Thread: Covenant Radio

I noticed recently that Dr. Beeke will be speaking on Covenant Radio.

While looking at their previous shows I noticed a lot of programs about Federal Vision.

Their website features many links to pro-FV and pro-paedocommunion sites.

When I went to Covenant Radio's iTunes page I noticed subscribers to the Covenant Radio podcast also subscribed to the Auburn Avenue podcast.

Is Covenant Radio either Pro-Federal Vision or Federal Vision-Friendly?

Thanks!

Originally Posted by eqdj

Is Covenant Radio either Pro-Federal Vision or Federal Vision-Friendly?

Both, I believe.

From talking to the host of the radio program, he says that they are not pro-FV.

Originally Posted by eqdj

When I went to Covenant Radio's iTunes page I noticed subscribers to the Covenant Radio podcast also subscribed to the Auburn Avenue podcast.

Point of fairness to Bill here - this is a non-sequitur. People who subscribe to the Covenant Radio feed, I am certain, also subscribe to "good" things. I also listen to CR programs on occasion. Does that make me pro-FV?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by eqdj

When I went to Covenant Radio's iTunes page I noticed subscribers to the Covenant Radio podcast also subscribed to the Auburn Avenue podcast.

Point of fairness to Bill here - this is a non-sequitur. People who subscribe to the Covenant Radio feed, I am certain, also subscribe to "good" things. I also listen to CR programs on occasion. Does that make me pro-FV?

Point of fairness to me here - this is a non-sequitur. I simply made an observation and asked a question. I haven't stated any conclusions.

Originally Posted by eqdj

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by eqdj

When I went to Covenant Radio's iTunes page I noticed subscribers to the Covenant Radio podcast also subscribed to the Auburn Avenue podcast.

Point of fairness to Bill here - this is a non-sequitur. People who subscribe to the Covenant Radio feed, I am certain, also subscribe to "good" things. I also listen to CR programs on occasion. Does that make me pro-FV?

Point of fairness to me here - this is a non-sequitur. I simply made an observation and asked a question. I haven't stated any conclusions.

I can't imagine any reason you'd make such a statement except to say that there's "something to" the connection between people taking the Cov. Radio feed and also the Auburn Avenue feed. I don't think there was any unfair logical leaping going on with my statements, but if you were offended, my apologies.

I can't imagine any reason you'd make such a statement except to say that there's "something to" the connection between people taking the Cov. Radio feed and also the Auburn Avenue feed. I don't think there was any unfair logical leaping going on with my statements, but if you were offended, my apologies.

Being unfamiliar with the podcast, I was simply asking a question. I apologise if you thought I was making a statement.

I know William Hill personally and I can say that he is not pro-FV. He is strongly within the camp of justification by faith alone. His show is different in that he allows all these people to present their views as to inform that who disagree.

Originally Posted by BaptisticFire2007

I know William Hill personally and I can say that he is not pro-FV. He is strongly within the camp of justification by faith alone. His show is different in that he allows all these people to present their views as to inform that who disagree.

I just finished listening to several Covenant Radio Podcasts, which featured pro-FV guys, while I am not certain where they are in error, they did say they are strongly justification by faith believers. I did hear the guests say the FV is not a systematic theology, but a manor of pastoral counseling (or something to that effect, though not the exact wording they used). The podcast (2 parts) was two pro-FV guys responding to Guy Waters, who did an interview on a Reformed Baptist radio program.

As I said, I'm not sure where the FV is in error, but I am very new to any details of the controversy. From what I have heard so far, it seems the anti-FV guys are looking at the issue from a different perspective and might be mischaracterizing the pro-FVs (but, again I don't know all the details).

Originally Posted by BaptisticFire2007

I know William Hill personally and I can say that he is not pro-FV. He is strongly within the camp of justification by faith alone. His show is different in that he allows all these people to present their views as to inform that who disagree.

William Hill has strongly criticized me (and petulantly, too!) for my critiques of the FV. I refused to do a radio show with him. In my opinion, he has argued strongly for the FV on my blog and elsewhere, and his supposed stance of neutrality is a complete smoke screen. I wouldn't give Covenant Radio the time of day, and am astonished that Joel Beeke would do so.

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 12:30:32 EST-----

Originally Posted by caoclan

Originally Posted by BaptisticFire2007

I know William Hill personally and I can say that he is not pro-FV. He is strongly within the camp of justification by faith alone. His show is different in that he allows all these people to present their views as to inform that who disagree.

