WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
This is a serious question. The more I read about FV theology, the more I sit back and scratch my head, thinking ... isn't that just Lutheran doctrine? How can these guys say they are Reformed?
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.
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Doesnt FV theology go with works based salvation
Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
At the risk of annoying everyone by triple posting, there are some significant differences that I can note.
Auburn theology may seem to allow that one can be regenerate (in a sense) and leave the covenant community, as does Lutheran theology. However, in the Auburn circles, there is still much more emphasis on the family as the normal means of entering the covenant community. Auburnites baptize infants (and may or may not believe in a sort of baptismal regeneration... which would be another similarity to Lutheranism) but they only baptize infants who are born into the covenant community. Lutherans are much more open in whom they will baptize; all it takes in the LCMS is a commitment from an adult in the child's life to teach the child the ways of the Lord. The difference, I suppose, is that while both may or may not allow for a sort of regeneration in one who will not finally persevere, Lutherans differ from Calvinism in a desire to make grace more universally effective. Auburnites are in no way attempting to alter the plain sense of predestination, but they are simply playing around with the definition of regeneration. They are just expanding additional covenant benefits to those that the rest of the Reformed consider part of the covenant community, while Lutherans would tend more to relax the boundaries of who is considered a member of the covenant community, besides denying a consistent doctrine of election. Their doctrine of election is, by their own admission, contradictory:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=576
Well, it's quite late. I'm hoping that at a more decent hour someone else can come in and clarify/correct all this.
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
At the risk of annoying everyone by triple posting, there are some significant differences that I can note.
Auburn theology may seem to allow that one can be regenerate (in a sense) and leave the covenant community, as does Lutheran theology. However, in the Auburn circles, there is still much more emphasis on the family as the normal means of entering the covenant community. Auburnites baptize infants (and may or may not believe in a sort of baptismal regeneration... which would be another similarity to Lutheranism) but they only baptize infants who are born into the covenant community. Lutherans are much more open in whom they will baptize; all it takes in the LCMS is a commitment from an adult in the child's life to teach the child the ways of the Lord. The difference, I suppose, is that while both may or may not allow for a sort of regeneration in one who will not finally persevere, Lutherans differ from Calvinism in a desire to make grace more universally effective. Auburnites are in no way attempting to alter the plain sense of predestination, but they are simply playing around with the definition of regeneration. They are just expanding additional covenant benefits to those that the rest of the Reformed consider part of the covenant community, while Lutherans would tend more to relax the boundaries of who is considered a member of the covenant community, besides denying a consistent doctrine of election. Their doctrine of election is, by their own admission, contradictory:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=576
Well, it's quite late. I'm hoping that at a more decent hour someone else can come in and clarify/correct all this.
Evie,
You are on the right track. I don't know if you have read "Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons" but if you haven't you should. You will get a better feel for FV straight from the proponents. Regarding Lutheranism, in Steve Wilkins chapter of the above book, he goes into his view of baptism, salvation and union with Christ. Joe Pipa gave the response and noted that Wilkins view of Baptismal Regeneration was not RCC, as most are familiar with, but Lutheran. The key is how some of the FV proponents view "Union with Christ" in there sacramentology, which is Lutheran.
As you have noted, terminology and definitions are key to understanding FV. They will use standard reformed terminology but not define it the same way as in the term "regeneration". They seem to flip back and forth saying "yes regeneration means this but it also means that". They will site the use of the word by Calvin, who used the word as synonomous with repentance and sanctification. So it can get quite tricky. But personally, I think the men who have supported FV have made themselves very clear and understandable. These men are not stupid and know how to communicate quite well.
And here is something I didn't realize until this summer when I talked to some of the people at Auburn Avenue in person. I didn't realize that they do not, nor do quite a few in the Federal Vision, practice paedocommunion. Now, they believe in it but they do not practice it. Nor does S. Schlissel for that matter.
Originally posted by wsw201
And here is something I didn't realize until this summer when I talked to some of the people at Auburn Avenue in person. I didn't realize that they do not, nor do quite a few in the Federal Vision, practice paedocommunion. Now, they believe in it but they do not practice it. Nor does S. Schlissel for that matter.
