Federal Vision Spreading To Baptists? James White & Andrew Sandlin

[Grant]

If Doug Wilson or his affiliates do in fact teach "faith/plus something else" for Justification, then that would seem to rise to the biblical categorical level of a false teacher. If such is the case, then one should look to the book of Jude for discernment of the idea/decision to bring that individual before Christians to teach anything:

Jude 1: 12-13 (NKJV):

12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots;
13 raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

P.S. Jude seemed a little bit more than "not concerned" with association with false teachers that are in our very midst (locally and nationally).

 

[Grant]

I voted for Option 3 BTW, as this seems to be the most gracious yet least blinded option. The most dangerous lies for the flock can be the ones that sound closest to the truth.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Ever thought that this is due to the fact that now you can only be widely "accepted" by the christian culture if you engage in Social Media Platform Wars? Faithful pastors should not feel as if they are "silent" or "irrelevant" just because they are not screaming on Social Media, Documentaries, podcasts, and Conferences. Faithful Church is sitting under the regular and faithful means of grace and trusting in the power of hearing that gospel and drawing others to its power. Joyfully abiding in and being obedient to that Word. This is how nations are changed. Nehemiah 8-9 gives us a good example of this power.

NKJV - Nehemiah 8 & 9

I would agree social media amplifies problems but in our modern context we’re not going to escape the discipleship machine that is our technology or society and it’s institutions. I would agree that the means of grace are primary. No one is denigrating faithful pastors who don’t have conferences, podcasts, etc.

However TGC and other groups and leaders with outsized platforms, large churches, and outsized influence do exactly what I pointed out in my quoted post and it trickles down to people in the pews and it ultimately affects the denominations.

Hence my question earlier on in this thread, what ever happened to that pro-homosexual marriage and agenda, pro abortion PCA elder who ran for civil magistrate? The answer is ultimately, nothing.

At some point it needs to be addressed.

 

[Tom Hart]

I can't say I'm well informed about other FVers, but Doug Wilson, let it not be forgotten, is a man who elevated himself to a pastoral role by improper means. He ought not to be thought of as a legitimate pastor; he should properly be condemned as a false teacher.

I'm disappointed and concerned that this man is still being given a serious hearing. And for what? That he holds (seemingly) the right views on social issues?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Sadly, it just goes to show that pink elephants in the room, become less obvious and problematic over time.

 

[Dachaser]

If Doug Wilson or his affiliates do in fact teach "faith/plus something else" for Justification, then that would seem to rise to the biblical categorical level of a false teacher. If such is the case, then one should look to the book of Jude for discernment of the idea/decision to bring that individual before Christians to teach anything:

Jude 1: 12-13 (NKJV):

12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots;
13 raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

P.S. Jude seemed a little bit more than "not concerned" with association with false teachers that are in our very midst (locally and nationally).

We Baptists are fighting among ourselves regarding spiritual gifts, Cal or non cal, free will or Lordship salvation, do not need to add FV to the list.

 

[RamistThomist]

FV is not monolithic

To a degree. Nonetheless, DW still supports the FV vision statement.

"Everything I don't like is FV and therefore worthless!" is not a good attitude. FV folks have a point

I worshiped at AAPC for years. I know most of these guys. I had first-hand access to Canon Press literature before anyone else.

3. Apologia and Dr. White are not FV and are not denying Sola Fide.

Good. Wilson, though, still affirms the opposite in the Joint-FV statement.

4. The younger generation are seeing the NAPARC denoms (rightly or wrongly) as either totally oblivious to these concerns being addressed by Apologia and DW or actively pursuing the very theology and politics that has created these problems.

What are the marks of a true church? Look into Wilson's (non) ordination history. Whether gospel or lawfully ordained, he doesn't have any marks.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Does anyone remember the Baptist Don Garlington who became a little wobbly in his theology? The Federal vision had many different strains. The main issue most seemed to have against the FV was concerning the New Paul Perspective that infiltrated the Church.

Maybe this is a good thing so that we can revisit this issue. Sola Fide was totally under attack. It still is.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports.

Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA et al) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists.

Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.

Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, in this life but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).

Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation.

Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.

Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)

Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.

Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.

Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson

Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.

Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.

 

[Dachaser]

It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports.

Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA et al) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists.

Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.

Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, in this life but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).

Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation.

Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.

Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)

Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.

Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.

Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson

Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.

Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.

FV theology in regards to justification seems aligned to that of NT Wright in NPP to me.

 

[arapahoepark]

FV theology in regards to justification seems aligned to that of NT Wright in NPP to me.

Many FV are fanboys of NT Wright and almost exclusively follow his Pauline exegesis or lack thereof. The NPP suffers from a covenant overload, where its the buzzword for just about everything and as a result becomes meaningless. The FV have capitalized on the the NPP redefinition of justification as being in the covenant so as to smuggle in neonomianism dressed in reformed and covenant theology garb, in the backdoor.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports.

Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA et al) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists.

Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.

Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, in this life but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).

Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation.

Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.

Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)

Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.

Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.

Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson

Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.

Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.

