Objection to the use of "Federal"

Status
Not open for further replies.

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:

:soapbox:

They call themselves "Federal Visionists" but there is nothing specifically Covenantal or "Federal" about their position. That some of them hold to paedo-communion is a hyper-federal view. They have taken the good name of "Federal" and have perverted it to hide their errors.

I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.

Blessings on this Lord's Day,

-CH
 

Stephen

Puritan Board Junior
Great observation. They certainly are not federal. How did this term "federal vision" originate? I like the term John Robbins uses, "neolegalism." Perhaps hyper-covenantalism is a good term also.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
Greetings:

:soapbox:

They call themselves "Federal Visionists" but there is nothing specifically Covenantal or "Federal" about their position. That some of them hold to paedo-communion is a hyper-federal view. They have taken the good name of "Federal" and have perverted it to hide their errors.

I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.

Blessings on this Lord's Day,

-CH
You could refer to it as the "Auburn Avenue Theology" which Doug Wilson seems happy enough with.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Next thing you know they will call it "Consistent Confessional Vision"
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.

Blessings on this Lord's Day,

-CH
New Perspective and FV are more like "kissing cousins" than identical theologies. It isn't really accurate to label FV as New Perspective. Now, if you wanted to be more specific, you could say "New Perspective on Reformed Covenantal Thought."

But NPP has different tenets and emphases than FV. Of course, there are no logical contradictions between the two and the adherent of FV could easily adhere to NPP, but they are not identical. The developed (at least at first) independently of one another. In fact, Doug Wilson has about 70 blog posts critiquing aspects of NPP. Now, whether they are really critiques of substance is beside the point. The point is that if they were identical, then he would be critiquing himself!
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.

Blessings on this Lord's Day,

-CH
New Perspective and FV are more like "kissing cousins" than identical theologies. It isn't really accurate to label FV as New Perspective. Now, if you wanted to be more specific, you could say "New Perspective on Reformed Covenantal Thought."

But NPP has different tenets and emphases than FV. Of course, there are no logical contradictions between the two and the adherent of FV could easily adhere to NPP, but they are not identical. The developed (at least at first) independently of one another. In fact, Doug Wilson has about 70 blog posts critiquing aspects of NPP. Now, whether they are really critiques of substance is beside the point. The point is that if they were identical, then he would be critiquing himself!
1. I agree that FV and NPP are not identical, nor are the movements monolithic.
2. I'm not sure about the last point though. It's kind of funny reading Van Til's New Modernism where he opens a double barrelled machine gun at Barth and Brunner and his basic conclusion is that they're much closer than either would want to admit. Sometimes there are formal differences that cause deep divisions between folks that have substantive agreements. It's part of the reason, incidentally, why some in the FV end up in Rome.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.

Blessings on this Lord's Day,

-CH
New Perspective and FV are more like "kissing cousins" than identical theologies. It isn't really accurate to label FV as New Perspective. Now, if you wanted to be more specific, you could say "New Perspective on Reformed Covenantal Thought."

But NPP has different tenets and emphases than FV. Of course, there are no logical contradictions between the two and the adherent of FV could easily adhere to NPP, but they are not identical. The developed (at least at first) independently of one another. In fact, Doug Wilson has about 70 blog posts critiquing aspects of NPP. Now, whether they are really critiques of substance is beside the point. The point is that if they were identical, then he would be critiquing himself!
1. I agree that FV and NPP are not identical, nor are the movements monolithic.
2. I'm not sure about the last point though. It's kind of funny reading Van Til's New Modernism where he opens a double barrelled machine gun at Barth and Brunner and his basic conclusion is that they're much closer than either would want to admit. Sometimes there are formal differences that cause deep divisions between folks that have substantive agreements. It's part of the reason, incidentally, why some in the FV end up in Rome.
Agreed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top