Objection to the use of "Federal"

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by CalvinandHodges, Dec 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CalvinandHodges

    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
     
  2. Stephen

    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.
     
  3. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    The original FVists chose it for the title of their book of lectures, didn't they?
     
  4. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Is there not the collection of essays not a collection of essays (which they contributed to) called The Federal Vision: Pros and Cons.
     
  5. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

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

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    Next thing you know they will call it "Consistent Confessional Vision"
     
  7. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    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!
     
  8. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    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.
     
  9. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Agreed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page