With no disrespect Dr. Clark you’ve called Confessional Presbyterian teaching on faith and works Neonomianism and linked Sheologians and Dr. White to teaching FV as well as implicated other men in neonomianism by logical conclusion. I respectfully submit that you’re unbalanced on this.

You’ve also enabled RGM to undermine Confessional teaching on men and women and labeled lots of folks who disagree as sympathetic to the excesses of DW and FV “patriarchalism”. I think that’s also harmful to this discussion. I don’t think anyone is endorsing abuse, rape, oppression, or anything like that.

I would submit that yes, you could implicate me as thinking that in some aspects DW, Apologia, and others have done better work on cultural engagement than the Escondido 2K theology, TGC, etc. has but I may be biased as I lean toward Puritan Postmillenialism.

With respect I think you should evaluate Steven Wedgeworth’s analysis of FV more as he’s largely correct in my opinion.

I used to love your work and I still do to some extent.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article.

Remember Dr. Clark this discussion went two ways and there was over reacting from a few different Schools of thought that opposed each other. People allow their convictions to emanate from their definition of the gospel. A faulty understanding of the gospel has caused both of the extreme opposing sides to miss the mark. There are dangers on both sides. Don't forget that.

I hope you remember the Republication discussions that took place over the years. Radical Two Kingdom discussions were prevalent and those who were espoused to the R2K position had a common ground. The OPC responded to it.

https://www.opc.org/GA/republication.html

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Remember Dr. Clark this discussion went two ways and there was over reacting from a few different Schools of thought that opposed each other. People allow their convictions to emanate from their definition of the gospel. A faulty understanding of the gospel has caused both of the extreme opposing sides to miss the mark. There are dangers on both sides. Don't forget that.

I hope you remember the Republication discussions that took place over the years. Radical Two Kingdom discussions were prevalent and those who were espoused to the R2K position had a common ground. The OPC responded to it.

https://www.opc.org/GA/republication.html

Mr. Moderator thank you for saying this. This is what I’ve been trying to say largely.

 

[A.Joseph]

A modern case can be made, will we remain on the side of Machen? Theological consistency trumps everything, while social media seems to be exacerbating various controversies. I’m an very grateful for these exchanges. I was heavy into the Crosspolitic guys for a little while, but I was ultimately left empty. I’m not saying there is no place for them, but I want to maintain my foundation above all else. It’s easy to allow the enemy to set our emphasis. Sometimes heresy can help us reset but if we are bogged down by a multitude of heresies (new, reworked and retweaked) in an already hostile world, we are being led away from our life source. I do believe the preeminence of culture war results in a subtle sacrificing of sound doctrine.

I am looking forward to that ‘Enemies in the Church’ documentary. That could be a useful tool if it doesn’t simply focus on the fringes of faith which has been featured in some of the trailers.

It seems clear that there are some on this thread that have not read much from the Federal Visionists themselves, nor have they taken the time to read the several ecclesiastical reports.

Clearly the URCNA committee, the PCA committee, the OPC committee, and the RCUS committee (not to mention the RPCGA et al) all agree that there is an identifiable core of FV doctrines shared by most all of the Federal Visionists.

Further, several of the leading FVists published a confession of faith of sorts that also says that, though there is some diversity there is an identifiable core FV doctrine. So, the skeptical argument, "who really knows what the FV is?" should be discarded as demonstrably false.

Yes, Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, in this life but he also affirms a 2nd stage of justification, that stage is not so friendly to the Reformation. In that stage, our final justification is said to be through works. That makes the 1st stage nothing but window dressing. It's the equivalent of putting the body of a '57 Corvette on top of a '61 VW. It looks good but there's literally nothing under the hood (VW engines are in the back and notoriously under powered).

Those who have argued that the the ReformCon is evidence of the culture war/apologetics trumping the truth of the gospel are correct. This is why I raised the question of theonomy in the article. This is all about the culture war. Wilson, despite the grave questions raised by his own federation of his handling of a pedophile in his congregation and then rapist in his congregation, serial plagiarism, and other serious issues is regarded by this lot as "doing something," as a culture war hero. He seems like an odd choice for a culture war hero. Pouring gasoline on dry grass and setting it alight is good video but hardly the stuff of cultural transformation.

Here is the article with links to the reports and critiques of the Joint Profession and more.

Here is the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007)

Here is the documentation of the Jamin Wight case.

Here is the documentation of the Sitler case.

Here is the CREC rebuke of Wilson

Here is the email correspondence between Wilson and Natalie Greenfield, who was serially raped at age 14.

Rachel Miller's 2015 questions for Wilson fans remain valid.

 

[Dachaser]

Many FV are fanboys of NT Wright and almost exclusively follow his Pauline exegesis or lack thereof. The NPP suffers from a covenant overload, where its the buzzword for just about everything and as a result becomes meaningless. The FV have capitalized on the the NPP redefinition of justification as being in the covenant so as to smuggle in neonomianism dressed in reformed and covenant theology garb, in the backdoor.

If the FV agrees with NT Wright that Pauline Justification is not penal substitutionary, they teach another Gospel.

 

[A.Joseph]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is neonomianism? I feel like I should know, but the meaning escapes me at the moment.