I just finished listening to several Covenant Radio Podcasts, which featured pro-FV guys, while I am not certain where they are in error, they did say they are strongly justification by faith believers. I did hear the guests say the FV is not a systematic theology, but a manor of pastoral counseling (or something to that effect, though not the exact wording they used). The podcast (2 parts) was two pro-FV guys responding to Guy Waters, who did an interview on a Reformed Baptist radio program.

As I said, I'm not sure where the FV is in error, but I am very new to any details of the controversy. From what I have heard so far, it seems the anti-FV guys are looking at the issue from a different perspective and might be mischaracterizing the pro-FVs (but, again I don't know all the details).

I would say that some critics have misrepresented the FV, but most have not. The perspective from which the critics are looking at the FV is the confessional viewpoint. You are certainly right, therefore, to claim that the FV is looking at things from a different perspective.

I listen to CR when they have a guest I wish to hear. I also believe, as Lane does, that they have unquestionable FV leanings.

Originally Posted by caoclan

As I said, I'm not sure where the FV is in error, but I am very new to any details of the controversy. From what I have heard so far, it seems the anti-FV guys are looking at the issue from a different perspective and might be mischaracterizing the pro-FVs (but, again I don't know all the details).

Just go to the area where we have discussed the Federal Vision on the board. I studied it long and hard. I use to be a moderator / member of a board that had both FV guys and TR (traditionally reformed) guys as members. The Federal Vision is not monolitic but it does have some teachings that all of them mostly hold to. They redefine a lot of definitions as cults do. A lot of them have a strong appreciation for the New Paul Perspective and N. T. Wright whom redefines justification and the righteousness of God in relation to believers and their position before a holy God. The FV holds to erroneous views in relation to the sacraments and salvation.

Dr. R. Scott Clark has many helpful links on his website.

Westminster Seminary California clark

There are also a lot of good threads here on the PB conerning the FV.

Federal Vision/New Perspectives - The PuritanBoard

What is the problem with FV?

-----Added 12/31/2008 at 12:48:59 EST-----

Oh yeah, and most FV guys do not hold to a good view of Covenant Theology. They deny the CofW as defined by the scriptures and our confessions of faith. They hold to a mono-covenant instead of a bi-covenantal understanding of the scriptures.

I talk a little about this here.
A Working Federal Vision Summary from a 1689er - The PuritanBoard

It looks from the schedule over there that Joel Beeke is not discussing the FV, but rather his own (edited) book on Calvinism. I think that should be kept in mind, as CR has interviewed many solid guys on their own books (Michael Horton, Michael Brown, Brian Schwertley).

Every time the discussion arrives at FV issues, the quote by Samuel Miller in this thread comes to mind. Miller speaks from the grave

Originally Posted by lwadkins

Every time the discussion arrives at FV issues, the quote by Samuel Miller in this thread comes to mind. Miller speaks from the grave

Great quote....

"When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the "old dead orthodoxy," and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they "differ from it only in words." This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Thus it was with Arius in the fourth century, with Pelagius in the fifth, with Arminius and his companions in the seventeenth, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards, and with the Unitarians in Massachusetts, toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. They denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove as long as they could to appear to agree with the most orthodox of their neighbours; until the time came when, partly from inability any longer to cover up their sentiments, and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they at length avowed their real opinions."

-Samuel Miller, 1841

I know "new" perspectives on theology are almost always bad, but to listen to those guys, it seems as if they aren't saying anything out of bounds with the WCoF or Standards (again, I am not saying they are correct, I am new to the details of the FV). Also, the pro-FV'ers on the Covenant Radio Podcast, if I remember correctly distanced themselves from the NPP. Another question I have is are the hosts of Covenant Radio correct in saying there is no anti-FV person willing to debate the FV side? If so, why. Has there been any debate between an FV advocate and opponent to ensure both sides are bringing the issue honestly, and not just having blog wars. I would hate to think of either side not dealing honestly with both sides of the controversy.

Originally Posted by caoclan

I know "new" perspectives on theology are almost always bad, but to listen to those guys, it seems as if they aren't saying anything out of bounds with the WCoF or Standards (again, I am not saying they are correct, I am new to the details of the FV). Also, the pro-FV'ers on the Covenant Radio Podcast, if I remember correctly distanced themselves from the NPP. Another question I have is are the hosts of Covenant Radio correct in saying there is no anti-FV person willing to debate the FV side? If so, why. Has there been any debate between an FV advocate and opponent to ensure both sides are bringing the issue honestly, and not just having blog wars. I would hate to think of either side not dealing honestly with both sides of the controversy.

