Don’t miss Pastor Andy Webb’s excellent post Response to Doug Wilson’s “All Wolves All the Time” over at Puritan Board. It completely and accurately answers Wilson’s response to Pr. Webb’s earlier post.
Between the redefinition of key theological terms, turning historic Reformed theologians’ writings on their heads, and rewriting history, the Federal Vision crowd makes less sense every day. If they really believe that their theological errors are the correct view and stand on their own, then why all the redirection and spin? I’ll speculate that it’s because seven orthodox Reformed denominations and several Reformed seminaries have already declared Federal Vision theology out of conformity with both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. That’s tough, though not impossible, to spin.
The other spin I’ve noticed recently is the posting of Federal Vision views in “small doses.” I suppose that the theory is akin to the lobster in a pot of warm water on the stove. The lobster doesn’t notice a slow increase in water temperature until it’s dinner time. It seems that Federal Visionists over the last couple of weeks have been posting small bits and pieces of FV on the blogs, hoping to fool newcomers who would choke on seeing the full picture at once. Clever, eh? Well…maybe not so much.
Posted by Bob Mattes
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
William Hill said,
December 9, 2007 at 6:52 am
Give me a break. So you think there is some kind of conspiracy by FV advocates? I see — they are banding together to post these small tidbits because they know it will cause more confusion and irriatation for you TR types or “newcomers” to the controversy? I suggest your being somewhat paranoid.
Mark T. said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:31 am
William,
I don’t know if you’re new to this conversation or you are living in denial, but the Federal Visionists have conspired within their little cabal for about five years now. (Please remember that the word “conspire” simply means “to plan together secretly”; from the Latin, “to breathe together.”) They have a private “members only” email list called Biblical Horizons where they regularly discuss tactics, including what language to use in public in order to confuse their “enemies.” (I have posted some of their emails on my site and I plan to release even more.)
Also remember that the lead FVist has declared on several occasions that their movement is a “battle for the hearts and minds of second-year seminary students.” In other words, the Federal Visionists believe that they are in a fight to win disciples to their cause. Now ask yourself, who are they fighting in this battle?
But the point is that the Federal Visionists actually do coordinate their public moves and Bob is correct to assume that their latest actions are result of such coordination.
Thank you.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:43 am
William,
Nice use of hot-button words to attempt to inflame the discussion.
We’ve seen such coordinated efforts in the past. At one point, Federal Visionists were (improperly) posting past TableTalk articles in an effort to gain some credibility. What a coincidence that they all did this at the same time! That Federal Visionist coordinate their approach is not in question.
William Hill said,
December 9, 2007 at 2:02 pm
No one is trying to inflame any discussion. You are the one who posited this so called “conspiracy theory” mentality. It was you who brought this to the attention of the bloggers who come here. It was not me. I simply shortened your rhetoric to call it what it is — and it is paranoia.
Fact is: you alerted the masses to this so-called conspiracy. Just because they have an email list does not mean there is a conspiracy. That is an ascription of motive. Some anti-FV guys have a blog where comments are not even allowed. Should I then assume that MUST mean something that it might not mean? Maybe it is a conspiracy to avoid conversation or a rebuttal that might deflate your position? Hmmm…
Mark: I would like to see some of these “so-called” conspiracy conversations that explicitly state that their whole mission is to confuse people.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 3:22 pm
William,
Nice try. Sometimes, as in this case, “condensing” adds emotional content where none was in the full version. This common tactic will not go unchallenged here.
Yes, I alerted the masses to a reply in an ongoing cross-blog discussion. If you don’t like that, then will you hold the FV blogs that parrot Wilson’s blog to the same “standard.” Somehow, I doubt it. Pr. Webb simply recounted the facts as he knows them. We can all see the talking points in use across the FV blogs-it ain’t rocket science. They have every right to do it, and we have every right to call them on it.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 3:33 pm
William,
I deleted your hit comment. Mark T. is a welcome guest here, just as is everyone else who stays within the posting guidelines. Mark has honored our guidelines and I need you to do the same. If you don’t like his blog, then don’t go there. That’s the essence of freedom of choice, eh? If you want to attack him or anyone else, then do it on Wilson’s blog like you usually do. Slicing and dicing brothers is not welcome or permitted here. That’s strike one.
Robert K. said,
December 9, 2007 at 4:09 pm
This strategy to ‘get second year seminary students’ is reminiscent of a certain political party in America that vocally made it their strategy which put in a formula was: if you can get the children, you’ve got the future (in so many words).
It’s a strategy of people who can’t win on the worth of their ideas but only on propaganda, sophistry, and coercion.
Notice those people never win outright (though they did in the territories of the Soviet Union and in China and elsewhere in the 20th century, but I mean thus far in America), but they sure are able to annoy and do a lot of damage.
Christopher Meredith said,
December 9, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Ah, this place is great.
I hope I can use the img tag cause what this thread really needs is:
Christopher Meredith said,
December 9, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Bah, oh well.
Robert K. said,
December 9, 2007 at 5:39 pm
>I hope I can use the img tag cause what this thread really needs is:
The Word of God:
[I flip open a little New Testament resolved to type the verse my eyes first alight on, and here it is…] And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eatest with me shall betray me. – Mark 14:18
Christopher Meredith said,
December 9, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Oh fun, me too!
“The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.” -Proverbs 16:1
Xon said,
December 9, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Just remember, guys. It’s all in Girard. The ones who are being run out of ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ are, in fact, the attackers. If you ask the runner-outers, that is. Just like the bully on the playground feels genuinely angry at the kid he bullies. Did you see the way he looked at me? Or the way he smarted off when I told him to give me his lunch money? Or the way he got an ‘A’ on that test and ruined the curve for the rest of us?
