The Federal Vision, A New Threat To Baptists

[Prufrock]

Jason, I am going to have to bow out at this point for a few reasons. 1.) I'm probably not the best person to defend a Theonomic denomination, as I have probably frequently been too hard on Theonomists in my posting here; and 2.) Having just signed up, you wouldn't have known this yet, but there is a temporary hold on debating Theonomy until a few issues are resolved, and I don't want to risk this getting too close to that. I think you just need to be a bit careful when making claims as to which churches "count" and which ones don't (honestly, I'm not entirely sure what that means), and also as to the criteria on which you make those claims (e.g., belonging to NAPARC). And do remember that there are many theonomists on this board; and so, while we may indeed be forceful and earnest in our critiques and arguments, our speech does need to be seasoned with grace if this board is to continue to function smoothly.

 

[py3ak]

[Moderator]
Jason, I understand that you think theonomists don't have the necessary conceptual framework to combat the FV. Of course, strong assertions that this is the case without substantiation don't carry conviction. This isn't the thread, but in future if you are going to make such a case, back your assertions up.

However, your words about the RPCUS are over the top. Saying you had no intention of offending does not render your words unoffensive. Saying that they don't even count, and calling for prayer for them to leave their man made traditions is not a great way to introduce yourself to the board, or to guard the reputation of your neighbors.

Please take some time to get acquainted with the board atmosphere, and if you wish to level a criticism, back your assertions up with facts, and use a respectful tone.

Thanks!
[/Moderator]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Furthermore, Jason, proponents of theonomy do not have to adopt a Covenantal structure any different than that which is laid out in the Confessions. The key issue for Theonomists is not the nature of the Covenant of Grace, per se, but how the general equity of the Moral Law is applied to human governments.

Consequently, it does not follow necessarily that a person's understanding of the General Equity of the Law affects Sacramentology and Eccelsiology. That is to say, that a Theonomist seeks the establishment of the Moral Law in our civil governments but civil governments have nothing to do with the headings of the visible/invisible Covenant of Grace distinction or how the Sacraments are administered.

I've hardly been known for defending Theonomy but I don't like a position (or a denomination at large) roundly trashed and condemned for something where there is no necessary connection. It frankly only reveals ignorance of the core issues of both movements to try to link the two in such a fashion.

A much more sophisticated connection needs to be made to see why some Theonomists were attracted to the FV. A crass and simplistic wide brush only offends and lacks credibility.

 

[fredtgreco]

Jason,

We all show our biases in different ways. I am certainly no Theonomist (a quick PB search will show that) and I certainly am not hostile to WSC (I have great respect for those who are there). But I am not unversed in the FV issue, having led a grass roots group that urged the adoption of the PCA Study Committee Report (look me up) and as one who is good friends with Guy Waters and many others. I also am not unversed in theological controversy (having served as Secretary of the PCA's Theological Examining Committee) and the BCO (now serving on the PCA SJC).

Why do I "speak as a fool"? Because I think you are wrong about the RPCUS on this one. They started the ball rolling in ecclesiastical courts and for that I am thankful. I also think you should know that there were several instances where the critiques coming out of WSC did more damage than good to the cause of rooting out the FV. You may not believe it, but then I guess that you have not been in the ecclesiastical trenches like I have for the past decade or so.

 

[mvdm]

I also think you should know that there were several instances where the critiques coming out of WSC did more damage than good to the cause of rooting out the FV. You may not believe it, but then I guess that you have not been in the ecclesiastical trenches like I have for the past decade or so.

From my perspective in the URC trenches, I strongly concur with the accuracy of this assessment

 

[Reformed City Rockers]

Two things I want to respond to Semper Fidelis:

Snip

Furthermore, Jason, proponents of theonomy do not have to adopt a Covenantal structure any different than that which is laid out in the Confessions.




A much more sophisticated connection needs to be made to see why some Theonomists were attracted to the FV. A crass and simplistic wide brush only offends and lacks credibility.

1st I do wish that Theonomist would address the covenant structure of the WCF that would mean they would believe in the biblical doctrine of the covenant of works and the republication of that covenant at Sinai. But theonomists simply do not believe in the covenant of Works from Bahnsen to Rushdoony they all reject that doctrine. So Semper I am with you I hope that the recon crowd would go back to the covenant structure of the WFC or at least as you suggested they should since that’s the only covenant structure they are required to hold.

2nd As far as making the connection between Theonomy and the super mega freeway it provides to FV one need to look no farther than the credibility and sophistication yet simplicity of the pivotal and successful work of Guy Prentiss Waters of who all of you since you say and claim you believe in sola fide against the Federal Vision then by default you will agree with his findings. Right Semper Fedelis?????? Go to Guy Prentiss Waters book The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology. On page 296-298 you will see HIS making the connection between Theonomy and FV. Now in the middle of 296 so you won’t explode Guy does say that not that all Theonomists are FVists. I’ve been saying that too it’s just that when a Theonomists goes against FV he is going against his own mono-covenantal grain.


Mr. fredtgreco,
If you think WSC did more damage than good that’s news out here in NoCal and SoCal we here on the west coast think that Covenant Justification and Pastoral Ministry along with The Law is not of Faith and By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification those books teamed up with Guy Waters books and the new book on Justification written by John Fesko the people in my circle say that those books were a God send. Only those who are uncomfortable with let’s say a R Scott Clark’s or Michael Horton’s presentation of Justification and let’s say are more at home with the more neo-nomian moralistic presentation of Justification by the likes of Norman Shepherd, Doug Wilson, Scott Hahn, Steve Wilkins, Peter Lieghthert, Rich Lusk et. al. Only those of the latter would see WSC contribution as unhelpful. Those who love the gospel think the WSC books on sola fide are the best thing since sliced bread or to put it in a more academic way in terms of how Joshua has posted, the WSC contrabution rocked!!!


Sola Fide 4 Life
Sola Fide 4 Ever

 

[fredtgreco]

Mr. Rivera,

You need to have some facts. First of all, the teaching that the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai is at best a minority opinion in the Reformed world. In no way could it be said that such a teaching is central to Reformed theology (the WCF would say otherwise, clearing saying that the Covenant at Sinai was a part of the Covenant of Grace) or that it did great harm to the FV. If anything, it was such overreaching that made it more difficult for plain, vanilla Westminsterianism (as opposed to modern Klineanism) to overcome legitimate objections from FV advocates and to get at their illegitimate conclusions.

I suppose the Colloquium in which Pipa, Phillips, Hutchinson et al engaged the FV had no effect? Nor O Palmer Robertson's book? Nor the work of the PCA committee? Nor men like Andy Webb?

You also assume that you know what I was referring to when I talked about unhelpful things coming out of WSC. You don't. I did not criticize those books (and certainly not in their entirety).

To be blunt - you're treading in waters (no pun intended) that are far too deep and complex for your simplistic conclusions. Theonomy has its shortcomings (in my opinion) and there is indeed often a connection between some manifestations of Theonomy and FV (e.g. Wilkins). But you could just as easily blame Exclusive Psalmody, as two of the most virulent young converts to FV were previously EP champions in RPCNA congregations. (Others: please note that I do not view this to be the case, but use this "example" to make a point.)

 

[toddpedlar]

Two things I want to respond to Semper Fidelis:

Snip

Furthermore, Jason, proponents of theonomy do not have to adopt a Covenantal structure any different than that which is laid out in the Confessions.




A much more sophisticated connection needs to be made to see why some Theonomists were attracted to the FV. A crass and simplistic wide brush only offends and lacks credibility.

1st I do wish that Theonomist would address the covenant structure of the WCF that would mean they would believe in the biblical doctrine of the covenant of works and the republication of that covenant at Sinai. But theonomists simply do not believe in the covenant of Works from Bahnsen to Rushdoony they all reject that doctrine. So Semper I am with you I hope that the recon crowd would go back to the covenant structure of the WFC or at least as you suggested they should since that’s the only covenant structure they are required to hold.

