Some are, some aren't. I know some who do spout that, but then again, I have used Wilson's arguments against Maclaren in other debates with Emergent folk. But Wilson said he got his arguments against EC from Bahnsen/Van Til/David Wells

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

This has been my concern all along. Its the generation being raised on this junk that is at the biggest risk.

I have expressed this to people I gave talked with about FV. It seems to me that the 'leaders' who teach new/novel doctrines but have had sound, Biblical training (not that they remain sound) and, like the FV folks, claim orthodoxy (small 'o') will remain where they are. Its the next generation that will take it to its logical conclusion and be lost. The leaders and those originally grounded will be very slow to reject orthodoxy. But the next gen. will not have that grounding. I think the 'fruit' will really be seen in years and decades to come - way to late for many. We are seeing the 'firstfruits' now, just wait for the big harvest to come. Sad, very sad.

__________________
Dave Hall
Elgin, Texas
Ruling Elder
Providence Presbyterian Church, OPC (near Austin, TX)

"A Jedi's strength flows from the Java." - Yoda (paraphrased)

I completely agree. This trend is repeated over and over and over. Usually the first generation retains its semi-orthodoxy but the heirs of such views usually drift off into various heresies. For instance, I've told a lot of people that in 1-2 generations, the Calvary Chapel movement will drift into a cult. Why? Because they fit the historical recipe for such things - end times obsession with little core orthodox doctrinal interest.

I've always been most critical of the FV leaders for their arrogance and naivety over the fact that being unclear is a huge liability. Frankly, I don't believe they're being unclear in their statements that benefits that can only be enjoyed by union with Christ in His death and resurrection (forgiveness of sins, justification, etc) are said to accrue to people by their covenant participation "to some extent" even if they are reprobate.

Parse it until you're blue in the face. The mere fact they are willing, for years, to keep whining "I've been misrepresented" ought to be a huge alarm bell ringing for Godly Pastors. That they don't get it is an indictment on their character. If ELDERS have been wrangling for 5 years trying to make sure they understand them clearly and after 5 years still can't adequately state their beliefs in a manner acceptable to the proponents THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG.

I get passionate about this because I can't believe how foolish these men are that think this ambiguity will benefit their members. If Elders in Christ's Church are suspicious of the conclusions to be drawn from statements then, you can be sure, that people in the pews are drawing those same conclusions.

So pity this soul as someone who was a sheep with shepherds who cared more for their theological novelty than for his eternal soul. Save your ire for the Shepherds.

How many more converts will we hear about where they say: "Well, he didn't understand us the same way you guys don't.... Boo hoo! Poor me the FV Pastor! Why can't anyone understand me?!"

Run for political office with that excrement. When you face the King of Kings at the throne of Judgement, all that foolishness will be called to account!

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

It's particularly true that the 2d "generation" will go whole hog to Cathodoxy since the FV insists the RCC and OC's are true churches, with doctrine not that much worse than the local evangellycal church. What on earth is there to stop their children from becoming RC or Orthodox, then? And what protest could their FV pastors or parents legitimately raise?

It's unnerving how often the only real doctrinal problem an FV'er will have with Rome is the pope. The papacy's a pest, naturally, but in fact is hardly the most problematic doctrine held by the RCC. Trouble is, to many FV'ers the rest of the RCC's doctrines can be finessed away. Baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation no longer seem that strange and wrong; icons and statues are acceptable and even beneficial; even the existence of a priesthood is no longer a hindrance, considering how the distance between the congregation and the pastor has been increased with the heightened emphasis on "the authority of the Church with a Capital C".

Once they can explain away the papacy, the last doctrinal hurdle has been crossed, and the FV-to-Rome train has taken on another passenger.

It's extraordinarily depressing.

__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Married to Don, mother of six, grandmother to an ever-increasing brood.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)

I agree completely. And if it is really the case that their teachings are inscrutable even to studied the reformed minds, then they should not be teaching at all. Teaching requires a minimum level of competence at being clear. Someone who cannot make himself clear, even to seminary professors, is not qualified to be a teacher in the church.

It seems that worldview changes often take a generation or two to really work themselves out. I think of Darwin, for example, who affirmed evolution and atheism and yet retained Victorian morality. That morality was anchored to something else and he was living on borrowed capital that his heirs did not have or want.

The current teachers all have vested interests in their current careers and positions. Changing is very costly and hard. I suppose some could be in touch with the Coming Home Network or something like that.

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

The former NSA student in question has given his thoughts on why he ought not be considered representative of the FV.

And I think it bears remembering that FVists are not the only ones who convert to Rome.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -George Orwell

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

The facts remain the same he was influenced by their teaching as his original title states
("On How The Federal Vision Made Me Catholic") regardless of if the FV accepted him or not.