Not a perfectly tight analogy. I wouldn’t call anti-FVers ‘bullies,’ exactly. Things are always more complicated. But it is interesting to me that anti-FVers are not content to refute FV arguments and let that be the end of it. This blog, which used to attempt the occasional honest discussion over issues, has degenerated in Lane’s self-recusal into a giant valley-girl orgy of emotional imputation. “Like, did you know what those FV guys do in private? It’s hideous!”
Where does this motivation come from to somehow add all these alleged ‘character’ flaws to FVers? Why is it not enough to say that you are simply fighting for the truth, and these men are heretics and that is bad enough. That at least allowed the conversation to retain some masculinity (no offense to the ladies who sometimes post here). Once upon many anti-FVers couched their criticism in these sorts of terms, but now they are apparently trying to add some rhetorical ‘insurance’ by somehow portraying the FVers as ‘on the attack.’
Look, this is just silly, and it undermines your own claim to love the truth above all else. If you really love the truth most of all, then you shouldn’t care if Fvers are the swellest bunch of guys to have a beer with you’ve ever met. In fact, you should say something pretty close to that as a preface to your argument. Swell guys that they may be, they are still wrong, and sadly I must oppose them. But instaed you are making more hay (lately) over their alleged ‘attacks’ on you. Well, who cares if they are ‘attacking’ you? Fight for the truth, and God will vindicate you.
Like, totally.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Xon,
I’ve tried to make sense of your comment #12, but I cannot. I don’t understand what your complaint is or to whom it is directed. I’ve read through this thread several times and don’t see anything about “character flaws” or “bullies” in it, other than your post and the one personal attack post which I deleted.
Your last full paragraph seems to fly in the face of the “serrated edge” favored by some Federal Vision advocates. Are you rebuking them?
David Gray said,
December 9, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Brother Mattes,
>I’ve read through this thread several times and don’t see anything about “character flaws” or “bullies” in it
How about?
>This strategy to ‘get second year seminary students’ is reminiscent of a certain political party in America that vocally made it their strategy which put in a formula was: if you can get the children, you’ve got the future (in so many words).
>It’s a strategy of people who can’t win on the worth of their ideas but only on propaganda, sophistry, and coercion.
>Notice those people never win outright (though they did in the territories of the Soviet Union and in China and elsewhere in the 20th century, but I mean thus far in America), but they sure are able to annoy and do a lot of damage.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 8:42 pm
David,
Those are descriptions and evaluations of a political strategy, not individual character. There’s a big difference between the two.
David Gray said,
December 9, 2007 at 8:45 pm
>Those are descriptions and evaluations of a political strategy, not individual character. There’s a big difference between the two.
Comparing people to the Soviets and Maoists doesn’t have implications regarding their character? Guess we read it differently…
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 8:52 pm
David,
Yes, I do read it differently. Comparing political strategies is different than comparing people. Having been called “Satan” sometime back, amongst other things, I have a pretty good idea of the difference.
David Gray said,
December 9, 2007 at 8:54 pm
>Having been called “Satan” sometime back, amongst other things, I have a pretty good idea of the difference.
You’ve got me trumped. The most I’ve been called is a Jesuit or a Roman Catholic.
Xon said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:08 pm
“Character” was not a carefully-enough chosen word and for that I apologize. I submitted to the flow of the Muse.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Xon,
Fair enough. Not like that’s never happened to me. ;-)
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:11 pm
David,
Looks like it, although that wasn’t ever an area in which I desired to excel.
David Gray said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:12 pm
>Looks like it, although that wasn’t ever an area in which I desired to excel.
We don’t choose our innate abilities… :)
William Hill said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Bob,
You want to accuse me of attacking other people while you turn a blind eye to your own attacks and the attacks of others! C’mon man — spare me the holier than thou attitude. Any simple bystander can see through that garbage pretty easily.
As to your remark about the “talking points”. You act as though somehow you TR types don’t have your own set of “talking points”. You do. Would you care to deny that?
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:25 pm
David,
LOL! Thanks for that, brother.
jared said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Bob says,
Between the redefinition of key theological terms, turning historic Reformed theologians’ writings on their heads, and rewriting history, the Federal Vision crowd makes less sense every day.
I haven’t seen this at all. In fact, everything I’ve read of the FV is not about “redefinition” it’s about addition. Does FV redefine “election” so that it means something other than “genuinely justified, sanctified, glorified true believer who will not perish because the Father holds the elected ones in His hands”? Of course not. Does FV redefine “justification” so that it means something other than having the imputed righteousness of Jesus (or its conceptual equivalent) gained by faith alone? Again, no. What FV has done, however, is add to those definitions a different (and not necessarily new, even) perspective on how they can be used within the context of the visible church (since only God knows anything about the invisible church because of, you know, invisibility and all). No one should deny that there are those in the visible church whom we, now, call Christians but who really aren’t. To these people we ascribe spiritual realities which actually are not realities for them. As I understand it, FV is an attempt (and not even an attempt from any single perspective) to understand the practical implications of such things given the Scriptural data (e.g. the language of falling away, the warnings, etc.). If expanding a theological term beyond what it “traditionally” (and, some say, narrowly) encompasses constitutes a “redefinition”, as in the above examples, then how on God’s green earth can we ever continue maturing and working out our doctrine?
