Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by Leslie, Apr 16, 2008.
Sorry, but you have lost me on this one. What does Clark have to do with FV?
Perhaps you ought to read the posts in this thread that already answer this question. Did you bother reading the posts heretofore in this very thread that interact with that very issue?
Two threads that should help you understand what is wrong with the FV are these:
There is absolutely nothing Biblically defensible about their definition of conditional election.
David said that unless you ascribe to Clark's definition of faith (mental assent), then you are leaning towards FV because the other definitions of faith have some kind of "works-iness" about them (my term).
Well, since I posted that, I found the rule, and I think it's only 15 posts, but have forgotten again between the time I found that rule and re-found your post. I've only been here 4 months and have not yet learned how to navigate around very quickly.
No; but new people start new threads on issues like FV that have been discussed over and over. It's in the published rules of the PB that proponents of FV are not allowed here. So, sure; people can ask questions about FV all they want; it's just that many of us have already taken the time to answer a lot of these same questions, and links to some of those prior threads have been published, for those who are interested.
If you're looking for a back-&-forth debate over the merits of FV, you may find it in places like Greenbaggins, but not on PB.
When I have pressed the FV on this point I am told that when they talk about conditional election they are not looking at decretal election but at God choosing (i.e. electing) those to be part of the physical outward covenant (i.e. the Church), a position that can be lost.
Now I can agree that God chooses who will be outward members of the covenant, and that the greek word for God choosing is also used for election in a decretal sense, and that such membership of the external coveneant can be lost. In that sense I think that up to this point that the analysis is biblical,
The problem comes when God choosing in this context is seen as a form of election that can be conflated with decretal election and that the historic Reformed position on decretal election can be applied to a new form of election that has been taken out of context. Just because the same word is used in two different contexts does not mean that those two contexts are necessarily the same or even hierarchical.
It's not that the same word "election" is utilized but what they fill in with the phrase "conditional election" that can be lost. If you read Wilkins' Presbytery Exam and some other content, it is clear that what they desire to argue for is that baptized members participate temporally in the forgiveness of sins and union with Christ. This idea is specifically rejected by the Scriptures and the Confessions that teach that faith is the instrument that lays hold of the benefits of Christ and not mere temporal Covenant membership.
Hence, there is nothing orthodox about their definition of Conditional Election (which is what I initially typed) while the phrase itself is innocuous.
A bit more on this topic as Reverends Winzer and Greco interacted and Rev. Greco quoted Owen: