Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just don't listen to any stupid comments that identifiy Federal Vision with theonomy and Greg Bahnsen. If someone makes that connection, you can safely ignore the rest of what they say as uninformed.
I know that one cannot fully identify Bahsen's Theonomy with Shepherdism (Shepherd denies the active obedience of Christ which Bahnsen affirms), but I would like to know why one should not identify Bahnsen with the FV camp given that some close to him have claimed him for FV.
I know that one cannot fully identify Bahsen's Theonomy with Shepherdism (Shepherd denies the active obedience of Christ which Bahnsen affirms), but I would like to know why one should not identify Bahnsen with the FV camp given that some close to him have claimed him for FV.
Any evidence cited by the "some close to him"?
Have you seen Joe Moorecraft's article why Bahnsen would not be FV? Sorry, I don't have a link; I think it has been linked here on PB before.Any evidence cited by the "some close to him"?I know that one cannot fully identify Bahsen's Theonomy with Shepherdism (Shepherd denies the active obedience of Christ which Bahnsen affirms), but I would like to know why one should not identify Bahnsen with the FV camp given that some close to him have claimed him for FV.
It was online scuttlebut at a couple of chat clubs a few months ago. I am sorry, I should have put "close to him" in quotes because it was second hand references to people like Roger Wagner. I don't know where Bahnsen stood precisely. But if he is not to be grouped with the FV, I would like to know in detail the reasons why not. I already know he cannot be fully aligned with Shepherdism and I would like to document why he can't be fully identified with FV.
I know that one cannot fully identify Bahsen's Theonomy with Shepherdism (Shepherd denies the active obedience of Christ which Bahnsen affirms), but I would like to know why one should not identify Bahnsen with the FV camp given that some close to him have claimed him for FV.
Any evidence cited by the "some close to him"?
It was online scuttlebut at a couple of chat clubs a few months ago. I am sorry, I should have put "close to him" in quotes because it was second hand references to people like Roger Wagner. I don't know where Bahnsen stood precisely. But if he is not to be grouped with the FV, I would like to know in detail the reasons why not. I already know he cannot be fully aligned with Shepherdism and I would like to document why he can't be fully identified with FV.
Have you seen Joe Moorecraft's article why Bahnsen would not be FV? Sorry, I don't have a link; I think it has been linked here on PB before.Any evidence cited by the "some close to him"?
It was online scuttlebut at a couple of chat clubs a few months ago. I am sorry, I should have put "close to him" in quotes because it was second hand references to people like Roger Wagner. I don't know where Bahnsen stood precisely. But if he is not to be grouped with the FV, I would like to know in detail the reasons why not. I already know he cannot be fully aligned with Shepherdism and I would like to document why he can't be fully identified with FV.
Have you seen Joe Moorecraft's article why Bahnsen would not be FV? Sorry, I don't have a link; I think it has been linked here on PB before.It was online scuttlebut at a couple of chat clubs a few months ago. I am sorry, I should have put "close to him" in quotes because it was second hand references to people like Roger Wagner. I don't know where Bahnsen stood precisely. But if he is not to be grouped with the FV, I would like to know in detail the reasons why not. I already know he cannot be fully aligned with Shepherdism and I would like to document why he can't be fully identified with FV.
Here is John Otis' chapter
http://www.westminsterrpcus.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=7
To the rest:
Bahnsen gave powerful defenses of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. It is simply sloppy scholarship to equate him with Shepherd. Yes, he said he liked Shepherd as a professor. So what? So did a number of WTS students. What does that prove? Nothing.
Even a brief perusal of Bahnsen's work shows what me and Paul are saying. Like, go back to the original sources. Or listen to his stuff on Romans 3. In his ethics classes he gave brutal critiques of Romanist views of merit and justification (which is equated by some with FV views).
Gryphonette: Some of your comments about a lesser justification, santification, etc. reminded me so much of when I was in the Worldwide Church of God and all of the idiotic doctrines they taught. That was legalism pure and simple. It sounds to me like this FV is legalism, too.
I believe the reason no one can understand it is because it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. It's one of those doctrines that has to be explained in such minute detail because they have made it so complicated due to the many Scriptures they are taking out of context. When the "student" has a question about a text that is very clear, the teacher has to go back and explain to the student why the text doesn't mean what it says. I went through that in the Worldwide Church of God.
It takes 10,000 words to explain a heresy when the true doctrine that can be explained with five clear verses.