If I’m not mistaken, FV started out as a “conversation” (I believe about baptism and paedocommunion, primarily; that’s what the 2002 conference was about, yes?) and over the past few years anti-FVers have boxed up the discussion into a nice heretical little package that largely does not need to be engaged in any meaningful way. Even worse, the debate has degenerated into two children (FV and anti-FV) fighting over a few toys (the Standards, the Three Forms, etc.). On one side we point out all those awful things that those FV pastors do and, well, it must obviously be the result of their errant theology! My personal favorite is how FV is purposely and maliciously deceiving unsuspecting Christians and “choking” their faith because that is clearly their mala fide [credenda] agenda.
I, for one, am grateful for the SJC process because it will hopefully mean some authentic and progressive dialgue will occur within the PCA which, oddly enough (though not surprisingly, if I may boast) has the most “sound” position regarding FV amongst the anti-FV at this point in time. I am encouraged by the interaction(s) between Lane and Wilson especially and I hope many of the goings on during this SJC process will resemble such fruitful (i.e. sans mudraking) interactions.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 9:33 pm
William,
We’re all a work in process through sanctification. I assume that you have missed the events of the last week. I recommend that you check out this post and this one. Times, they have a changed a bit.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 10:06 pm
jared,
Your first paragraph is the FV party line that has been refuted by the PCA study committee report, as well six other denominations, and in numerous posts on my and other blogs. Repeating it doesn’t add anything. In my extensive readings of FV writings, I don’t see their words as resembling the description that you put forth. Creating a mythical “objective covenant” where the unregenerate in the visible church, contrary to Scripture, get justification, adoption, forgiveness of sins, and sanctification but not perseverence, thus putting forth a mockery of Phil 1:6 and Rom 8:28-30; and inventing a “final justification” based on covenantal faithfulness rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ to name just two “new” doctrines doesn’t advance the gospel. It is a step back from sola fide.
The “conversation” started long before 2002. They have been traced back through the heretical writings of NT Wright, the condemned errors of Norman Shepherd, and the combination of extreme theonomic and post-mil theological positions that failed in Texas and elsewhere decades before. Paedocommunion gets tossed in there somewhere as well. If you want to see theonomy and post-mil theologies worked out in the context of our Reformed confessional standards, visit the PuritanBoard. Lots of theonomists and post-mils there, but no FVers.
I am, however, grateful that you welcome the current SJC process. I, too, look forward to the resolution of this particular case. I also appreciate your comments on the PCA, something I rarely see from FV advocates.
Douglas Wilson said,
December 9, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Hey, everybody,
Good to see nobody’s bored of this topic yet.
I would like to draw everybody’s attention to the context of my “second year seminarian” remark. My point — and I am happy to repeat it again — is that as the public debate proceeds, the second year seminarians are (generally) the ones who 1. do not yet have a dog in the fight; 2. have the competence to follow the debate; and 3. are therefore in a position to make up their minds about who is actually engaging with the issues and answering the arguments, and who is not. So the point was simply an observation about who is the most important group in the audience — and not a giveaway of our secret plan to kidnap the children of TRs and make FV Janissaries out of them. Sorry to disappoint.
reformedmusings said,
December 9, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Doug,
Thanks for your clarification. That is very helpful.
The other thing that those same seminary students must decide, of course, is what denomination in which they wish to be ordained. If they choose the Federal Vision route, they will be opting out of seven orthodox Reformed denominations as Norm Shepherd, Rich Lusk, and others have learned. That is, of course, their choice. I trust, though, that our orthodox Reformed seminaries will be able to teach them the truths which our Standards summarize from the Scriptures, keeping these students on the orthodox Reformed path. I and others grieve, though, for those that will be lost from that path.
Blessings,
Bob
Andy Gilman said,
December 9, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Jared said:
And those who actually subscribe to the Standards mistakingly think the Standards impart some knowledge about the “invisible church;” poor, deluded souls. Of course, God himself being “invisible and all,” is equally unknowable.
Man is that tiresome. Look up “conversation” and “advocacy” in the dictionary. Were Steve Wilkins, Rich Lusk, Jeff Meyers and Mark Horne ordained pastors in the PCA in 2002, and were they actively pushing their FV agenda onto their respective congregations, and elsewhere, when the “conversation” supposedly began in 2002? These men were championing their cause long before 2002.
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:06 am
Andy,
Since I’ve only been minimally invovled in any of this for the past, I suppose almost two years now, I don’t appreciate your turseness (or that of Robert’s, or Mark’s, or anyone else’s as far as I’m concerned). I am not, and have never claimed to be an FV advocate and neither have I earned nor do I deserve the type of tone you might use towards those whom you seem to truly dispise. I was being a bit sarcastic with the “invisiblity” comment and your reponse about God being invisible actually misses the point entirely. Only God knows the invisible church, so says the WCF if I’m not mistaken. Everyone knows who God is, even if they don’t believe He exists. Moreover, what is true of the visible church is not always or necessarily true of the invisible church. With God this is incorrect; everything that is true of Jesus is true of God for He is the perfect actual image of God. If I have offended you in this then I apologize.
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:06 am
Bob,
Thanks for your response. You say,
Your first paragraph is the FV party line that has been refuted by the PCA study committee report, as well six other denominations, and in numerous posts on my and other blogs. Repeating it doesn’t add anything.
