Conditional Election - Where does FV differ from Historical Reformed Usage? - Page 2

Magma2 · #41 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I think if all he meant was temporal benefits, in the same sense that we began this thread with (i.e. Owen) then nobody would be batting an eyelash even if he called them saving benefits. I don't think the language is important.

non dignus · #42 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 11:04 AM

We walk by faith, not by sight.

non dignus · #43 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 11:43 AM

The Federal Vision proponents apparently wish to walk by sight.

wsw201 · #44 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 01:04 PM

The following is from the Auburn Avenue Session regarding their position on Covenant, Baptism and Salvation (Revised):

"3. God works out His eternal decree of salvation in history by means of His covenant. Salvation, therefore, may be viewed from two basic perspectives, the decretal/eternal and the covenantal/historical. The Bible ordinarily (though not always) views election through the lens of the covenant. This is why covenant members are addressed consistently as God’s elect, even though some of those covenant members may apostatize, proving themselves in the end not to have been among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world. Thus, the basis for calling them God’s “elect” was their standing as members of the Church (which is the body of Christ) and not some knowledge of God’s secret decree. The visible Church is the place where the saints are “gathered and perfected” by means of “the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God” (WCF 25.3).

We cannot separate covenant and election, but, to do full justice to the Biblical teaching, we must distinguish them. Following the Biblical model, it seems that we must view fellow church members as elect and regenerate and, at the same time, hold before them the dangers of falling away. This does not contradict the decretal/eternal perspective, because our knowledge of God’s decree is only creaturely. We can never, in this life, know with absolute certainty who are elect unto final salvation. For this reason, we have to make judgments and declarations in terms of what has been revealed, namely, the covenant (Dt. 29:29). The covenant is the visible, historical context in which the eternal decree of election comes to eventual fruition. "

If you understand this then you understand all the terminology of the FV and how they come up with their view of Scripture. They view Scripture via the lens of the Covenant (ala Norm Shepherd). The problem to solve is "where do the Scriptures speak covenantally (which is the ordinary way) and where do they speak decretively (the not so ordinary way)?

Anyone want to hazard a guess?

wsw201 · #45 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 07:42 AM

No takers?

non dignus · #46 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 08:22 AM

Perhaps the ordinary way is by use of analogy. The Vine. The Olive Tree. The parables of Jesus.

??

BJClark · #47 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 08:40 AM

This is throughly confusing, and I truly respect all the men who are throughly sifting through all the information to get at the truth...

Now, my comments on what I *think* the arguement to be about (which I'm really not sure about) but after trying to read through just a little bit of all of this...this is my very limited grasp of it...and the only thing I can come up with to help me understand this would be looking at it in terms of unequally yoked marriages (though I'm sure it is much deeper than this) but it seems like it would apply at least on the most basic of terms for me as a lay person.

is whether to use the term "temporarily elect", which I would disagree with.. either a person is elect or they are not...however, I could agree to use the term the Bible uses to describe (at least some)

We see this in 1 Corinthians Chapter 7:14 in reference to unequally yoked marriages.

"For the unbelieving husband is 'sanctified' by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 'sanctified' by the husband: else were your children unclean: but now they are Holy."

it doesn't refer to them as elect in any way shape or form, but it does say they are 'sanctified'. so what does that mean, in reference to this arguement? Do they believe a person to be 'temporarily elect' just because they are 'sanctified' by virtue of the fact they are married to someone who IS elect?

Main Entry: sanc·ti·fy

1 : to set apart to a sacred purpose or to religious use : CONSECRATE
2 : to free from sin : PURIFY
3 a : to impart or impute sacredness, inviolability, or respect to b : to give moral or social sanction to
4 : to make productive of holiness or piety <observe the day of the sabbath, to sanctify it -- Deuteronomy 5:12(Douay Version)>

Feel free to correct me if my understanding of this is off....

turmeric · #48 (**permalink**) 01-11-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

The following is from the Auburn Avenue Session regarding their position on Covenant, Baptism and Salvation (Revised):

"3. God works out His eternal decree of salvation in history by means of His covenant. Salvation, therefore, may be viewed from two basic perspectives, the decretal/eternal and the covenantal/historical. The Bible ordinarily (though not always) views election through the lens of the covenant. This is why covenant members are addressed consistently as God’s elect, even though some of those covenant members may apostatize, proving themselves in the end not to have been among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world. Thus, the basis for calling them God’s “elect” was their standing as members of the Church (which is the body of Christ) and not some knowledge of God’s secret decree. The visible Church is the place where the saints are “gathered and perfected” by means of “the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God” (WCF 25.3).

We cannot separate covenant and election, but, to do full justice to the Biblical teaching, we must distinguish them. Following the Biblical model, it seems that we must view fellow church members as elect and regenerate and, at the same time, hold before them the dangers of falling away. This does not contradict the decretal/eternal perspective, because our knowledge of God’s decree is only creaturely. We can never, in this life, know with absolute certainty who are elect unto final salvation. For this reason, we have to make judgments and declarations in terms of what has been revealed, namely, the covenant (Dt. 29:29). The covenant is the visible, historical context in which the eternal decree of election comes to eventual fruition. "

If you understand this then you understand all the terminology of the FV and how they come up with their view of Scripture. They view Scripture via the lens of the Covenant (ala Norm Shepherd). The problem to solve is "where do the Scriptures speak covenantally (which is the ordinary way) and where do they speak decretively (the not so ordinary way)?

Anyone want to hazard a guess?

I gotta go back to chopping up the Scriptures? I left Dispensationalism for this?

Don't we do this anyway without all the fuss? We extend the judgement of charity to everyone in the visible church until they act otherwise, then we are supposed to practice church discipline, and if they repent, we go back to the judgement of charity, right? Do we have to talk like Arminians to do that?

py3ak · #49 (**permalink**) 01-15-2007, 02:40 PM

Meg, it's interesting that you brought up dispensationalism. I've been talking to a dispensationalist friend who takes statements made to OT Israel, sees that they were made to a "mixed multitude" and thereby concludes that the statements must have some reference to unbelieving Israel. Is that not what Wilkins seems to be doing, as Rich pointed out? Because statements are made to the visible church, they must be true of everyone in the visible church; but what if statements are made to the visible church according to the judgment of charity but are actually applicable to that church in its ideal condition --they actually have exclusive reference to those who will never go out from us, because they are of us?