Seven Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have declared the FV and the NPP to be out of accord with the standards of the church. If your opinion is that it is not, then you haven't read enough of the critics. There is a very solid reason why critics of the FV haven't debated FV'ers in person: 1. debates in person are rarely more accurate than published positions on paper. It is usually the other way around. 2. The FV'ers have shown themselves, by and large, to be above criticism, and incredibly arrogant. As a result, no light would result from such a debate. 3. It happened in the Knox Colloquium, the result of which was the book edited by Cal Beisner. 4. Since the denoms have spoken, most critics feel that there is no need to keep on debating the issue. The FV has had 7 years now to convince people that it is confessional and orthodox. It has failed utterly to do that. 5. The FV'ers are not exactly known for clarity. Pinning down their position on something is like trying to nail jello to a wall, to use Dr. White's phrase.

Be aware that this board does not tolerate the FV or its sympathizers.

The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons Debating the Federal Vision

This collection of papers published under the above title shows (among others) that the conversation (debate?) has been attempted. It also demonstrates how difficult it is to pin the FV folks down to any concrete exposition of their beliefs.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by caoclan

I know "new" perspectives on theology are almost always bad, but to listen to those guys, it seems as if they aren't saying anything out of bounds with the WCoF or Standards (again, I am not saying they are correct, I am new to the details of the FV). Also, the pro-FV'ers on the Covenant Radio Podcast, if I remember correctly distanced themselves from the NPP. Another question I have is are the hosts of Covenant Radio correct in saying there is no anti-FV person willing to debate the FV side? If so, why. Has there been any debate between an FV advocate and opponent to ensure both sides are bringing the issue honestly, and not just having blog wars. I would hate to think of either side not dealing honestly with both sides of the controversy.

Seven Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have declared the FV and the NPP to be out of accord with the standards of the church. If your opinion is that it is not, then you haven't read enough of the critics. There is a very solid reason why critics of the FV haven't debated FV'ers in person: 1. debates in person are rarely more accurate than published positions on paper. It is usually the other way around. 2. The FV'ers have shown themselves, by and large, to be above criticism, and incredibly arrogant. As a result, no light would result from such a debate. 3. It happened in the Knox Colloquium, the result of which was the book edited by Cal Beisner. 4. Since the denoms have spoken, most critics feel that there is no need to keep on debating the issue. The FV has had 7 years now to convince people that it is confessional and orthodox. It has failed utterly to do that. 5. The FV'ers are not exactly known for clarity. Pinning down their position on something is like trying to nail jello to a wall, to use Dr. White's phrase.

Be aware that this board does not tolerate the FV or its sympathizers.

I do remember that question in my membership application to this board. I don't know much of the background to the controversy (as I have repeatedly stated in my posts in this thread). You and I have different baggage on this issue: you have dealt with it in great detail (I am assuming), I, on the other hand have heard it is "bad," but I don't know the reasons (they may have had 7 years to try to convince people of their position, but I have only heard a couple of the CR podcasts that dealt with their side of the issue, and have not had the opportunity to explore any more). I was only asking some questions for more background as there is VOLUMINOUS data on this issue. I don't think I represented myself as an FV-sympathizer, if I offended, please forgive. They were only questions, like we all have when we hear a new issue. I wish I didn't feel as if I needed to defend honest questions, but what you said seemed to be a shot across my bow. Please, next time give me the benefit of the doubt, I may just be asking questions to equip myself with apologetics-type information (which, in effect I was). It is time consuming to weed through all that has been said on this issue and I just wanted some answers to specific questions. Thank you.

Originally Posted by caoclan

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by caoclan

I know "new" perspectives on theology are almost always bad, but to listen to those guys, it seems as if they aren't saying anything out of bounds with the WCoF or Standards (again, I am not saying they are correct, I am new to the details of the FV). Also, the pro-FV'ers on the Covenant Radio Podcast, if I remember correctly distanced themselves from the NPP. Another question I have is are the hosts of Covenant Radio correct in saying there is no anti-FV person willing to debate the FV side? If so, why. Has there been any debate between an FV advocate and opponent to ensure both sides are bringing the issue honestly, and not just having blog wars. I would hate to think of either side not dealing honestly with both sides of the controversy.

Seven Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have declared the FV and the NPP to be out of accord with the standards of the church. If your opinion is that it is not, then you haven't read enough of the critics. There is a very solid reason why critics of the FV haven't debated FV'ers in person: 1. debates in person are rarely more accurate than published positions on paper. It is usually the other way around. 2. The FV'ers have shown themselves, by and large, to be above criticism, and incredibly arrogant. As a result, no light would result from such a debate. 3. It happened in the Knox Colloquium, the result of which was the book edited by Cal Beisner. 4. Since the denoms have spoken, most critics feel that there is no need to keep on debating the issue. The FV has had 7 years now to convince people that it is confessional and orthodox. It has failed utterly to do that. 5. The FV'ers are not exactly known for clarity. Pinning down their position on something is like trying to nail jello to a wall, to use Dr. White's phrase.