I cannot speak as to the “six other denominations” but I can certainly say that the “FV party line” has not been refuted by the PCA study report. You are right, however, that the key to this (and, indeed, all theology) lays with definitions of important doctrines and terms:
Key in the present discussion is the definition of doctrines that have been crucial to our identity as a biblical and confessional church. In the PCA, we use theological terms such as “regeneration,” “election,” “justification,” and “perseverance” to define these doctrines in a particular and agreed upon fashion through ecclesiastical action. The committee affirms with the PCA that the Confession’s usage of these and related terms is faithful to the teachings of Scripture. While we are aware that the biblical usage of some of these words may have varying nuances in different contexts, our task is to study the theological claims that the NPP and FV proponents make about such terms. Then, our purpose is to determine whether the theological claims they make serve to undermine the system of doctrine taught in the Scripture and Confession. It is certainly possible to say more than our Confession does about biblical truth, but this should not necessitate a denial of the vitals of our faith.
I think this is probably the best paragraph in the entire report; it’s sad that such a spirit was not carried throughout the document (I understand that you were on the committee and by this I mean no disrespect to you or the others involved). However, we see in the conclusion of the report (i.e. the declarations and suggestions) that the report has not accused FV or NPP of redefining any term or doctrine. And, moreover (and more importantly), the study report does not presume that FV in particular is attempting to redefine certain terms and doctrines so as to “sneak” themselves past the unwarry and falsely claim themselves to be within the bounds of the Reformed tradition.
This, of course (and in my opinion) flatly contradicts the actual content of the report itself. Let’s take a particularly fine nugget:
The 1646 chapter title “God’s eternal decree” emphasizes the unitary and comprehensive nature of God’s divine plan. Thus views which juxtapose “election from the stand point of the covenant” with the Standard’s decretal view of election, offering this as an alternative and superior way of thinking about (e.g.) the visibule church, the sacraments and assurance are not only forsaking the language of the Standards, but undermining its theology.
Moreover, to affirm the Standards, and then to redefine the terms used in the Standards, is not to affirm the Standards. For example, to affirm the decretal view of election, and then to say that the Bible teaches that the elect may fall from their election, is to set the Bible over against the Standards. The committee holds that by receiving and adopting the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, we are saying that the terms used in the Confession faithfully represent what is taught in Scripture.
This is just golden, especially given the above quote where the committee/report affirm that it is possible to speak more than what is in the Confessions, so long as we aren’t denying the Confessions. Okay, so that’s exactly what FV is doing: affirming the Confession while also speaking more without contradicting the Confession. I find this second paragraph here just disheartening because it’s the type of misconstrual that takes place throughout the report. FV is very clear that decretal (Confessional) election is something quite different than “covenantal” (or whatever else it’s being called) election. Not one single FV proponent believes one can lose their election in the decretal sense. What’s sad here is that the report even quotes Wilson as saying so and then quotes Wilkins describing a different sense/use of the term election that, actually, does not contradict the content and import of decretal election:
It is true that many FV proponents affirm the decretal view of election found in the Westminster Standards. As Douglas Wilson writes, “The fact of decretal election is affirmed by every FV spokesman that I know of.” This view of election is accompanied, however, by an equally strong affirmation of the need to view election from Scripture and from the viewpoint of covenant. According to Steve Wilkins, “The term ‘elect’ (or ‘chosen’) as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the Elect One.”
It seems quite plain to me that there are two different “versions” of election going on here but the study report, for whatever reason, did not see it that way. Wilkins is not redefining “election”, rather, he is offering an exegetical statement about the term ‘elect.’ How does this contradict the way the WS speak of election and how is this a denial of the WS use of the term election? Because Wilkins says “most often” and, thus, the WS must be wrong? How is that even remotely a charitable reading of Wilkins? Don’t get me wrong, I laud the PCA’s effort in attempting to understand FV, but this is a poor showing. I’m glad of this report for two reasons (1) on the whole it doesn’t refute (that is, condemn, as some seem to believe) FV and (2) it considers FV as brothers.
You say, “The “conversation” started long before 2002.” and I can readily grant this. It is equally true, however, that the “converstaion” didn’t start for many until 2002 and for some (like me) until a couple years after that. I’ve read some really good articles over on the PuritanBoard and I imagine many of them could lend their weight in support of FV despite the general air there.
You say,
I am, however, grateful that you welcome the current SJC process. I, too, look forward to the resolution of this particular case. I also appreciate your comments on the PCA, something I rarely see from FV advocates.
I still don’t consider myself an FV advocate. I love the PCA, I’ve grown up here and I’ve no plans of leaving anytime soon (though I thought about doing so after the study report was passed without question, without at least another year of discussion and without the addition of some FV proponent to the committee). If I did, though, I’d probably head over to the OPC since I think they’ve got the next best head on their collective shoulder. As I said, I’m maintaining hope that through this SJC process we’ll (finally) get some good dialogue going in the PCA (like what has been going on between Lane and Doug, but not many, or any, other places). Sorry this post ended up being so long.
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:10 am
Hmm, missed a few tags there… it happens in long posts with lots of quoting; sorry. I will clarify if needed.
reformedmusings said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:23 am
Hi jared,
I’m way past my bedtime, but I will try to clean up your tags tomorrow as best I can. I will also write a reply after the fix-up. But, I just finished and published my new post and need to crash.
Blessings,
Bob
Andy Gilman said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:31 am
Jared,
Unless I’ve mistaken your identity, your “minimal” involvement has not appeared neutral to me, and your espousal of the FV party line with regard to the “conversation” was more than I could take. If you have been involved in the debate, even minimally, for the past two years, then you should know that the “we are just having a conversation” line is an FV propaganda line, and you shouldn’t repeat it if you wanted to be regarded as a neutral party.
And no, you haven’t offended me.
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 12:45 am
Jared, when I came to Reformed Theology I came to it with a mish-mash of doctrinal ignorance, and I argued with Reformed Theologians every step, but I had one thing: I could see the authority of Reformed Theology, and that is to say I could see that Reformed Theologians said what the Bible says. (It helped that I had a massive dose of the Bible prior to learning doctrine in a serious, systematic way.) I also saw that Reformed Theology was a complete, contained body of teaching. If you don’t yet see this you will have no defense against Federal Vision teachers.
