Federal Vision Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Saiph
Originally posted by Dan....

:down::down: Sounds Romish to me...

Shows a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification and necessitates justification by infused righteousness.

extra nos = justification
intra nos = sanctification
supra nos = glorification
Click to expand...

Good points Dan, but I see the idea of the "righteousness of God" encompassing all three aspects throughout scripture.

I have said before that one can show distinctions without obliterating where justification and sanctification overlap. If we make a total dichotomy between the two then how can sanctification be the result of justification ? And how can we said to be judged by our works ?
Click to expand...

1. Is sanctification the result of justification? Centainly all who are justified will be sanctified, but sanctification is the result of what has been done in us.

The former [justification] is founded on what Christ has done for us; the latter [sanctification] is the effect of what He does in us. -Hodge, Systematic, volume III.
Click to expand...

2. When we are judged by our works, is this not a different justification than Paul refers to in Rom 4:5?
 
Which is why the WCF made such a "stink" over getting this right:

Justification:

"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience (active, CMM) and satisfaction (passive, CMM) of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Sanctification:

"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified (Not further justified, CMM), really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."
 
I agree Matt and Andrew . . . it is the following phrase I am referring to:

Justification:

"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience (active, CMM) and satisfaction (passive, CMM) of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Sanctification:

"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified (Not further justified, CMM), really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." [/quote]

The difference between being declared righteous, and becoming more righteous in our actions. The Spirit of God dwelling in us makes us live righteous lives.

In other words, through sanctification, God makes our behaviour match our state of being before God.

Unless our righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees . . . (Not merely outward, but inward).

I am using justification in two ways:

1. Justified by the imputation of Christ's obedience.
2. Justification meaning the qualitative aspect of our sanctification. Righteousness as in behavioral changes wherin we are found to be more and more in conformity to God's law.

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jam 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jam 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.
Jam 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Jam 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
Jam 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

The sense I am talking about is used epistemology quite often, (justified basis for belief) and no one confuses it with the forensic aspect of imputed righteousness. So why cannot scripture use the same word in different ways. "Leaven" is used as something both good and bad.
 
Justification, In my humble opinion, is too important to apply both to what God does at our conversion, and our further sanctification. I realize that the Greek word for "righteous" is used in at least 2 senses; however that's not how we customarily use the term "justification"in modern English, and in my opinion it's too easy to confuse how we get right with God with how we become more holy. These guys are smart enough to know that people already confuse the two and will do so more if they use "justification" in this way. You can't convince me they're ignorant. I will avoid their writings, I've already been through the perfectionist "slough" once and don't care to revisit it. (Spoken by an ignorant lay-person.)

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by turmeric]
 
Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Does dikaiosune mean forensic justification in that verse ? Or practical righteous living ? Or the the second by means of the first ?
 
The subject was brought up about the unique situation in today's world regarding churches being able to defend themselves from heresy or bad doctrine (i.e. it's difficult with mass media and so on), and I think (I'm new here, by the way) regarding Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue there is something relevant I've noticed:

The most active and pugilistic apologists who normally would confront FVism or AATism tend these days to be disinterested in classical covenant theology. I'm thinking of a James White type.

There's also a different category of good, active apologist who is not good at confronting FV and AAT because they are hamstrung by past allegiances and battles they were involved in regarding defending theonomy (and similar things). For instance if Meredith Kline is on the side of defending the Covenant of Works from FV interpretation then the theonomy-camp apologists will be silent (Kline being some kind of ultimate enemy of the theomony camp).

A reason a Doug Wilson (and crew and mentors) can do what he does is because he is playing to an audience ignorant of doctrine at the level of classical covenant theology. Wilson is playing the same game liberal politicians play when they play to parts of the population who, for instance, don't understand how free market economies work, and they don't care that the people who do know how free market ecomonies work see that they are playing games and not being honest because they just want to fool part of the people. It's fundamentally a lack of shame on their part when they don't care that people who know better can see what they are doing.

I think, though, the theonomists (or former ones, or quasi ones) like Steve Hays (and I could be wrong but is Paul Manata similar to Hays in having entered into Reformed Theology via theonomist writings, to some degree or another?) need to purge completely that doctrine (I notice Hays never uses it in his apologetic writings anyway) and the good apologists like James White (let's just say all the good Reformed Baptist apologists) just have to bite the bullet and once and for all learn classical covenant theology or realize that they will be forever at a disadvantage against the most currently effective bad-doctrine pushers within the Reformed camp.

The Rick Phillips article - Covenant Confusion - is an excellent example of how effectively the men above the 'street level' can confront bad doctrine, but notice it takes a fairly thorough understanding of Covenant Theology to follow that article to begin with. (It's a GREAT article.)

