FV and Forgiveness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure.

By virtue of the covenant of grace, and through God's grace in baptism, one enters into and is sealed into the covenant of grace. Baptism is a sign and seal of one's "ingrafting into Christ," etc. (WCF XXVIII; [esv]Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21[/esv]) .

It depends on what you mean here. The FV guys take the position that ecclesiology = salvation, and the phrases they use are interchangeable. To be "in the church" is not to be "in Christ" as the manner Paul uses the idea.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

Galatians 3:26 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

FV uses the idea of "in Christ" as ecclesiastical when it is soteriological.

This is how one enters into a legal relationship with the Church.

People enter into a legal relationship through "covenanting" not simply their entrance into the church. That would be a fruit of their baptism.

The Church is the "Body of Christ" and the "Kingdom of God," as we all take for granted. So, if someone is united to the visible Church by virtue of the CoG and baptism, they are to be considered, ordinarily, as members of the Body of Christ and "in Christ." This, however, could be a faulty presumption, but we are in no position to make that call unless discipline through the Church brings it about ([esv]Deut 29:29[/esv]; [esv]1 John 2:19[/esv]).

They are covenant with God, but it may not be that they are "in Christ." The Apostle reserves that term and idea for those elected.

Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Being "in Christ" is not the same as being "in the church." This is a typical problem with FV ""theology"".

As far as we are concerned, in the here-and-now, this person is, therefore, a Christian.

Those who are apparently "in the Body of Christ" can, and do, still fall away from Grace.

I hope you mean to say that those who are "in the visible church" and fall away, fall from grace as Galatians and Hebrews explain.

At the end of the day, what really matters in all of this discussion is qualification and the doctrine of Compatiblism. Without either, we are left with "talking past one another" and "miscommunication" to an insane degree.

No, its the doctrine of the visible vs. the invisible church that we are having a problem with, and what FV has a problem with. They seem to have a joy redefining what they think Westminster taught to create an aberrational ecclesiology which they think in soteriological terms.

I'm OK with being en-grafted in the CoG so long as a the qualification is Scriptural and follows the exegetical prowess of Westminster. There is an external aspect to that covenant and an internal aspect. If one simply says "CoG" with no qualification, they do, as the FV camp has demonstrated, a massive misunderstanding both biblically and historically. (Which the FV is known for).

I would take issue with your idea that the eternal aspect is separated from the temporal. I have a number of articles treating the Eschatological Mastery of the World now, by the hope we have. It is impossible to "not" concern ourselves with the "then", now. The entirety of the history of redemption is "now and not yet."

Paul obviously does not believe that one can lose their eternal salvation, but he does believe wholeheartedly, I think, that one can apparently be "in Christ" one day and NOT "in Christ" the next, through apostasy.

This is a huge mistake. Paul does say that one can be in the church one day and apostatize the next. But no use of being "in Christ" is applied in the manner the FV propagators want you to believe.

If someone's status "in Christ" changes, then you become an Arminian. Roman.

We are completley responsible for our eternal state.

Not remotely in this sense. Even as Westminster states echoing Scripture, all our good works are "wholly from the Spirit of Christ." Part of the problem FV brings up is this "covenant faithfulness" that is directly tied to justification. To reconcile these thoughts is not hard, it just takes some rational thought. Here: "The Two Wills of God."


He does not work in syllogisms or in time, most importantly.

HUH? If God does not work in time, then we cannot be saved. Even in heaven we will experience "moments" which is form of time.

Revelation 8:1 When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

God is TIMEFULL. Not timeless.

You cannot believe two contradictory ideas. If Man is free God is not sovereign. If the sacraments are effectual, then our ability to respond is meaningless. The last 500 years demonstrated very clearly that Roman Catholicism is junk, and Arminianism is junk. Both of which are the roads traveled by the FV advocates.

What must be done is good hermeneutics to understand how the senses of the Bible work, instead of trying to fit all these ideas on one hermeneutical chessboard, which the FV guys do time and time again by blurring ecclesiology with soteriology. That is why they are bad historians - they do not learn from past mistakes and continue to repeat the same atrocious historical inaccuracies theologically because they remain ignorant of the truth to be NOVEL; when in fact they are old lies repackaged in modern form that sounds REALLY "covenantal."
 