Reformed Theology doesn’t need adding to. Any more than apostolic biblical doctrine needs adding too. The only adding the Bible promotes is the actual practicing of the faith. There all Christians enter territory that won’t necessarily match with other Christians’ experience. This is the domain of the Holy Spirit within each Christian. But the knowledge, the doctrine, the ‘sound doctrine’ as the Bible puts it is not different for everybody. I came to Reformed Doctrine probably from as far a left field as anybody, yet the truth that existed in where I came from I could see in Reformed doctrine. And of course Reformed (i.e. apostolic) doctrine winnowed out the chaff I had in me.
But Federal Vision people aren’t just saying they have a different practice of the faith once delivered, they are wearing uniforms of an army they don’t belong to and and they are working against that army. They are redefining Reformed Theology into a mush that only a half-asleep Roman Catholic would recognize, and even then vaguely. And they are doing it while self-identifying as Reformed/Calvinist and preaching inside churches that hold to classical Reformed doctrine. They are as beyond the pale as it gets as false teachers. Mormons and JWs and Unitarians are innocent compared to these false teachers. The former don’t pretend to be something they are not. This is why I bring up Jesuits though. Jesuits historically DO pretend to be things they are not, and they do it to defile environments and institutions in the direction of the false teaching of Rome, which represents pretty much the mother of all bad doctrine, emanating from you know who.
Geerhardus Vos didn’t ‘add to’ Reformed Theology, but he did elucidate elements within it to a greater degree such as eschatology. Meredith Kline didn’t add to Reformed doctrine but he did cull insights into the overall plan of redemption that are striking. Neither theologian redefined justification or decided sola fide was not not exciting enough anymore… Once you learn the basics of Reformed Theology these are examples of real Reformed theologians you can learn from beyond what can be found prior to the 20th century. They are serious Reformed theologians though. The people you are currently defending are not serious Reformed theologians. They can’t even see Reformed Theology let alone value it and know the power of it.
Vos and Kline are also good examples to see the level of FV leaders. They only mock Kline (because he shows them up when they attempt to claim the mantle of ‘cutting edge’ Reformed theologians, because compared to Kline’s work and insights Federal Visionists look like…well…James Jordan. And they are silent regarding Vos, which is even more damning for them, because FVists make the claim that they alone represent true biblical theology within Reformed Theology, and Vos is kind of recongized as the most major biblical theologian since the 17th century; yet compared to Vos FVist theologians look like Al Franken compared to Pericles (I’m assuming Minnesotans will give Franken a Senate seat)…
Andy Gilman said,
December 10, 2007 at 1:00 am
Jared said:
I don’t like your tone Jared! But seriously, I’m not sure how you can determine from my “tone” that I “seem to truly despise” anyone.
Xon said,
December 10, 2007 at 1:15 am
Yikes…
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 1:37 am
In light of your ‘yikes’, Barlow has posted this relevant quote from Samuel Johnson at his blog:
“Hume and other skeptical innovators are vain men and will gratify themselves at any expense. Truth will not afford sufficient food to their vanity, so they have betaken themselves to error: Truth, Sir, is a cow which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.”
Obviously Barlow doesn’t see the irony in this quote appearing on a blog of a person who supports Federal Vision innovations…
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 1:39 am
Or maybe Barlow is coming around… (Of course, me saying that will make him turn back around…) Well, only the Spirit can enable a person to not be so impressionable regarding such serious things…
davejes1979 said,
December 10, 2007 at 5:34 am
I do not think it is a mistake to say that Reformed theology can be expanded, refined, and even reformed. There are orthodox Reformed who are taking theology forward in incremental steps, without knocking down the tried-and-true non-negotiables and distinctives of our theology, especially as embodied in our confessions.
The problem is that the vast majority of Federal Vision proponents are utterly unqualified, unprepared, and incompetent to do this most important work for the edification and strengthening of the Church. Douglas Wilson, Rich Lusk, and Xon Hostetter all have one thing in common: they have all received their training and degrees in philosophy. Not one of them has a formal theological education, nor training in systematic theology from a confessionally-Reformed seminary.
But go on down the whole list
Do you see anyone on there who is actually qualified or has the academic credentials and distinguished learning and accomplishment to build upon 400+ years of Reformed theology? The only ones who might even be candidates are James Jordan (ThM from WTS) and Peter Leithart (PhD in theology from Cambridge), the only ones with advanced (and non-MDiv) degrees in theology. Leithart has been published in peer-reviewed academic, confessionally-sympathetic journals, but neither he nor Jordan have been professors in Reformed seminaries. Leithart has the credentials, on paper, to be a professor, but it is quite debatable whether or not he would be accepted in any confessional seminary at this point, whether it be WTS, WSC, MARS, RTS, KTS, or GTS.
But, really, the most qualified person in the FV “orbit” to be doing learned, constructive, cutting-edge systematic theology is not an FV proponent, while being one of FV’s guiding lights. The most qualified person by far is Norman Shepherd, former professor of systematic theology at WTS and MARS. Shepherd was dismissed from WTS over 25 years ago, and MARS now condemns his theology. He is now ministering in a less-than-confessional, non-NAPARC denomination, the CRC. And his theology is far more crazy and heterodox than most (but not all) FV are willing to go.