On the UpperRegister site Kline's article Answering Objections to the Covenant of Works

http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/answering_objections.html

is very good on this subject too.

Both the above articles get at the FV doctrine at their root (or, perhaps better put in this case, at their fount). If you debate the FV guys at the level of the meaning of justification in Paul and James you are far down the stream at that point, and all the real damage has already been done upstream and you are operating in the conditions of that damage without knowing it, which, of course, gives all the advantage to the FV guys.
 
One other point on this subject: people who want to alter or defile biblical doctrine will make their attack at weak points in the wall. In Reformed Theology (and among Reformed Christians) they are attacking at the weak point in the area of the doctrine of sanctification where Reformed Christians have neglected the fact that sanctification has a passive AND and active element in it. Reformed systematic theologians havn't neglected this; you can go to any good Reformed systematic theology and see sound teaching on sanctification and it's passive and active elements, but for some reason among Reformed Christians themselves the active element is denied. Wayne Grudem is very good in his Systematic Theology at setting the scene of all this and pointing out where neglect has happened. See 'Our Role in Sanctification' starting on page 754.

This paragraph is particularly to the point:

"Unfortunately today, this "passive" role in sanctification...is sometimes so strongly emphasized that it is the only thing people are told about the path of sanctification. [...] But this is a tragic distortion of the doctrine of sanctification, for it only speaks of one half of the part we must play, and, by itself, will lead Christians to become lazy and to neglect the active role that Scripture commands them to play in their own sanctification."

The FV types use this weakness in Reformed understanding to do their conflating of sanctification with justification &c. and all their 'move in the direction of Rome' confusion-making.
 
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Mark,

Do you have:

Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, by Guy Prentiss Waters

?

That would be a great overview tracing much farther back than simply the FV information. It houses everything AA, NPP and FV have in common and how they were birthed.
Click to expand...

Hey Matt & guys...

see what WSC is up to:

http://www.wscal.org/faculty/covenant_and_justification_book.htm

The guys have been working hard preparing to engage this for a while now... (I recall having my first class over 2 years back. ??)

The CD lectures, "The Foolishness of the Gospel" (available from Westminster) is a great source! The book is expected soon. (The new seminar is certain to have CD's available. ??)

(whistling.... :sing: ) O, Dr. Clark...tell us how things are coming along with this stuff, OK?

Robin

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Robin]
Click to expand...

Guy has another book on the FV coming out this Spring. P&R says that the faculty book will be out in May. Guy is also working on a book on Norm Shepherd.

I know the copy editor at P&R is working on our typescript.

That's it.

To those suggesting that the FV isn't a significant problem, I wonder: compared to what? If one compares the language, structure, and formulae of the FV program to that of the 16th and 17th century orthodox and the confessions they wrote, which we subscribe, the discrepancy is obvious.

They deny the visible/invisible distinction and its corollary, the internal/external distinction (I will address this in the upcoming conference)

This fundamental denial virtually forces them to redefine baptism as the instrument of union with Christ and all his benefits.

These benefits they say are temporary (except when they suggest that they're not temporary) and these benefits can be lost. So there is a temporary (they call it "covenantal") election, union etc that can be lost. They can be kept by trusting and obeying. If the baptized person fulfills "the covenant" as Jesus did, by trusting and obeying, then we'll know that they really were elect. Until then one can have assurance that one is elect because one is baptized, but then, it's not the real, decretal election, except when it is. Which is my election? I don't know. I haven't finished trusting and obeying yet. Great lots of assurance that brings!

They deny or call into question double imputation (Jordan, Barach, and Lusk are explict: Badges, badges, we don't need no stinking merit badges," - oh yes, they deny merit as a category and then turn around and remarkably teach a version of congruent merit. At least some of them deny sola fide (no one more strongly than Schlissel who says the only time the Bible mentions it, it rejects it James!); they deny the covenants of redemption and works. They deny any distinction between the pre- and post-lapsarian covenants. They deny the law/gospel dichotomy in justification and these are just the denials/revisions I can remember off the top of my head.

This is quite a list for a movement that isn't sure it's a movement. Oh sure they've published voluntarily two books -- they gave themselves the name! I would never grace these fellows with the honorable adjective "federal" -- using the term to describe the same group of thinkers, they've held several conferences using this name for their theological agenda, but Doug Wilson says, it's not really a movement, it's just some guys thinking out loud.

As my kids say, "whatever."

rsc
 
I think I will drop out of the FV/NPP debate until I can understand the issues from a more knowledgeable standpoint.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
I think I will drop out of the FV/NPP debate until I can understand the issues from a more knowledgeable standpoint.
Click to expand...

A wise and honorable admission, Mark!

In admiration,

r. ;)

Btw, unpacking Matt. 6:33 and questions like it, will help more than studying FV. (Q. 86 of the HC comes to mind...)