Also reading the comments you can see how some others may convert through the influene of NPP.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl...210696&isPopup

__________________
Mary G. Olds
Westminster OPC
Indian Head PK IL

Mary, I believe you actually know this person, so of course you may know the situation much better than we can. I also understand that there is a difference between someone leaving, say, the PCA for Rome (Matatics) and someone being led to Rome by hanging out with, say, Cardinal Newman. My point is simply that we should not allow ourselves to make uncritical cheap shots: they are bad strategy, even if emotionally satisfying, because they permit of such easy tu quoque comebacks.

Coincidentally, I did something I don't do regularly and stopped by the Bayly blog. David Bayly had some thoughts on this particular FVist becoming a Papist.

I do agree, cheap shots are never helpful & I honestly thank you for that reminder.

The only point I want to stress is that I believe FV theology can lead people to misunderstand justification & because I think it is a very real danger, it should be pointed out when it has, in light of not one but many who have actually gone from FV to Roman Catholicism.

Ruben,

I apologize if you believe that my scathing criticism of the FV is intended to either be a cheap shot or an easy criticism. My point was not meant to scholarly convince a man that there is a nexus between FV theology and a conversion to Rome. My point is that a lack of clarity combined with theological novelty causes for instability.

There is a phenomena ongoing in Pentecostalism right now - burn out. Many of the neo-Atheists you meet come from neo-Pentecostal Churches. It's not possible to connect a doctrinal connection from one pole to the other yet there is a gut appreciation why the one pole leads to the other pole.

[quote=SemperFideles;302406]
You said it much better than I did.

Well now there I can agree with you, Rich. There is a difference between the occasional, imperfect logic of people's actions, and strict deductive demands of theological positions. My concern is solely that people not weaken their case by falling into the mistake of thinking that any stick is good enough to beat an opponent with. And I think that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a lecherous, gnostic oneness pentecostal.

As one who grew up catholic in Europe and converted to protestantism 16 years ago in a church that is now FV (AAPC), I thought I would give you my 2c.
The FV IS leading people to Rome. The liturgy, the theology,the imagery.. are all too close to what I was raised in.
Because of my background and the mercy of God, I was able to see it quite clearly, and never embraced the FV/AAPC teaching. I told the session that I was not about to go back to Rome, and our family left several years ago.
It really pains me to see what is happening.

__________________
Lolo Long
Calhoun Presbyterian Church, ARP
Calhoun, LA

Lolo, I'm interested in hearing more about your experience. What reminded you most of your time in Rome? What was the reaction to your input?

I agree. I spent 10 years in Catholicism. I've ran into a fellow who left our church for the FV while shopping in Wal-Mart one evening. At first he explained why he had not been to church and was going elsewhere. I just flat out asked him if he was FV. I then asked him what the general FV (and his) view on the Doctrine of Justification was and he replied that he believed in Sola Fide. After that he qualified he response with what seemed to me to be a Catholic teaching on justification. His response to my observation was the Protestants "misunderstand" the Catholic teaching on Justification and that Catholics are not so bad after all and blah, blah, blah. I wanted to tell him that I taught CCD for six years and know what the differences are but he had to go and so we parted. It was a sad occasion for me.

Sola Gratia!! Sola Fide!!

__________________
Zack Flummerfelt
Evangel Presbyterian (PCA), layman
Wichita, KS

Before the changes in theology came the changes in the liturgy: the robes, the repeats, the kneeling...very high church and basically almost the exact replica of what I grew up with. We were just missing the altar boys(Ruston was ahead of us on that one) and the chanting. Then in theology came the baptism...a baby baptized was saved and is sins washed away- the church became the only place for salvation - relationship with God was through the church, not personal - the sacrements became central and dominants before the preaching of the Word - Symbolism was in everything and everywhere. And of course one can lose his salvation (that you acquired at baptism). To stay saved, you have to believe AND keep the covenant...looks very much like salvation by works to me, just like in the RC. Worship had become for me a very difficult thing and I was not looking forward to Sunday.
I was glad when we left 3 1/2 years ago.

The reaction to my input was not very well received to say the least.
An input is welcome when you agree, not when you disagree.

I am sorry to hear about your experiences Lolo and Zack. As A former altar boy, I feel your pain.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

You must be getting nasty PMs. I am sorry to see that.

I spent a dozen years as an RC, and could not possibly agree more. There's an unnerving similarity between FV and RC doctrine.

Even though the FV doesn't use the term "infusion", that's what their "justified by covenantal obedience" is at heart, so far's I can tell. One is initially justified at baptism....this is a huge FV doctrine, is it not?....but to remain justified requires sanctification. Sanctification is not actually a fruit of justification in the sense that traditional Reformed theology says, but instead there is a symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification.

Mind, now! There is certainly a significant difference in reality between true RC soteriology and FV soteriology, make no mistake about that. The problem is the FV provides a stepping stone between Reformed soteriology and RC soteriology. Once one accepts any sort of symbiotic relationship between justification and sanctification, it's not a giant leap to full-fledged RC doctrine.

There are also similarities between the FV view of the sacraments and the RC view; plus the whole "the Church IS salvation" angle sounds very RC.

It's like that Taylor Whozit said, the FV is a keyhole for the RCC.