GLW Johnson said,
December 10, 2007 at 7:13 am
davejes1979
I must commend you for your very perceptive comments, unfortunately by referencing an ‘anonymous attack blog’ you are now giving off a pungent pestilential odor. Still, along with fellow members Andy and Bob of the R.U.F. I salute you.
GLW Johnson said,
December 10, 2007 at 7:43 am
p.s. I am sorry ,I left off the ‘D’- its D.R.U.F. club in which I hold memebership with Andy, Bob and now our newest member davjes1979
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 10:03 am
Andy,
You say,
Unless I’ve mistaken your identity, your “minimal” involvement has not appeared neutral to me, and your espousal of the FV party line with regard to the “conversation” was more than I could take. If you have been involved in the debate, even minimally, for the past two years, then you should know that the “we are just having a conversation” line is an FV propaganda line, and you shouldn’t repeat it if you wanted to be regarded as a neutral party.
I’ve made no effort to hide the fact that I’m a sympathizer but that, certainly, does not place me, nor should it mark me, as an advocate. I’ve much more to read before consider myself such and it is very possible (even likely) that I won’t “fully sign on”, as it were, when all is said and done. I think there are some very insightful FVists and I refuse to be hostile, or exhibit hostility, towards those whom I and my denomination still claim as brothers.
davejes1979 said,
December 10, 2007 at 11:24 am
BTW, all. For some reason wordpress insits on using my username “davejes1979” half of the time. Davejes1979 = me, David Gadbois.
David Gadbois said,
December 10, 2007 at 11:25 am
OK. There we go. That’s much better.
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Robert K.,
I’m not entirely sure where to begin. You don’t really make an argument, just a bunch of assertions. How about here; you say,
I also saw that Reformed Theology was a complete, contained body of teaching. If you don’t yet see this you will have no defense against Federal Vision teachers.
I don’t disagree. There’s a big difference between saying that a systematic theology is complete and contained and saying that it contains all that can be said as far as theology is concerned. Much more can be (and, I assure you, will be) said about every area of Reformed theology. In other words, it is complete in that it is a whole and contained systematic understanding of what Scripture teaches but it is far from complete as in nothing new will ever be talked about or discussed ever again until Jesus comes back. You also said that when you, “came to Reformed Theology I came to it with a mish-mash of doctrinal ignorance, and I argued with Reformed Theologians every step, but I had one thing: I could see the authority of Reformed Theology” and I am not in such a position. I was raised in the PCA by quite non-FV-Reformed parents. As I’ve said before, I even have a B.A. in philosophy from the PCA’s quite non-FV-Reformed college. Moreover, I very much so intend to pursue graduate studies with RTS which, while not exactly non-FV, is certainly not pro-FV. I am, by no means, “ensnared” or in any danger of becoming so.
You say, “Reformed Theology doesn’t need adding to.” and, in the same vein of Xon’s reply here, this is (ironically, it seems) very “Romish” of you to say.
You say,
But Federal Vision people aren’t just saying they have a different practice of the faith once delivered, they are wearing uniforms of an army they don’t belong to and and they are working against that army. They are redefining Reformed Theology into a mush that only a half-asleep Roman Catholic would recognize, and even then vaguely. And they are doing it while self-identifying as Reformed/Calvinist and preaching inside churches that hold to classical Reformed doctrine. They are as beyond the pale as it gets as false teachers. Mormons and JWs and Unitarians are innocent compared to these false teachers. The former don’t pretend to be something they are not. This is why I bring up Jesuits though. Jesuits historically DO pretend to be things they are not, and they do it to defile environments and institutions in the direction of the false teaching of Rome, which represents pretty much the mother of all bad doctrine, emanating from you know who.
This is basically just spittle flying from your lips. I am, once again, surprised you can get by with saying these things while not incurring some “strikes” or whatever it is these days. The PCA has not condemned FV (or even refuted it, as I mentioned earlier) and so I will not. You are, obviously, free to believe as you wish but until some genuine “official” discourse takes place (like what I hope the SJC process will produce) saying otherwise I will continue to read and study and formulate my own opinion.
You say that “FVists make the claim that they alone represent true biblical theology within Reformed Theology” and I am not willing to buy into your anti-FV propoganda at this juncture. You may have some good and helpful things to say about FV but you have not said them in this thread.
David Gray said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:31 pm
>I also saw that Reformed Theology was a complete, contained body of teaching.
Absolutely right. Which includes teaching on ecclesiology and the sacraments. Failure to grasp that will also lead to confusion in other areas. The coherence of being a Reformed Christian is a great comfort and I highly recommend it (speaking as a former reformed Baptist)
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Jared writes: >You say, “Reformed Theology doesn’t need adding to.” and, in the same vein of Xon’s reply here, this is (ironically, it seems) very “Romish” of you to say.
Obviously I provided a big caveat to this when I then felt the necessity to highlight the work of Vos and Kline as examples of two very orthodox Reformed theologians (Vos more bullet-proof than Kline, but Kline as well in terms of classical covenant theology) who filled out Reformed Theology within the boundaries of the aforesaid orthodoxy. Again, they make FV claims to being the cutting-edge and representative biblical theologians of Reformed Theology comical.
And if you, Jared, are just figuring it all out, why the default position that a handful of guys-with-blogs are able to put all of Reformed Theology – past and present – in the dock?
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:41 pm
>Absolutely right. Which includes teaching on ecclesiology and the sacraments. Failure to grasp that will also lead to confusion in other areas. The coherence of being a Reformed Christian is a great comfort and I highly recommend it (speaking as a former reformed Baptist)
David, you didn’t even know the Savoy Declaration and the 1689 LBCF were documents based on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Anyway, you don’t hold to WCF 28.5. FVists want that excised from the Confession. Along with the Covenant of Works. They want, in other words, the distinctives of Reformed Theology excised from the Westminster Standards. To get their baptismal regeneration and all things Roman. You don’t defend the Westminster Standards, you attack them at their heart. As long as you associate with Federal Vision.
