Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible - Page 2

Jon Peters · #41 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Most if not all FVers affirm six day creation. Jordan has a good book refuting Kline on the subject.

I remember reading Jordan's book 10 or so years ago and liked about half of it. Then, as I recall, things went a little sideways. I was a Theonomist at the time and it predates the current FV controversy, but after that reading that book I could not take Jordan seriously. I don't recall the specifics now; I'll probably have to go and read it again.

But, more to the point, I think the FV prides itself on being very conservative on issues such as creation and women. In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).

theologae · #42 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).

Garrett Craw?

Jon Peters · #43 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theologae

Quote:

In fact, one FVer, recently on his blog,wondered whether the FV wasn't the antidote for all this theological liberalism going on in Reformed churches (ordaining of women, specifically).

Garrett Craw?

Yep.

Gryphonette · #44 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 07:04 PM

[quote=Daniel Ritchie;419063]In fact here is the article in question:

Quote:

Exodus 20:11
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God created the world in six days. This naïveté betrays the anti-intellectualism of the Federal Vision.

The Modern Reformed faith has always held that the first chapter of Genesis is poetic, and as everyone knows, poetry cannot be used to convey history. Poetry always compromises accuracy.

This becomes even more clear when we notice that the sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there were mornings and evenings for the first three days, not to mention the creation of light on the first day.

The only explanation for this chronological gaffe is that God is communicating poetically rather than historically. This violation of the law of non-contradiction leads us to the obvious conclusion that we cannot not take this account literally. Thus, the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created.

Federal Visionists wrongly accuse us of being dishonest with the text. On the contrary, our position is not only honest, but heroic. When the doctrine of the Creation ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given us, we openly rejected it. We preached against it. We took every risk.

Are we absolutely certain that is on the level?

It's so totally over-the-top I have a hard time believing it's sincere. I mean, "our position is not only honest, but heroic"? Who says that with a straight face?

And "the first chapter of Genesis is a poetic vision of how the world was definitely not created."

Wait a minute. It's a poetic vision intended to demonstrate how the world was definitely NOT created? As in, Genesis 1 was written for the purpose of correcting a pre-existing erroneous impression? Or did it deliberately describe one way the world could have come into being, while simultaneously - albeit implicitly - shooting it down?

What, the LORD's embarrassed at how He actually created the world? Or maybe He couldn't figure out how to describe the process so people could understand?

He, who designed and created both people and language wasn't able to write a coherent account of His creation?

ISTM whoever wrote that is either so abysmally stupid he should have his driver's license taken away, or he's jerking our chain, and is in fact attempting to make those who are against the FV look like a bunch of dopes.

Ivanhoe · #45 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 07:36 PM

Y'all. The blog is satire and a joke. It is written by pro-FV people. They are being an interlocutor for the anti-fv side. I think it is obvious by now. Even though I have disagreed with FV, their interlocutor has a few spot-on criticisms.

Daniel Ritchie · #46 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Y'all. The blog is satire and a joke. It is written by pro-FV people. They are being an interlocutor for the anti-fv side. I think it is obvious by now. Even though I have disagreed with FV, their interlocutor has a few spot-on criticisms.

I see. I must confess I do not have much respect for anonymous attack blogs against the FV. There seems to be something decidedly wrong with a person who takes it upon themselves to publicly criticize others, but is not man enough to reveal his own name.