Jacob,
You are right that they don't practice peadocommunion at AAPC. The PCA would not allow it. But, as I understand it, they will allow a very, very young child to be examined by the Session. Schlissel is very much against peadocommunion, that's why they don't practice it at Messiah.
Originally posted by AdamM
The FV advocates would reject a sharp law/gospel distinction, which forms the core of Lutheran theology. FV advocates would also reject the two kingdom theology that is another very important principle of Lutheranism.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by wsw201
And here is something I didn't realize until this summer when I talked to some of the people at Auburn Avenue in person. I didn't realize that they do not, nor do quite a few in the Federal Vision, practice paedocommunion. Now, they believe in it but they do not practice it. Nor does S. Schlissel for that matter.
Jacob,
You are right that they don't practice peadocommunion at AAPC. The PCA would not allow it. But, as I understand it, they will allow a very, very young child to be examined by the Session. Schlissel is very much against peadocommunion, that's why they don't practice it at Messiah.
That is correct. They do let some wee lads approach the table (or the table approaches them, rather). If I understand it, the traditional reformed view has the elders determining when the Child is ready. at AAPC the father determines when the child is ready, no?
Good observations, but is a rejection of the two-kingdom view unique to FV?
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
They also seem to reject, for the most part, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and adopt a more Roman Catholic (Lutheran, Evangelical, etc.) view of worship. Would you agree?
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Well, I would lump all forms of worship into the Roman Catholic category. You're either Reformed or you didn't get the memo.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Well, I would lump all forms of worship into the Roman Catholic category. You're either Reformed or you didn't get the memo.
While I dislike Evangelicalism as much s the next guy, you would lump evanjellyfish worship in the same category as Rome? Yes, I know that a denial or RPW opens the door for other stuff, but it kind of caught me off guard.
Originally posted by Scott
Jacob: I think it would be misleading to characterize any evangelical as essentially the same as Roman Catholic. Whatever their errors, they do not worship the bread and wine, pray to / worship the saints, etc. The highpoint of a Catholic mass is the eucharist. Some evangelical churches have the eucharist only annually and have a Zwinglian view of it.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
They also seem to reject, for the most part, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and adopt a more Roman Catholic (Lutheran, Evangelical, etc.) view of worship. Would you agree?
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
At the risk of annoying everyone by triple posting, there are some significant differences that I can note.
Auburn theology may seem to allow that one can be regenerate (in a sense) and leave the covenant community, as does Lutheran theology. However, in the Auburn circles, there is still much more emphasis on the family as the normal means of entering the covenant community. Auburnites baptize infants (and may or may not believe in a sort of baptismal regeneration... which would be another similarity to Lutheranism) but they only baptize infants who are born into the covenant community. Lutherans are much more open in whom they will baptize; all it takes in the LCMS is a commitment from an adult in the child's life to teach the child the ways of the Lord. The difference, I suppose, is that while both may or may not allow for a sort of regeneration in one who will not finally persevere, Lutherans differ from Calvinism in a desire to make grace more universally effective. Auburnites are in no way attempting to alter the plain sense of predestination, but they are simply playing around with the definition of regeneration. They are just expanding additional covenant benefits to those that the rest of the Reformed consider part of the covenant community, while Lutherans would tend more to relax the boundaries of who is considered a member of the covenant community, besides denying a consistent doctrine of election. Their doctrine of election is, by their own admission, contradictory:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=576
Well, it's quite late. I'm hoping that at a more decent hour someone else can come in and clarify/correct all this.
Evie,
You are on the right track. I don't know if you have read "Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons" but if you haven't you should.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Schlissel outright rejects the RPW, he doesn't just NOT advocate EP or non-instrumental worship.
Originally posted by raderag
They are very different paradigms.
Lutherans would insist that FV mix law and gospel. For example, Lutheran's insist a very strong distinction between the two, believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed, and believe that justification is purely forensic. In fact, this is where all Protestants confessions agree, and where FV doesn't.
You cannot compare two systems without understanding the foundations for each.