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:42 pm
FVists also want WCF 10 excised from the Confession. They think the Puritans put that in there, and, of course, Puritans were dangerous Protestant types…
David Gray said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:50 pm
>David, you didn’t even know the Savoy Declaration and the 1689 LBCF were documents based on the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Actually I was familiarized with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith when I was a reformed Baptist, in England (where I lived for several years). And it is based on the WCF after gutting the parts they found distasteful. Bizarre of you to assert I wasn’t familiar with it.
>Anyway, you don’t hold to WCF 28.5.
An untruth (can’t say lie, that would presume that you know you are stating a falsehood and I don’t know that).
WCF 28.5 states:
“Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”
Absolutely correct. And what’s more I know Pastor Wilson agrees with it as I’ve actually read his book on the topic, “To A Thousand Generations.” Have you read it? Perhaps if you did you might not be a baptist when you are done and could then honestly sign on to the WCF. Further, isn’t it odd of you to accuse me of disagreeing with 28.5 when you actually do disagree with it? Down is up, wet is dry in the world of the fanatical anti-FV busybody.
It is true to a degree, as asserted in the post above, that some FV writers, from what I’ve seen, are sloppy in their use of certain terms or use them in ways that can lead to confusion. But I don’t see anything different in what I’ve critiqued here.
Andy Gilman said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Jared said:
Can you review for me what you believe the PCA actually did in their report, since, in your reading, they neither “condemned” nor “refuted” the FV? Do you wonder why the FV lobbied so vociferously against the PCA report prior to the GA, which overwhelmingly approved the report?
We know that you are in hardy agreement with the report when it says “we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ,” and therefore, since your denomination regards the FV proponents as brothers in Christ, you won’t be hostile toward them; but does the report tell us anything else about the denomination’s position on the FV? (And by the way, did you notice the report only mentions NPP and FV proponents “in the PCA,” therefore you are free to be hostile to Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk and John Barach!)
David Gray said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”
I would also note that what Baptists do, neglecting this ordinance, is described as a great sin.
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm
>Further, isn’t it odd of you to accuse me of disagreeing with 28.5 when you actually do disagree with it?
If you think I disagree with it methinks you don’t yet grasp what it is communicating, especially in the context of the entire WCF. But you’re doing it again: when you FVists get pinned on your desire to eviscerate the heart of Reformed Theology – the five solas, doctrines of grace, and Federal Theology itself – you start babbling about baptism. This is your standard retreat.
David Gray said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:00 pm
>when you FVists get pinned on your desire to eviscerate the heart of Reformed Theology
Please document my desire to “eviscerate the heart of Reformed Theology”.
its.reed said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Ref. #55 & 56, et. al.:
David & Robert, I’ve got a serious proposal: why don’t you team up and start a blog on which you can debate one another in the vein you do here? With a little bit of negotiating the ground rules, you two could become the Hannity & Combs of Christian blogdom (I’ll let you decide who is who).
I’m actually very serious about this suggestion – you might actually find it more meaningful to debate together in a format that doesn’t have the limitations of debate here.
Think about it :)
Robert K. said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:14 pm
>Please document my desire to “eviscerate the heart of Reformed Theology”.
You’re an FVists. If you have recently denied that (so many of you do when you find you can’t defend FV doctrine) you are at least a supporter of FVism.
Five solas…sola fide…FVism is not big on sola fide, to say the least. They think sola fide contains a ‘but’ or ‘if’ or ‘however’ or ‘having said that’ or ‘and’ after the ‘fide’. What comes after those connectors is various degrees of (depending on their audience and immediate environment) Romanism.
Doctrines of Grace…TULIP… FVism eviscerates the ‘P’; and the ‘T’; and the ‘I’; and they have ‘U’ and ‘L’ in the torture chamber waiting room…
Federal Theology… Federal Theology is classical covenant theology systematized. It is based on the parallel of the two Adams. FV denies Adam was in a covenant of works, and FV denies that anyone needs the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. “Other than that, Mrs. Johnson, I mean, other than the fact that we had to amputate your husband’s head and take out his heart, we still think he can live a normal life…”
David Gray said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Pastor DePace
Thanks for the suggestion. I’m game for debate but what sort of debate would I be having with with someone who insists I deny what I affirm and that I’m out to “eviscerate the heart of Reformed Theology”? I do find Presbyterian-Baptist debates helpful myself but I know lots of honest reformed Baptists (including many I used to worship with) who’d do a fine job without the sort of tripe about evisceration.
David Gray said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:20 pm
>You’re an FVists.
What does that mean?
> If you have recently denied that (so many of you do when you find you can’t defend FV doctrine) you are at least a supporter of FVism.
How is a supporter of “FVism” different from an “FVist”?
In either case I take it (as I knew was the case) that you have no evidence that I am out to “eviscerate the heart of Reformed Theology”. Indeed I’m defending it against you in certain areas. Please desist with the personal attacks and if I make an assertion that is in error correct me with scripture or the WCF rather than hand waving. Thanks.
reformedmusings said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Jared,
I think that I cleaned up the tags in comment #32. It looks like you tried to do too much with the tags to preserve the italic sense in the original material and lost track. It is probably best just to lose those original italics if they don’t affect the overall meaning. The tags in comments have taken me to the mat on more than one occasion.
Blessings,
Bob
its.reed said,
December 10, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Ref. #60:
Robert, sounds like a fair request from David.
