Otis-Schlissel Debate

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by Reformed Covenanter, Dec 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JohnOwen007

    JohnOwen007 Puritan Board Sophomore

    Well I just went for a bicycle ride and listened to the Schlissel-Otis debate, and was gobsmacked with what I heard!

    Schlissel kept saying that the standard Protestant position is that faith = bare mental assent. I'm amazed that he hasn't even grasped the the rudiments of the reformation: faith = trust.

    And then he asks Otis where Justification by Faith Alone is taught outside Galatians and Romans: what about Phil. 3:8-9, 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:8-9; John 3:16; Luke 18:9ff. ... and the list could keep going on and on.

    The FV debate is complicated by the fact that not all in the camp would agree with Schlissel on the above, Doug Wilson being one.
     
  2. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor


    Yes, what really annoyed me about what Steve Schlissel was saying (apart from the fact that he was teaching heresy) was that he kept misrepresenting the Protestant and Reformed view, then when John Otis tried to correct him, he would not listen. :mad:
     
  3. JohnOwen007

    JohnOwen007 Puritan Board Sophomore

    Yes, one other thing that got me was that Schlissel doesn't seem to be aware that the word "justification" has a variety of meanings in the NT. Hence, when we read of the young man trying to "justify" himself in Luke 10 (to which Schlissel referred) and the use of "justification" in James 2:24 we're dealing with words that have a different meaning to those which Paul uses in Galatians, Romans, and Titus 3.

    These are basic issues that one can't miss if they've read Calvin's exposition of justification in Institutes book 3 let alone any of the Protestant orthodox systems.
     
  4. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    :up: Fascinating, isn't it, that Luther and Calvin had to take great pains to explain that to the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    This stretches credulity to think that Schlissel is unaware of this. If he embraced it at one point it is very telling that he would retreat to such a disingenuous stance knowing full well what the answer to such facile exegesis would be.
     
  5. ReformationArt

    ReformationArt Puritan Board Freshman

    In that sense there is nothing new about the NPP. In reality, it's the OPP held by the RCC.

    I'm not sure how many of you will get this musical connection from the early 90's:
    "You down with OPP?"
    "Yea, R-C-C"
     
  6. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    :applause: Well said, what Steve Schlissel was teaching in that debate was, in essence, Romanism. In fact, am I not right in saying that his is ecumenical and has had Papists and Eastern Orthodox priests speak at his church?

    :luther:
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. SouthernHero

    SouthernHero Puritan Board Freshman

    Ha, I get it... good stuff.
     
  8. Poimen

    Poimen Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    While I agree with you on the above, others are well on their way (or if not they are being inconsistent). The FV system reduces everything to 'covenant' which includes either a sloppy definition of the term or one, in my opinion, that includes at least the seed of some of these ideas of Schlissel without having the courage to blossom forth the fruit.
     
  9. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    One thing I noticed in the deabte, which would perhaps separate Steve Schlissel from Romanism, is that he does not believe the Protestant view of justificaton is - to quote the Council of Trent - "anathema" or a damnable heresy.

    However I can't say that inspires much confidence.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page