Where did the FV come from?

[danmpem]

Where did the FV teachers go to seminary? Most of them are Reformed in background, but when did they stop teaching traditional Covenant Theology? It just seems like the FV came out of nowhere (having said that, I would never have heard the term "FV" had it not been for PB). It was even commented on another thread that there aren't any books out right now opposing the FV.


Note: If anyone is feeling irritated by the repetitive subject of "I don't get it, I don't get it" on the FV threads, then I apologize. I guess that's the funny thing about having the truth and seeing others in the church teach heresy - I just don't get it.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Don't feel bad, I've been here since it all started and still don't really get it.

 

[Poimen]

Where did the FV teachers go to seminary? Most of them are Reformed in background, but when did they stop teaching traditional Covenant Theology? It just seems like the FV came out of nowhere (having said that, I would never have heard the term "FV" had it not been for PB). It was even commented on another thread that there aren't any books out right now opposing the FV.


Note: If anyone is feeling irritated by the repetitive subject of "I don't get it, I don't get it" on the FV threads, then I apologize. I guess that's the funny thing about having the truth and seeing others in the church teach heresy - I just don't get it.

There are many FV advocates, so their background is somewhat varied.

John Barach went to Mid-America Reformed Seminary.
Steve Schlissel, as far as I know, never went to seminary (at least he doesn't advertise it anywhere).
Steve Wilkins went to Reformed Theological Seminary.
Doug Wilson never went to seminary.

These are the original speakers at the 2002 AAPC but there are many other men associated with this movement.

When did they stop preaching traditional covenant theology? That is a much harder question to answer. I would guess that they have been on this trajectory for several years but most people became aware of it in 2002 through the AAPC. Some have said that Wilkins has been teaching this since the 90s.

Most theological aberrations do not suddenly come on the scene; they are preceded by attempts at orthodoxy and reformation that fail. Disillusioned many go looking for a new or 'fresh' theology that will work. I think the FV advocates have found it in their movement, but unfortunately the theological drift is constantly moving its adherents closer and closer to Anglo & Roman Catholicism.

 

[Reformed Musings]

Federal Vision's roots can go as far back as you want to look, but certainly to the late '70s. I would say it has two primary modern parents: Norm Shepherd and NT Wright, the former more so than the latter. I've been reading some of the things written at WTS in Philadelphia during the Shepherd era, and its like deja vu all over again. If I quoted some of those writings without attributing them, you'd think they were written this week about the Federal Vision stuff. It's downright scary.

Of course, Jim Jordan claims to be the godfather of Federal Vision, and he's had his own interesting history in radical theonomic post-millennialism which dates back to at least around the same time that Shepherd was at WTS East. Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson say that they've been teaching this stuff for a long time, something like 18 years for Wilkins. Rick Lusk used to be an assistant pastor at Wilkins' church before he unsuccessfully tried to transfer to another PCA presbytery and landed in the CREC.

Federal Vision is indeed a multi-headed hydra and difficult to pin down.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Norman Shepherd.

 

[jaybird0827]

The pit.

 

[danmpem]

Federal Vision's roots can go as far back as you want to look, but certainly to the late '70s. I would say it has two primary modern parents: Norm Shepherd and NT Wright, the former more so than the latter.

I didn't realize that the "new perspectives on Paul" was a part of the FV.

 

[RamistThomist]

Federal Vision's roots can go as far back as you want to look, but certainly to the late '70s. I would say it has two primary modern parents: Norm Shepherd and NT Wright, the former more so than the latter.

I didn't realize that the "new perspectives on Paul" was a part of the FV.

It's not. Jim Jordan was writing these things 25 years before NT Wright was. Therefore, NT Wright cannot be said to be the parent of FV (for obvious reasons).

 

[Poimen]

Federal Vision's roots can go as far back as you want to look, but certainly to the late '70s. I would say it has two primary modern parents: Norm Shepherd and NT Wright, the former more so than the latter.

I didn't realize that the "new perspectives on Paul" was a part of the FV.

It would be more accurate to say, in my opinion, that the NPP has, in part, inspired some of the new theology of the FV, than to say that the NPP is a part of the FV. Doing so recognizes the differences in FV proponents, not all of who readily embrace the central tenets of NPP, and others who are simply ignorant of NPP altogether.

None of this, however, takes away the seriousness of how the NPP has made inroads into the Reformed community via the FV.

 

[Calvin'scuz]

It was even commented on another thread that there aren't any books out right now opposing the FV.

Guy Prentiss Waters has written "The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis." If you can get through Waters' "bone-dry" style, it's very thorough.

 

[RamistThomist]

It was even commented on another thread that there aren't any books out right now opposing the FV.

Guy Prentiss Waters has written "The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis." If you can get through Waters' "bone-dry" style, it's very thorough.

As noted above, Waters has written one. I think Schwertely has written one. John Otis has written one. So a few have been written. No, they aren't best-sellers because they are responding to a small movement within a small denomination(s) within a small sector (Reformed) of Christianity.

 

[BLD]

One of the best volumes on this, in my opinion, is Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry (P&R), edited by R. Scott Clark. It has an intro. discussing how the debate got to where it is. The said intro. is quite short, so it leaves out a lot, but it would certainly give at least a partial answer to some of your questions (like the relationship the FV has to the NPP and Norman Shepherd) and you could find more info by checking out some of the books cited in the footnotes. The book is tough at points, but well worth the effort. I think it's actually written quite simply, considering the complexity of the issue. Anyway, that's my recommendation.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Has anyone been nice enough *ahempagingprofessorclark* to do a chart comparing FV and traditional reformed theology ?

 

[DMcFadden]

Has anyone been nice enough *ahempagingprofessorclark* to do a chart comparing FV and traditional reformed theology ?

Or, since Professor Clark is a very busy man, maybe he knows of a comparison chart he could direct us to download???

 

[danmpem]

In another PB thread on FV, a couple of links to charts Dr. Clarke made were posted, but the links have since changed. Here they are to the same charts (as far as I know) but on different sites.
www.reformationsociety-tc.org/Ref-RomeChart1.pdf
www.reformationsociety-tc.org/Ref-RomeChart2.pdf

Although these are not directly about the FV, several people have attempted to get these links onto FV threads, so here ya go!