Back off on this comment, Jason. It's wrong. You should be very careful in using words like "never" and "all". Theonomists do not universally adopt Rushdoony's error, and those that are confessional (of which there are MANY) accept the Covenant of Works as taught in the Westminster Standards. You are painting with too broad a brush. As Rich said already, theonomy does NOT require a particular covenantal view.

 

[sealdaSupralapsarian]

Why in the world would you recommend someone who, according to your own words, creates a snare and attack against the gospel? You end your post by hoping that Baptists can swallow the truth and spit out the bones. That's kind of like saying, "There's a million dollars at the other end of that field, but the field is covered with buried land mines. I sure hope you can cross the field without being blown up." If a preacher is not completely orthodox about the doctrine of justification he is a hidden land mine, no matter how right he is on any other point of doctrine.

Good sir,

Should we then forbid people to read the Forefathers of the Reformation? All of them had some wacky views. What about Church History? I can recommend Doug Wilson for doctrines like the Trinity and Post Mill b/c he has good things to say. But I can be staunchly against Federal Vision.

I do the samething with NT Wright. When it comes to the affirmation of the Resurrection and his Forensic's Christ Atonement being for a Corporate Body then he's the best thing since slice bread. But His view of Justification is grotesque.

So, this is no train heading for disaster. We can however be sharpened by the teachers God has given the church. I owe a lot to the teachings of Doug Wilson in a book called "Future Men" which teaches some extremely sound and didatics on Biblical Manhood that have help change my life and marriage tremedously. But am I a federal Visionist? No.

So, while I believe you over-reacted, you are entitled to your opinion.

Grace and Peace,
seal

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 11:36:38 EST-----


Yo City Rocker Guy,

I am a Theonomist and I reject Federal Vision.

Grace and Peace,
seal

 

[Reformed City Rockers]

Pastor Greco, thank you for your take on the contrary I do find the colloquium at Knox Seminary very helpful and I am thankful for the contribution of those who were contra to the FV position. On the issue of the republication of the covenant of works goes I disagree with your assertion. Contrary to modern opinion; the Republication theory as some have so called this doctrine was not invented in lab back in 1979 by Meredith Kline with some help of some Lutherans, Antinomians, and Quasi Liberals. In fact republication was part of the doctrine of Thomas Boston (R. Scott Clark “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” pg 64 n. 82), Charles and A.A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Samuel Rutherford, Francis Tertian, James Buchanan, John Owen, John Calquhoun (Treatise on the Law and Gospel), J Gresham Machen, Louis Berkhof and many others. I believe if I am told correctly that Chad Van Dixhoorn’s work is bringing home the bacon so to say as documenting that the Westminster Divines mostly held to republication and that republication is the official position of the confession. The shift away from republication is novel invention that is only 60 some odd years old starting with John Murray’s great tenure at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. (Please see Introduction essay and Brenton Ferry’s essay and also T. David Gordon’s essay in “The Law is Not of Faith” ed. by Brian Estelle, John Fesko, and David VanDrunen pages 1-22 & 70-105 & 240-259). I’ll stop at this point and wait for your reply.