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Robin]
 
FV (as far as I know) isn't terribly new. I had a book until just recently called Paul Among Jews & Gentiles by one Kristor Stendahl who was a Lutheran theologian in the 1960's who was arguing the same things, i.e. Augustine & Luther got it wrong, it's not about personal salvation, it's about becoming the people of God,etc. Also, during the late '70's I was exposed to a variant of this in the Catholic church I attended (which also borrowed heavily from the liberal Protestants of the mid-century). I learned all about how Jesus wasn't really claiming to make atonement, it was about God & His people being vindicated before the world. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, took it to the thriftstore.
 
Originally posted by turmeric
FV (as far as I know) isn't terribly new. I had a book until just recently called Paul Among Jews & Gentiles by one Kristor Stendahl who was a Lutheran theologian in the 1960's who was arguing the same things, i.e. Augustine & Luther got it wrong, it's not about personal salvation, it's about becoming the people of God,etc. Also, during the late '70's I was exposed to a variant of this in the Catholic church I attended (which also borrowed heavily from the liberal Protestants of the mid-century). I learned all about how Jesus wasn't really claiming to make atonement, it was about God & His people being vindicated before the world. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, took it to the thriftstore.
Click to expand...

Catholicism too!
 
There's a difference, is there not, when the people doing it brazenly self-identify as Reformed and even pretend to hold to historic confessions (to the extent that the FV people do). There's also a difference when it is being pushed within the seminaries and from the very pulpits of Reformed churches and denominations. (Norman Shepherd, a central mentor of these people, was allowed to incubate and grow much of this within Westminster Theological Seminary, infecting those with weak immune systems before he was asked to leave, but it was too late.)

If classical Reformed doctrine were Pepsi this new push is not a rival soft drink with it's own name, it is an enterprise trying to make money with the name 'Pepsi' but selling something very different in the cans.

Not to take the metaphor too far, but the corporate lawyers are forced to lay down the law.

It's actually happened (the laying down of the law), but since the doctrine concerned requires a level of understanding that is somewhat sophisticated - classical covenant theology - (and hence easy to be sophistical with) compared to where most of the rank and file of Reformed Christians reside at it's allowed the games-players to pretend nothing is happening and continue to go along their merry way with their project.

Weak churches and denominations and divisions and all that don't help when fighting such a thing.

Doctrinally we all have to come to understanding of what is sound one way or another, then we have to defend the faith...and it's ongoing...

Until the end when the King kind of takes care of matters.

(Foundational to all this is: doctrine matters. Doctrine is not just ivory tower theologians arguing about things that have no connection to real life and real people. Doctrine is connected with faith itself. Sound doctrine, and an understanding of it, is what does battle with your own fallen nature within you. When you don't have sound biblical doctrine you are still under the tyranny of your sinful nature, to a real degree. The devil knows this, which is why the devil continually attacks both the Word of God and sound, on-the-mark doctrine.)
 
If classical Reformed doctrine were Pepsi this new push is not a rival soft drink with it's own name, it is an enterprise trying to make money with the name 'Pepsi' but selling something very different in the cans.
Click to expand...


This is the affect of Postmodern Liberalism. I'm working on a short article that points this out.
 
Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
There's a difference, is there not, when the people doing it brazenly self-identify as Reformed and even pretend to hold to historic confessions (to the extent that the FV people do). There's also a difference when it is being pushed within the seminaries and from the very pulpits of Reformed churches and denominations. (Norman Shepherd, a central mentor of these people, was allowed to incubate and grow much of this within Westminster Theological Seminary, infecting those with weak immune systems before he was asked to leave, but it was too late.)
Click to expand...

Well, M, it's also a matter of the moral decay in culture (real) and those independents (no seminary/self-appointed former-evangels) like Wilson who sensibly yearn to activate good-doing and counter culture's decline (theonomy-ishly); driven by zeal and ignorant arrogance. (I know Wilson was graciously interviewed by solid-reformed theologians years ago to clarify some of his doctrines.) So it really is a matter of sin as they resist to align confessionally - building denominations of their own.

It's the familiar foe to the pastor/teacher: ambition. (Calvin warns about.)

:2cents:
r.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Did Norman Shepherd invent Federal Vision?
Replies
4
Views
2K
jwright82
jwright82
W
  • Locked
Federal Vision: Good or Bad? Why?
Replies
26
Views
7K
Ianterrell
I
D
  • Locked
Can someone please summarise federal vision theology for me?
Replies
27
Views
7K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
W
  • Locked
What is the difference between Lutheranism and Federal Vision theology?
Replies
29
Views
6K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Ryan&Amber2013
  • Locked
Federal Headship
2
Replies
58
Views
12K
Ryan&Amber2013
Ryan&Amber2013
Back
Top