Gabe,

I checked your blog - Spirit and Truth

You have listed:

nt_wright.png


Rev. Dr. N.T. Wright




jordan.2.12.png


Rev. James B. Jordan



Leithartspkgcu.png


Rev. Dr. Peter Leithart


WILSON.png


Rev. Doug Wilson




1157423722Portrait_JJM06b.png


Rev. Jeffrey J. Meyers





These men are solid, unconditionally set FV advocates.

I would "assume" you support them by listing them. I don't see how you could not agree even with their BASIC tenants (which are heretical) on FV ideas.

Is this where you have ended up?
 
Rev. McMahon:

There are others, it appears at the PB who have blogs and sites that link to FV advocates. Is someone going to monitor all PB members personal websites?
 
Rev. McMahon:

There are others, it appears at the PB who have blogs and sites that link to FV advocates. Is someone going to monitor all PB members personal websites?

Christopher,
One would hope that if any members of our community were transitioning to FV that they would come out of the proverbial closet and just rescind their memberships based upon the guidelines in place for being an active member; anything less is lying. This is not an inquisition. We don't want this to get silly. Everyone need to just man-up!
 
Christopher,
One would hope that if any members of our community were transitioning to FV that they would come out of the proverbial closet and just rescind their memberships based upon the guidelines in place for being an active member; anything less is lying.


Exactly. If they really have done their homework, if the Reformation and Post-Reformation Dogmatics are really that far off and wrong, then they should stand up, shake thier fist, and blaze off into the sunset with thier trusted steed. Come out of the closet and be counted among them.

Otherwise, as Scott rightly said, they would be covering up something that they vowed to NOT uphold FV when they pressed the "I Agree" button to the Puritanboard.

I just don't get people sometimes. They register, read the rules, and outrightly lie about what they vowed to do in agreeing to NOT uphold it or tolerate it!
 
I guess that is true. It is a new inclusivism of sorts that is being supported. If the FV guys are right, then we are wrong and they should expose us for our wrong beliefs and not want to be associated with us just the same as we certainly do not want to be lumped in with the RC's or JW's.

So those who support both are really being double minded. It is the same as the Billy Graham followers who quote Calvin at one time and Pope John Paul another time.

So the question is, why promote both sides if one is not firm yet on which is orthodox?

:think:
 
I guess that is true. It is a new inclusivism of sorts that is being supported. If the FV guys are right, then we are wrong and they should expose us for our wrong beliefs and not want to be associated with us just the same as we certainly do not want to be lumped in with the RC's or JW's.

So those who support both are really being double minded. It is the same as the Billy Graham followers who quote Calvin at one time and Pope John Paul another time.

So the question is, why promote both sides if one is not firm yet on which is orthodox?

:think:

Yeah. Gabe's site is interesting because he's got Dr. R. Scott Clark in company with all those ministers listed above.

Most, however, don't think that the FV guys are really departing from the Reformed camp. The FV don't come out and say that they're trying to start something new but recover something old. Or they'll say that the WCF only speaks so far and they're filling in data that the Confession doesn't talk about.

In the end, however, I keep wanting the answer to one of the questions I hope will be asked of Doug Wilson: If your movement is just about semantics and you are indeed "...just like us..." then is all this disruption just so you can be like us but not because you really are different somehow? I just don't understand what the stakes are here for them. Are the stakes to be said to be like us, but retain the language you like, worth tearing apart Churches and Presbyteries?
 
Not really his Presbytery. He's kind of head of his own denomination. That exam was requested by him a while back.

Thanks brother for the correction. Have you listened to this exam? Do they allow Doug Wilson to sail through unchallenged, or do they actually ask him some tough question?
 
It's been a while since I read it and I wasn't very informed at the time (some would argue I'm still not). I can't remember honestly. I might read it again just to see if I notice things that didn't occur to me at the time.
 
Can you really call the CREC a presbyterian denomination?

So two questions: Is it presbyterian? Is it a denomination?
 
Can you really call the CREC a presbyterian denomination?

So two questions: Is it presbyterian? Is it a denomination?
Isn't "Presbyterian" a reference to a type of ecclesiastical structure?

I suppose it'd be theoretically possible for a church to be presbyterian in its government yet not traditionally "Presbyterian" in its doctrine.
 
I attended a CREC congregation for awhile when I first arrived in WA. I don't know about the denom as a whole but the congregation I attended was definitely reformed.
 
The CREC advertises itself as a Confederation with a certain amount of independance for each church. At least that is what Sandlin thought!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top