Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter  That is where I first posted a question? And Yes, I would like a specific answer I guess. |
I’d prefer the discussion in some other context besides Federal Vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV? |
But if you insist …
To my knowledge, no self-identified Federal Visionist has been judged out of accord with a Confession in the area of baptismal efficacy by any church court. While the LBCF is an acceptable creed as far as membership in this board, it is not a confession what I can maintain as orthodox on all counts. And while a Federal Visionist may at some point be unwelcome from teaching their view on baptism in a Westminster church, so would every adherent to the LBCF for the same reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter I agree that dispensationalism is outside and heresy and should be repented of. I do not believe it puts one completely outside of being redeemed. I believe that semi-pelagianism is the same. It should be repented of. I also believe the FV should be repented of. What thinkest thou? What are the legitimate errors of the FV in your thinking Tom. I specifically mentioned the efficacy of Baptism since that was the topic in this thread. Should the FV's doctrine concerning the efficacy of Baptism be repented of? |
I do not claim to be expert in the matter of Federal Vision, that is why I switched to speak of Arminianism. Whether the anti-FV folks have correctly characterized the FV on the matter of baptismal efficacy is the subject of some debate. It seems to me that the views of many of those identified with FV are closer to the claims of Westminster on the matter of baptism than those who hold to the LBCF. In addition, if the FV-types who are in disagreement with Westminster came along and modified the Westminster Confession to support their novel views, they would be in a similar position to the framers of the LBCF in their day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter I guess we need a doctrine of heresy. One which notices variant levels of degree and teaching. But I think that tends to confuse issues somewhat when the word is used alone. |
I agree, but others here do not, saying that damnable heresy is redundant.