To Todd and Semper Fidelis,
So to not broad brush Theonomists since many have different differing versions of theonomy ranging from whatever each individual thinks theonomy is. It would be unfair and in accurate for me to pin down any particular author or version of theonomy and apply it to all since there is no central official teaching of theonomy. I would have to go from individual to individual and apply my polemics individually. With that being said I believe that in this forum that I am free to hitch my wagon so to say on a leading reformed scholar’s findings. My question to you guys is this: If theonomy had nothing to do with FV if I believe that is what you are saying. Why does Guy Waters in his well researched and insightful accurate book; The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology; why does Guy Waters make a connection between Theonomy and FV in pages 296-298? As Guy Waters outs it. “We have seen that the hermeneutic employed by many FV proponents resonates with theonomic conceptions of covenantal continuity” (Page 296). If Guy Waters can see the connection between Theonomy and FV then why can’t you? I am not saying and neither is Guy P Waters, that all Theonomist are FVists, there are some theonomists that are against FV and praise the Lord for that we welcome your opposition to this pernicious error. Second if theonomy is the great enemy of FV then where are the great works against FV written by theonomist? Finally if Theonomy is 100% in line with and the official position the confession then why do leading well studied academic historical theological theologians and scholars call into question with all due diligence the legitimacy of theonomy as being confessional? (I am referring to R. Scott Clark’s book; Recovering the Reformed Confessions page 61-69?) BTW this is another book and scholar and big Christian brother I am hitching my wagon on.

 

[toddpedlar]

To Todd and Semper Fidelis,

So to not broad brush Theonomists since many have different differing versions of theonomy ranging from whatever each individual thinks theonomy is. It would be unfair and in accurate for me to pin down any particular author or version of theonomy and apply it to all since there is no central official teaching of theonomy. I would have to go from individual to individual and apply my polemics individually. With that being said I believe that in this forum that I am free to hitch my wagon so to say on a leading reformed scholar’s findings. My question to you guys is this: If theonomy had nothing to do with FV if I believe that is what you are saying.

Who said there's no connection or common threads?

Why does Guy Waters in his well researched and insightful accurate book; The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology; why does Guy Waters make a connection between Theonomy and FV in pages 296-298? As Guy Waters outs it. “We have seen that the hermeneutic employed by many FV proponents resonates with theonomic conceptions of covenantal continuity” (Page 296). If Guy Waters can see the connection between Theonomy and FV then why can’t you?

Again, who said there isn't one?

I am not saying and neither is Guy P Waters, that all Theonomist are FVists, there are some theonomists that are against FV and praise the Lord for that we welcome your opposition to this pernicious error. Second if theonomy is the great enemy of FV then where are the great works against FV written by theonomist?

Who said anything about theonomy being the great enemy of FV?

Finally if Theonomy is 100% in line with and the official position the confession then why do leading well studied academic historical theological theologians and scholars call into question with all due diligence the legitimacy of theonomy as being confessional? (I am referring to R. Scott Clark’s book; Recovering the Reformed Confessions page 61-69?) BTW this is another book and scholar and big Christian brother I am hitching my wagon on.

Who said that Theonomy was 100% in line with the WCF?

You're attributing LOTS of things to people who haven't said them. That's bearing false witness. Please be more careful with your claims and insinuations (and tone). Perhaps you're unaware of it, but your tone is quite insulting.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

In the interests of putting rumors to rest. 1. Per Rutherford. In Mike Brown’s piece in The Confessional Presbyterian journal last year, he cites Rutherford contrary to Goodwin and Owen. "Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), a Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, said, 'the law as pressed upon Israel was not a covenant of works,'" The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh, 1655) 60. CPJ 4, p. 157.
2. Per Chad Van Dixhoorn. I've worked with Chad, who has been very generous in his support of my squibs on things Westminster; I contacted him when I read the below as I thought it sounded strange (he's very stringent on requirements for proving intent of Westminster). He tells me he has no idea how he got enlisted for republication advocacy research. He does grant the position was held by some assembly members. But he is not working on the subject and is not remotely championing that the Westminster Assembly held any formal position on republication.

In fact republication was part of the doctrine of Thomas Boston (R. Scott Clark “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” pg 64 n. 82), Charles and A.A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Samuel Rutherford, Francis Tertian, James Buchanan, John Owen, John Calquhoun (Treatise on the Law and Gospel), J Gresham Machen, Louis Berkhof and many others. I believe if I am told correctly that Chad Van Dixhoorn’s work is bringing home the bacon so to say as documenting that the Westminster Divines mostly held to republication and that republication is the official position of the confession.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

bump.

 

[fredtgreco]

You mean I knew what I was talking about?

Any chance of a retraction?