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Robert K,
You say,
Obviously I provided a big caveat to this when I then felt the necessity to highlight the work of Vos and Kline as examples of two very orthodox Reformed theologians (Vos more bullet-proof than Kline, but Kline as well in terms of classical covenant theology) who filled out Reformed Theology within the boundaries of the aforesaid orthodoxy. Again, they make FV claims to being the cutting-edge and representative biblical theologians of Reformed Theology comical.
Fair enough with the caveat, I still find it ironic though. You also say,
And if you, Jared, are just figuring it all out, why the default position that a handful of guys-with-blogs are able to put all of Reformed Theology – past and present – in the dock?
First, I don’t have a default position that “a handful of guys-with-blogs are able to put all of Reformed Theology – past and present – in the dock”. I have a default position of seeing if what any given individual (regardless of “credentials”) says about the Bible is actually cogent with what I understand the Bible to be saying. What I understand the Bible to be saying is largely in accord with the system of doctrine set forth in the WCF. What I see FVists saying (or what I’ve read thus far, at any rate) does not largely contradict either the WCF or my understanding of the WCF and of Scripture. If that means I supposedly think a handful of guys-with-blogs are capable of “putting in dock” all of Reformed theology, well then I guess I don’t really see a problem with that. For the record, however, I don’t think that and neither do I agree with everything and anything I hear/read with respect to anyone, again, regardless of their credentials. I wil happily and merrily agree with the idget over the doctor in one or two (maybe even three!) issues if I think the idget is right and the doctor is wrong according to the Scriptures.
Andy,
Lots of questions! I really do like questions (maybe that’s why I want to be a teacher someday…) You say,
Can you review for me what you believe the PCA actually did in their report, since, in your reading, they neither “condemned” nor “refuted” the FV? Do you wonder why the FV lobbied so vociferously against the PCA report prior to the GA, which overwhelmingly approved the report?
Certainly. In answer to your first question: The report made 9 declarations and 5 recommendations. The declarations don’t refute FV (a couple of them don’t even properly apply to FV even as it has been “analysed” in the report, best I can tell) and the recommendations say nothing about condemning anyone (rather that presbyeries are to condemn erroneous opinions; notice, not condemn the individual but condemn the opinion). The declarations “declare” certain views as contrary to the Westminster Standards. The views enumerated are not necessarily tied to FV/NPP inherently (as in if you are a proponent of FV/NPP then you necessarily believe these things that are contrary to the Westminster Standards). One could be an FV advocate and not hold to the views enumrated in the declarations, though I don’t think a NPP advocate could “snake” (because that’s what FV advocates do, right?) around them. The recommendations suggest that GA adopt the declarations as a faithful exposition of the WS and, therefore, of Scripture. They suggest that officers make known to their courts their differences with the WCF and that the presbyteries exercise care over those under their authority and that they condemn erroneous opiniond, presumably like those which are enumerated in the declarations. I make a distinction between declaring a view to be contrary to the WS/Scripture (I think it’s a bad idea to use those two interchangeably, as many seem to desire) and actually refuting a view. I’ve already (albeit briefly) gone over what I think of the declarations themselves elsewhere, so I hope this adequately answers your first question. As to your second question, no, I don’t ever wonder why. I know that part of their objecting “vociferously” to the report has something to do with the committee being, let’s see if I can be original here, “as stacked [against FV/NPP] as Authur Andersen shred bens after auditing Enron.”
You say,
We know that you are in hardy agreement with the report when it says “we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ,” and therefore, since your denomination regards the FV proponents as brothers in Christ, you won’t be hostile toward them; but does the report tell us anything else about the denomination’s position on the FV? (And by the way, did you notice the report only mentions NPP and FV proponents “in the PCA,” therefore you are free to be hostile to Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk and John Barach!)
Only one question here and my answer is, “Not really, no.” Unless of course we’re to understand some unspoken position which may have been responsible for the structure of the committee itself. I don’t want to (and certainly don’t mean to) accuse the GA moderator of malicious intent in making the selections that he did but there was, what, only two members who weren’t published or publically against, or hostile towards, the FV before their appointment to the committee? Bob, I suppose, would know more in this regard.
Bob,
Thanks!
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 6:32 pm
BTW, to all; I apologize if some of my responses aren’t exactly timely. My wife just gave birth to our first child last week (a son!) so that keeps me busy at home and work has been steadily picking up business all year, actually, so I don’t get a lot of time to commit on that front these days either. So, really rather than apologizing (because I’m not sorry nor am I trying to make excuses), I’ll just thank all of you in advance for your [continued] patience with me.
reformedmusings said,
December 10, 2007 at 7:05 pm
jared,
Congratulations on your son! I will become a great deal less available after today myself. As you say, a busy time of year.
Blessings,
Bob
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Bob,
Thanks again! He’s a handful, as all newborns are (I presume). Anyway, I don’t want to get off topic…
anneivy said,
December 10, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Woo-hoo! Congrats on your brand new baby boy, Jared! How exciting is that?
Pretty darn exciting, as Xon will attest, I’m sure. ;-)
Andy Gilman said,
December 10, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Congratulations Jared!
Jeff Cagle said,
December 10, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Hey, congratulations!
Jeff Cagle
Lots going on these days « Reformed Musings said,
December 10, 2007 at 9:24 pm
[…] on these days I finally got around to finishing some posts over at GreenBagginses. I posted Pastor Webb Recaps More History which Andy Webb wrote over at PuritanBoard. I may have tossed in a few comments with the link. I […]
jared said,
December 10, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Thanks everyone. :-D