Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by R. Scott Clark, Jun 25, 2007.
On Lane Keister's Green Baggins.
The HB response is priceless.
He went out from the FV, because he was never of the FV.
The union-with-FV wasn't real, just hypocritical.
But he could be truly united to Christ, and yet fall away? A perfect parody.
That one made me smile. I'm not a huge fan of sarcasm when it comes to theological debate (regrettfully I engage in it all too often) but your use of irony here is priceless.
It appears he lacked the gift of perserverance.
I can't believe some FV proponent said that on Lane's blog! Like that makes it any better? We can't know God's decree so we'll just skip the Gospel. The Gospel is too hard, we will try keeping the Law? Whoooeee!
If you read the comments again you will see that the man who wrote those words is not necessarily an FV proponent as some of his later posts flesh out his criticism of the movement.
I also don't think it would be fair to say that it was meant that 'external covenant' is the law per se but rather the historical administration of the covenant, which includes believers and their children.
If all he's saying that they are saying is; we can't know who's elect so we'll baptize all children of members in good standing and said members can come to the Table, then what's the fuss about?
I think they are saying more than that. They tend to shift the meaning of words.
I see what you mean and take back calling this guy an FV advocate.
I agree; there is more to it than that and I agree with the shifting of the meaning of words. Furthermore, though it is true that we may not know who is elect, we may know that we are elect (eternally not covenantally). That is, not because we have access to God's divine decree but because of His Word as it is received by true faith.
So, as you pointed out on Lane's blog, justification really becomes the central matter of the debate. If I am justified, how can I not believe I shall be glorified? (Romans 8:30)
I have grown tired of the sarcasm from both camps in regards to this issue.
So, how should have I responded to the criticism that Shawn was never really a Federal Visionist and therefore his rejection of it is immaterial?
(BTW, Shawn wrote to thank me for the post and to point out that we had a vigorous discussion about the covenant of works some years ago when he was in the FV camp. He wasn't offended by the post, for what it's worth.)
I have no idea. I like you, Horton, Wilson, Leithart and others from both sides of this argument and just wish that all sides were a little more charitable towards each other. It just seems that sarcasm has taken over the argument and it makes me sad.