The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum FederalVision Take IV

From Greenbaggins;


The first reason why the FV is heretical is that it makes no ontological differentiation in the church between those who are hypocrites and those who are saved. FV advocates will make claims that look like this: “the only difference between hypocrites and non-hypocrites is that the non-hypocrites will persevere.”

and a little later on...


]We cannot define the church solely in terms of what is visible, or else we have no leg upon which to stand, for the Reformers did not claim continuity with Medieval Catholicism, but with the early church. How is it that they are the true church? Because they have always been the true invisible church, though they were not always visible as the church. You get rid of the visible/invisible church distinction, then you cut the leg out from under the entire Reformation.



http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/why-is-the-federal-vision-heresy/


Is 'Federal Vision' fairly represented here?

Are the objections raised correct?

Yessir. A recurring theme in both Testaments is "the remnant" of those who claim the Lord and are counted (by us fallible, temporal beings) among those in the Church, who in fact have only the appearance of election. Yet only the remnant is truly regenerate. Their perseverance is simply evidence of that regeneration.

FV undoes the Reformation (and repudiates the Remnant theme throughout the scriptures) by removing that distinction. It's very much like a call back to Rome in that respect.

1) I think FV is fairly represented. What the writer meant by "the first reason why..." would be interesting to know. The question that comes to my mind is, Did the writer mean by "the first reason", the primary reason? or was he simply enumerating a list of things of which this failure to distinguish between the visible and invisible Church was the first that came to mind, or perhaps this quote was simply a reply to a specific question concerning FV's view of the Church?

2. The objections are correct, as far as I'm concerned.

I dont know the site or the author, I happened across it looking for something else ,I became engrossed and forgot what it was I was after in the first place.
It real tinfoil hat stuff.

Actually Greenbaggins is one of my favorite blogs. I follow his and a few others I've found in searches of my own blog's host, Wordpress. Good stuff.

Would it be possible to line out four or five of the basic tenets of FV?

There are several versions of it, and the terminology keeps changing (i.e. they keep changing the definitions of familiar theological terms), so a lot depends on who you ask! But there are a few common threads:

One of the major things is that salvation is not so much a matter of individual justification, nor that justification is a "forensic declaration" of the individual's righteous standing before God, as it is a person's membership in the covenant. Signified by baptism, the individual must then "live up to their baptism" in order to attain salvation. But all baptized persons are counted as members of the covenant and inheritors of salvation.

It seems to me that there are, among those of us that tend to favor "paedocommunion" (letting kids take part in the Lord's Supper), some who are willing to turn the Reformation on it's head in order to justify paedocommunion. I think that is part of the reason FV got such a firm grip in the PCA before it was finally addressed.

Salvation-by-sacrament in a way, FV is virtually a call to return to Rome.

A few other major tenets of NPP, FV, Shepherdism and the other morphs, which Robin correctly mentioned as constantly changing; the old chameleon trick.

1. Justification is not a ONE-TIME declaration of God that the believing sinner is not guilty of sin, but rather an ongoing process which will be finalized at the judgment, i.e., a final justification of faithful believers.
2. Imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to the believing sinner is rejected.
3. Faith is redefined to mean a 'badge of identity' of being a member of the covenant community rather than a personal embracing and trusting in the person of the Lord Christ for salvation.
4. Election is not an eternal and irrevocable decree of God but rather an ongoing status of an individual which can be lost through neglect of being obedient to demands of the covenant, aka: law.

Cornelius Venema's paperback book, Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul should be required reading for every professing Christian, IMHO. His larger hardback work, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ goes into much more detail and is definitely worth delving into if someone is really interested in learning more of what is behind this movement that rejects the historic and biblical doctrine of forensic justification. Both are published by The Banner of Truth.

And, The Highway has online, Philip Eveson's very informative book, The Great Exchange which critiques N.T. Wright and his view of justification. I think this should also be read by all.

Its hard to believe anyone takes it seriously, but I reckon that is what deception is all about.

One of the major things is that salvation is not so much a matter of individual justification, nor that justification is a "forensic declaration" of the individual's righteous standing before God, as it is a person's membership in the covenant. Signified by baptism, the individual must then "live up to their baptism" in order to attain salvation. But all baptized persons are counted as members of the covenant and inheritors of salvation.

Even as Arminian pentecostals we knew better than this, the first half anyway.

# Imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to the believing sinner is rejected.
# Faith is redefined to mean a 'badge of identity' of being a member of the covenant community rather than a personal embracing and trusting in the person of the Lord Christ for salvation.
# Election is not an eternal and irrevocable decree of God but rather an ongoing status of an individual which can be lost through neglect of being obedient to demands of the covenant, aka: law

Come to think of it, there's a clear reflection of AOG style pentecostalism here. If you're willing to go back there for those leeks it's not much further to Rome for the onions.

That's a good description, Hitch! As a former Charismatic, I testify to the way that definitions are simply changed (without saying so up front) so that their teachings sound orthodox while being nothing close to orthodoxy at all.

In my Charismatic days, faith was "that force which is present in all humans whether regenerate or not, that can be called upon and put to use by means of the spoken word, both for good or for evil." Hardly a biblical definition at all, yet the way the term was applied, that was the only possible meaning!

The FV folks do the same thing with terms like justification, imputation, covenant, and church.