told I was not saved because I love horror movies) which seems like final justification. That hardly makes them FV though. I meant no disrespect to my Baptist brothers and sisters but was referring to a strict section of Baptist culture, the Fundamentalist faction, which is not the same as a reformed confessional Baptist.

What is Aoc and Poc?

 

[jwright82]

What is Aoc and Poc?

AOC, active obedience of Christ (his perfectly keeping the law on our behalf). POC, passive obedience of Christ (his perfectly paying the debt of our sin). Sorry I was abbreviating.

 

[Dachaser]

AOC, active obedience of Christ (his perfectly keeping the law on our behalf). POC, passive obedience of Christ (his perfectly paying the debt of our sin). Sorry I was abbreviating.

Jesus keeping the Law was how He qualified to be our sin bearer , so one has to hold to both per the scriptures.

 

[jwright82]

Jesus keeping the Law was how He qualified to be our sin bearer , so one has to hold to both per the scriptures.

True but it's the doctrine of double imputation, our sin is imputed to him on the cross POC and his righteousness is imputed to us AOC. make sense?

 

[RamistThomist]

Ok what about this food for thought. The average Fundamentalist Baptist has implicitly rejected all those things in my presence for years. Sure they're big on the gospel no doubt. But they can be very legalistic and neonomian, have no real understanding of the AOC (in fact only seem to recognize the POC), and really press on right living as some sort of proof of justification (I've been told I was not saved because I love horror movies) which seems like final justification. That hardly makes them FV though. I meant no disrespect to my Baptist brothers and sisters but was referring to a strict section of Baptist culture, the Fundamentalist faction, which is not the same as a reformed confessional Baptist.

That's true, as they would probably look at FV and say "Papist!" But for a 1689 Baptist like White it is a different matter.

 

[jwright82]

That's true, as they would probably look at FV and say "Papist!" But for a 1689 Baptist like White it is a different matter.

That's exactly what I was thinking. To a Fundamentalist or a a Dispensational Baptist there would only be certian overlaps but to confessional Baptist who believes in CT there would be a problem. So perhaps the question should be restated "Reformed confessional Baptists and FV?"

 

[RamistThomist]

So perhaps the question should be restated "Reformed confessional Baptists and FV?"

That's the best way to put it.

 

[jwright82]

That's the best way to put it.

Yeah I wonder what connection there is between RBCT and FV?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Yeah I wonder what connection there is between RBCT and FV?

Probably none if they hold to the 1689 but their Cultural War stuff.

On the same topic... I was a credo Baptist yet still a member of a few Paedo Churches. Now, the CREC had both credo and paedo churches in it. I would also rhetorically ask, "Can a Confessionally Reformed person be FV?" Not if they hold to a historically Reformed Confession is the answer.

 

[Dachaser]

Probably none if they hold to the 1689 but their Cultural War stuff.

On the same topic... I was a credo Baptist yet still a member of a few Paedo Churches. Now, the CREC had both credo and paedo churches in it. I would also rhetorically ask, "Can a Confessionally Reformed person be FV?" Not if they hold to a historically Reformed Confession is the answer.

Since FV redefines Pauline Justification, why should any real Christian hold to it though?