The Federal Vision and Heresy (Mr. McMahon)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You may want to make a disctinction between's Luther's views, and that of Lutheranism (which is really Melanchthonism).

Also, one needs to keep in mind the difference between the young Luther and the settled or old Luther.
 
One of the key things I see in this particular debate is the issue of how one gets to a particular doctrinal position. This is particularly the case with Lutheranism vs. FV. I think it illustrates that the ideas and doctrines assumed by a person on the way to accepting a particular doctrinal stance matters a great deal as to his/her orthodoxy. It is the difference between internal and logical inconsistencies and being deep in heresy.

While Lutheran and FV sacramentology are fairly close to each other, in terms of what they believe happens, confessionalist Lutherans (Rosenbladt types) split massively with the FVers in terms of the Law/Gospel distinction and the entire issue of Justification. After all, the FVers bash the Lutherans all the time on Law/Gospel and that Reformed people do not have the same perspective on Justification as the Lutherans do, etc...

Now of course, Lutherans in practice tend to be pretty pietistic and Arminian, while the FVers are more liturgical and proto-Catholic. Both are wrong, but in different ways.

This is also why there's a huge difference between Low-Church, Reformed-leaning and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, even though both use the 39 Articles.
 
You may want to make a disctinction between's Luther's views, and that of Lutheranism (which is really Melanchthonism).

Also, one needs to keep in mind the difference between the young Luther and the settled or old Luther.

I'm not thoroughly knowledgeable of Lutheran historical theology. Could you make the distinction, since I'm asking for your views on the baptismal regeneration heresy? Is Lutheranism (Melanchthonism) heresy? Is young Luther a heretic? Is settled or old Luther a heretic? Please tell me how and where you draw these distinctions.
 
I hate to re-post, but it's been a week, and I really want an answer from McMahon or someone else to this one.

I'm against baptismal regeneration as the next person, but I think if you declare it heresy, you declare Luther and a bunch of early church fathers, including Augustine, heretics.

Thoughts?
 
Are you trying to get someone to say that one can be Arminian or believe some abberrant teachings, and still be saved?
 
I want somebody to say whether or not Martin Luther is a heretic. If baptismal regeneration is a heresy, as McMahon writes, and Luther exposed baptismal regeneration, then Luther is a heretic.
 
Don,

Why do you keep calling Dr. McMahon out? If he wanted to answer you, he would by now.

Why do you care if Dr. McMahon considers parts of Lutheran theology to be defective or even heretical? Why do you want him to either label or not label Martin Luther himself a heretic? Calvin, for instance, showed deference to Luther by disagreeing with some things that Luther taught but didn't mention him by name out of respect.

In the end, Dr. McMahon is not a Synod or a Council to declare a man inside or outside the visible Church and he is not Christ to declare who He is/isn't in union with. As a Confessional Presbyterian, he rejects the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration as profoundly deficient. If you don't like that then take it up with the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith when you get to heaven.
 
"If we are elect, we will believe the Gospel, unless we are murdered in infancy, or happen to be under the frowning providence of being mentally retarded, or the like."

What is "frowning providence"?
 
Guys, listen -

I am swamped at work, and we are remodeling our house. I don't have a lot of time.

One must think through this a bit more clearly.

FV advocates RELY on a Romanistic interpretation of "justification" and church membership to be saved. (Grace Infused, not imputed). In that whole scheme of Romanistic interpretation, thier view of salvation is tainted by thier adherence to a Romanistic interpretation of church membership. That is what makes FV HERETICAL.

Luther, on the other hand, (let's assume he "did" believe in baptismal regeneration) would laugh at the FV advocate as much as he laughed at Erasmus for his Romanism. Luther's beliefs on justification and election FAR outwieghed Calvin's writings on the subject; i.e. Luther wrote more and thought more about imputation. In other owrds, I'm sure Elnwood, that you have not read through Luther's writings on the subject. Otherwise you would not be pressing a misunderstanding of Luther's understanding of salvation. Ecdlesiologically, Luther had some misconceptions. That does not make him heretical. His views of justification, election and salvation are not as the FV advocate.

In other words, I'd hang out with Luther and have a pint.
 
I want somebody to say whether or not Martin Luther is a heretic. If baptismal regeneration is a heresy, as McMahon writes, and Luther exposed baptismal regeneration, then Luther is a heretic.

Don:

I cannot answer for Matthew but there has been some discussion (at least among the Reformed) as to whether Luther held to 'baptismal regeneration' as commonly taught by Lutherans today. Dr. Godfrey, of WSCAL, has argued for example that it is visibly absent from Luther's small catechism.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-lc
 
Anyone ever feel down about how the perspecuity of the Bible seems at stake by all these precise discussions? I mean, after reading through these tedious arguments about how one is made right with God, discouragement can often set in to me. The fact that one could miss being in heaven one day with Jesus because he didn't have time to sort out FV issues and may be holding to something other than the true, precise Gospel is disturbing.

I'm all for theological discussion, but the way some men have handled this issue (sadly like Doug Wilson), they write their views on these matters as if we are talking about the latest football scores. We are talking about the wrath of God being turned away from sinners which is light years more serious that even the worst imaginable cancer diagnosis!

Is the Bible's perspecuity, as far as one knows he/she is right with God, at stake by the very fact that we keep paying attention to all this, thereby, bringing some to doubt whether they can even trust that the Bible is relibale in how it lays out the way in which God redeems his people?
 
Don,

Why do you keep calling Dr. McMahon out? If he wanted to answer you, he would by now.

Why do you care if Dr. McMahon considers parts of Lutheran theology to be defective or even heretical? Why do you want him to either label or not label Martin Luther himself a heretic? Calvin, for instance, showed deference to Luther by disagreeing with some things that Luther taught but didn't mention him by name out of respect.

In the end, Dr. McMahon is not a Synod or a Council to declare a man inside or outside the visible Church and he is not Christ to declare who He is/isn't in union with. As a Confessional Presbyterian, he rejects the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration as profoundly deficient. If you don't like that then take it up with the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith when you get to heaven.

Rich,

I think an author ought to clarify what he wrote. It is good for both the readers and the author who wishes to make his views clear.

It's not a matter of disagreeing with Luther's position because he and I both disagree with Luther's position on baptism. The question is whether Luther's view is heretical.

In this case, McMahon wrote what appeared to say that baptismal regeneration is a heresy. He wrote:

The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is heresy. Reformed Theology teaches that the benefits of the covenant of grace are only efficaciously conferred by the Holy Spirit to the elect. End of story.

From his response, McMahon has said that baptismal regeneration in of itself is not heresy, but it is heretical when coupled with the FV view of justification. From what I know of his views, this is what I had thought he believed, which is why I wanted him to clarify. I don't want McMahon to be seen as believing Luther (or Lutherans) was a heretic if that is not his view.
 
Fine Don. So PM him or something. If he wants to respond he will.

I also assume you know the difference between when somebody writes "Luther's view" and "the Lutheran view".

Further, this one sentence is not the sine qua non reason for the FV's error. Lutherans tend to be squishy about their theology in affirming certain things in contradiction with one another. They uphold Total Depravity on the one hand but then don't see the logical contradiction of denying limited atonement on the other.

Either way, he spoke of a single error, did not claim Luther is a heretic and, finally, he does not have to clarify what he wrote if he does not desire to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top