Many FV are fanboys of NT Wright and almost exclusively follow his Pauline exegesis or lack thereof. The NPP suffers from a covenant overload, where its the buzzword for just about everything and as a result becomes meaningless. The FV have capitalized on the the NPP redefinition of justification as being in the covenant so as to smuggle in neonomianism dressed in reformed and covenant theology garb, in the backdoor.

 

[Phil D.]

I don’t think anyone is endorsing abuse, rape, oppression, or anything like that.

No, but I for one am not a fan of engaging people surrounded by these kinds of not entirely resolved scandals in a public coffee clutch and theological chit-chat. It would seem better to simply make reference to any relevant points of theirs that may have merit in the overall discussion. Add to that the fact that Wilson still holds out against the core doctrine that the true Christian faith turns on (JBFA) and I have to ask, why amicably engage and publicly broadcast him at all? If one maintains Wilson and his ilk are the only ones addressing certain aspects of societal behavior, then why not encourage other more godly men to step into that role, or even do so themselves. Psalms 26:4 ESV; Prov. 14:7 ESV; 1 Cor. 15:33 ESV

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is neonomianism? I feel like I should know, but the meaning escapes me at the moment.

Short but sweet....
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/neonomism.51412/

Page 118 has an excellent article: John Brown of Wamphray, Richard Baxter and the Justification Controversy. By Bruce R. Backensto

In a nutshell, Baxter taught that the faith that justifies is one that is perfected and completed - a faithfulness that has been lived out and demonstrated itself. In a sense, the faithfulness itself is seen as fulfilling the NC requirements for the Law. John Brown of Wamphray battled against this error upholding the Confessional (read Biblical) principle that the faith that justifies is always a begging and simple laying hold of Christ's righteousness. Faith itself is not the grounds for our justification but the Person and work of Christ is. Conversely, neonomianism includes the faithfulness and perfected faith of the individual as the grounds for justification. The fact is that the most perfected Saint can never offer his faith or faithfulness to God as something "Law fulfilling".

 

[RamistThomist]

I don’t think anyone is endorsing abuse, rape, oppression, or anything like that.

Sitler's family would disagree.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Sitler's family would disagree.

So Apologia and Dr. White are doing this? Anyone who disagrees with thin complementarianism is doing this? I wouldn’t say so. Even if they have commended something that DW is correct on. Yes, even those in error can be correct on certain things.

 

[RamistThomist]

So Apologia and Dr. White are doing this? Anyone who disagrees with thin complementarianism is doing this? I wouldn’t say so. Even if they have commended something that DW is correct on. Yes, even those in error can be correct on certain things.

No, but they are partnering with people who:
a) are still associated with sexually deviant scandals which aren't quite cleared.
b) still affirm the FV Joint Statement, which has been formally condemned by NAPARC.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It's hard to take Dr Clark seriously on these matters, since his articles tend to read more like a conspiracy theory web than something written by an erudite professor of theology. His bold mischaracterization of the tweet from Mr Wedgeworth alone is worth a chuckle. Mr Wedgeworth's actual viewpoint on the FV is not, as Clark incorrectly states, that the FV does not exist, but that there are at least three distinct (but related) paradigms within the FV movement. His analysis tends to be a lot more intelligent than Clark's "most things I disagree with (including Piper!) are connected to FV and all FV is basically the same."

Thank you for this. I guess Fake News is not always political.

BTW, I will be over in your neck of the woods possibly Friday. Going to Rantoul to visit a father figure in my life. He is dealing with incurable cancer.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Thank you for this. I guess Fake News is not always political.

BTW, I will be over in your neck of the woods possibly Friday. Going to Rantoul to visit a father figure in my life. He is dealing with incurable cancer.

That is quite close to Champaign. I haven't been around much since graduating from the university in the spring. I'm sorry to hear about the suffering of your friend. I'll be sure to keep both of you in my prayers.

 

[Dachaser]

Except that there is a massive difference, as Federal Visionism arguably overturns justification by faith alone.

They seem to view it about same way those in the NPP do, as both groups seem to see none can be certain of justification until their final vindication in final judgment.

 

[Kinghezy]

Rich Pierce (AOMin) (on Twitter) and James White (on DL @ 1:25 in link below) say that FV is a logical outworking of paedobaptism.

Alpha and Omega Ministries: David Allen on Romans 8 Fully Examined; Fundie Calvinists http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1029191328156871

 

[Dachaser]

Rich Pierce (AOMin) (on Twitter) and James White (on DL @ 1:25 in link below) say that FV is a logical outworking of paedobaptism.

Alpha and Omega Ministries: David Allen on Romans 8 Fully Examined; Fundie Calvinists http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1029191328156871

They are saying that type of theology would logically end in FV?

 

[RamistThomist]

They are saying that type of theology would logically end in FV?

Yes. That's also why most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal.

 

[Phil D.]

That's also why most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal.

Please elaborate...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I thought it was Paedobaptism leads to FV, not paedocommunion? I am a former Reformed Baptist and I am not FV. Nor do I hold to paedocommunion. Most of the paedocommunion guys I know were former Presbyterian who went FV.