Thread: FV

Would someone please give me a concise definition of "Federal Vision" an it's origin, etc. I was trying to follow some of the current discussion to obtain an idea...but now I have a headache!

Here is my introduction, part 1, and part 2. Then Scott Clark has an excellent introductory blog post on it as well.

Thank you, that was helpful. No wonder it gave me a headache!

Originally Posted by coramdeo

Thank you, that was helpful. No wonder it gave me a headache!

You should feel encouraged by being in good company. It has given countless migraines to the top theologians in the Reformed world!

So why the name "Federal Vision" ? I did not get a connection of the topic as explained and the name.

Literally, they mean that it is a new way of looking ("vision") at the covenant ("federal"). It is not really new, of course, as Klaas Schilder propounded these views before ("alles of niks": all or nothing; what is true of one member of the covenant is true of all, an undifferentiated covenant membership that included benefits normally ascribed only to the elect).

thanks again. i guess I could have know that had I first gone to one of my favorite sires- The online Etymological Dictionary.com
1645, as a theological term, from L. foedus "covenant, league" (gen. foederis), related to fides "faith" (see faith). Meaning "pertaining to a treaty" (1660) led to political sense of "state formed by agreement among independent states" (1707), from phrases like federal union "union based on a treaty," popularized by formation of U.S.A. 1776-1787. Federation is first attested 1721, from L.L. foederationem, from L. foederare "league together." Federalism (1793) was coined by Burke. Federalist "member or supporter of the Federal party in U.S. politics" is from 1787. Fed slang for "officer of the FBI" is from 1916.

The federal visionists gave themselves the name. In so doing they implied that theirs was the truly "federal" theology because of their approach to the nature of the covenant of grace.

Here are some resources on this topic:

Westminster Seminary California clark

After the "Tuning In" essay you might want to read the booklet on Covenant, Baptism, and Election
The Bookstore at WSC: Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace by Clark, R. Scott

and then CJPM:
The Bookstore at WSC: Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry by Clark, R. Scott

Best,

rsc

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Literally, they mean that it is a new way of looking ("vision") at the covenant ("federal"). It is not really new, of course, as Klaas Schilder propounded these views before ("alles of niks": all or nothing; what is true of one member of the covenant is true of all, an undifferentiated covenant membership that included benefits normally ascribed only to the elect).

This is a serious misinterpretation of Schilder. His phrase "alles of niks" refers not to undifferentiated covenant membership, but to the fact that in the covenant, by means of the promises sealed in baptism, God gives everything and demands everything from every baby baptized, or he gives nothing and demands nothing from no baby baptized.

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

STOP IT. Further posts like this will simply be deleted. This has nothing to do with content, but rather with the puerile exchange.

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

STOP IT. Further posts like this will simply be deleted. This has nothing to do with content, but rather with the puerile exchange.