The Federal Vision and the Doctrine of Assurance

Status
Not open for further replies.
[What works of the FV crowd have you read / are you reading? .

I have not read any works/books of the FV crowd...I have read works of the FV advesaries...(like the opc report)...but that only caused me to have more questions. Note: I found myself agreeing with some of the things that the opc accused the FV of...
That is why this topic is a big deal to me.

Note: I had never heard of "theonomy" until someone called me one. I then had to do the research myself. Come to find out, my view of theonomy was never taught to me, I just simply came up with my position from studying the scriptures.

Again...some of the things that people accuse the FV of...are things I have learned myself in studying the scriptures and confession.

That is why I am so curious.

Note: I have listened to steve wilkins examination.

Have you considered that things that the FV folks are accused of, and that you have come to in studying the Scriptures, might just be wrong? Perhaps those conclusions you have come to that happen to line up with what the FV teaches, are both unconfessional and unbiblical, products of incomplete or inaccurate reasoning. This is certainly the case with the FV teaching on assurance, "final justification", etc. - if you've come to those convictions, are you willing to entertain the possibility that you've come to incorrect conclusions?

By the way, you should be aware that, broadly speaking, the FV teachings on these things are contrary to the confessions, and that advocacy of these positions on this board will not be greeted with warm affection.
 
Shawn

It should be noted that the only officially Theonomic denomination in the world, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS), was the first church to openly condemn the Federal Vision.

One of its ministers - Rev. John Otis - wrote a book against the Federal Vision called Danger in the Camp, which extensively documents and refutes their heresies - especially on justification.

If you have received your copy of A Conquered Kingdom yet, you will notice that Rev. Otis wrote an extensive foreword, and that I penned a FV disclaimer (because I quoted from some of their proponents books - though mostly before they were FV).
 
In my view, the Roman Catholic catechism has the best expression of the FV proponents' view of baptism and salvation.

From the RCC's catechism:
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."


So, what we see here in para 1263 is the complete obliteration of sin and its guilt via baptism (for everyone baptized...in other words, it is literally a clean slate). But with the "tinder of sin" still left, that initial obliteration can be reversed so it must be manfully resisted by the grace of Christ. This "tinder of sin" portion of the catechism is taken from the proceedings of the Council of Trent which concludes "yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. " That is, he is saved who maintains the "clean slate" provided by baptism.

While FV'ers would most likely stop short of this conclusion, it is the logical end. If baptism bestows salvation and that bestowal can be lost, then one is consistent with Rome.
 
Shawn

It should be noted that the only officially Theonomic denomination in the world, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS), was the first church to openly condemn the Federal Vision.

One of its ministers - Rev. John Otis - wrote a book against the Federal Vision called Danger in the Camp, which extensively documents and refutes their heresies - especially on justification.

If you have received your copy of A Conquered Kingdom yet, you will notice that Rev. Otis wrote an extensive foreword, and that I penned a FV disclaimer (because I quoted from some of their proponents books - though mostly before they were FV).


I think Rev. Otis has some lectures on the FV on sermonaudio. Being you recommend him I will listen to those lectures.
I have listened to and read some of the works of those who oppose the FV. What I usually find is a "blanket" pointing out of error without a sufficient explanation of why. I have also found a lot of dis-honest scholarship where the opposing position is put in the worst light possible, usually out of context, and then condemned because of the "bad light", not because of a clear and bright understanding of the error itself.

Note: hopefully Otis has a clear and bright understanding of the error of the FV...and does not have an agenda of sheding "bad light" on those he disagree's with.

Note: I have not received your book yet...but it has been shipped from lulu so it should be here soon.
 
With reading through this thread, and what I've read about FV, it seems that FVers can have assurance for today (because they are faithful) but they cannot have assurance of ultimate salvation. No one knows what he/she will do in the future, so one cannot know if he/she will be ultimately saved. Is this correct or is it wacky?
 
FV is correct that perseverance is a gift given to the elect alone but where the system is terribly flawed is in its doctrine of regeneration, which suggests that the reprobate can, for a season, enjoy the grace of faith and union with Christ prior to falling away. Consequently, the FV has no place to ground the assurance of salvation that is available to the regenerate because the system allows for the reprobate to receive the same measure of regeneration and faith as the elect. Assurance becomes predicated upon the secret decree of perseverance, which cannot be known being a secret! All of which stands in stark contrast to the biblical teaching, that the Holy Spirit bears witness with the believer’s spirit according to the unambiguous word of promise that all who God calls, He justifies and will glorify.

Ron

Reformed Apologist: Federal Vision, Augustinian not Reformed
 
Shawn

It should be noted that the only officially Theonomic denomination in the world, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS), was the first church to openly condemn the Federal Vision.

One of its ministers - Rev. John Otis - wrote a book against the Federal Vision called Danger in the Camp, which extensively documents and refutes their heresies - especially on justification.

If you have received your copy of A Conquered Kingdom yet, you will notice that Rev. Otis wrote an extensive foreword, and that I penned a FV disclaimer (because I quoted from some of their proponents books - though mostly before they were FV).


I think Rev. Otis has some lectures on the FV on sermonaudio. Being you recommend him I will listen to those lectures.
I have listened to and read some of the works of those who oppose the FV. What I usually find is a "blanket" pointing out of error without a sufficient explanation of why. I have also found a lot of dis-honest scholarship where the opposing position is put in the worst light possible, usually out of context, and then condemned because of the "bad light", not because of a clear and bright understanding of the error itself.

Note: hopefully Otis has a clear and bright understanding of the error of the FV...and does not have an agenda of sheding "bad light" on those he disagree's with.

Note: I have not received your book yet...but it has been shipped from lulu so it should be here soon.

If, as you have noted above, you have never read any FV work written by an FV proponent, then how can you make the criticisms of the "anti FV" writings that you do? How do you know that they take FV teachings and put them in the "worst light possible"? How do you know that the errors are not refuted due to a clear and bright understanding of the error itself? How do you know all this?

I still await, also, an answer to my 6/2/08 post (#61) about whether you've considered that the FV positions might just be wrong, i.e. unbiblical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top