Be aware that this board does not tolerate the FV or its sympathizers.

I do remember that question in my membership application to this board. I don't know much of the background to the controversy (as I have repeatedly stated in my posts in this thread). You and I have different baggage on this issue: you have dealt with it in great detail (I am assuming), I, on the other hand have heard it is "bad," but I don't know the reasons (they may have had 7 years to try to convince people of their position, but I have only heard a couple of the CR podcasts that dealt with their side of the issue, and have not had the opportunity to explore any more). I was only asking some questions for more background as there is VOLUMINOUS data on this issue. I don't think I represented myself as an FV-sympathizer, if I offended, please forgive. They were only questions, like we all have when we hear a new issue. I wish I didn't feel as if I needed to defend honest questions, but what you said seemed to be a shot across my bow. Please, next time give me the benefit of the doubt, I may just be asking questions to equip myself with apologetics-type information (which, in effect I was). It is time consuming to weed through all that has been said on this issue and I just wanted some answers to specific questions. Thank you.

And there is no need, in turn, for you to assume that I had already pigeon-holed you as an FV sympathizer. It was intended simply as a reminder. However, it seemed to me that you had already come to a position where the critics of the FV had misunderstood the FV, or at least you were leaning that way. This, by the way, is the constant misguided refrain of the FV'ers themselves. No one has understood them, if you believe the FV'ers. By the way, I am not in the least upset by your comments so far, and so none of the above should be read as me "raising my voice."

That's fine. I did not (and have not) come to the position that the FV had been misunderstood, I was interested to see if the two sides had interacted. It is so easy to say "that guys said such and such" and the other guy said "no I didn't" or "that isn't what I meant," but if they have not talked to each other, then they just might be talking past one another, or unintentionally misrepresenting the other's opinion, or worse. Being new to this, I wanted background information if this had been done, or if the conversation was even needed.

Another piece to the equation is I am new to the Reformed faith (less than 2 years), so my questions might seem uninformed or beginner-esque anyway. There is a lot of information on all things theological and Reformed, so I just wanted to shortcut this issue.

Originally Posted by caoclan

Another piece to the equation is I am new to the Reformed faith (less than 2 years), so my questions might seem uninformed or beginner-esque anyway. There is a lot of information on all things theological and Reformed, so I just wanted to shortcut this issue.

That is understandable. Lane is a much more patient fellow than I am so don't interpret him as being short. You generally know when I'm being short here.

I think you hit the nail on the head at being new. The reason it's taken 7 years and they still have people that buy the illusion that they are misunderstood is that the unorthodoxy of their position is very subtle. The nature of the Sacraments and the Covenant is not well understood and, frankly, is even poorly understood and taught by many in Reformed Churches. Without trying to diss Baptists, some Presbyterians are functionally Baptistic in their appreciation for the nature of the Sacraments and the Covenant.

The FV, then, accost some of the language of our Reformed tradition on the Sacraments and the Covenant and some of their critics are underdeveloped in their criticism of it because they need to reform their own appreciation of the same but from a completely different extreme. The FV advocates are often emboldened by what they perceive as broadly evangelical Reformed folk that have their own orthodoxy problems but are calling the FV on the carpet for their orthodoxy problems.

We have discussed this at length and it might be difficult to ascertain at first but I think the folks at Covenant Radio are without excuse for trying to pretend as if they're on the fence. When they were here, I pointed out a number of black and white issues where the Confession said one thing on the nature of union with Christ and Wilkins said another and they hemmed and hawed over it.

There are a number of diversionary tactics at play. A favorite is to say that the WCF teaches up to a certain point on a dogma such as election but that there is a "fuller" Biblical teaching that the WCF leaves unaddressed. Their view is that they have the full orbed understanding of it so they're teaching on an idea that they believe the WCF leaves unaddressed. Folks have repeatedly shown this is dishonest because the WCF anticipates the added information and roundly rejects their ideas.

A perfect example of the evasiveness is something that happened to me when I tried to get an honest answer from Doug Wilson that I had one of the hosts pose for me. I wanted a simple answer to a question about whether or not someone who is not vitally united to Christ would have forgiveness of sins. Doug Wilson hedged and stated that "...there are many types of forgiveness." No follow up and, to his hearers, I'm sure it sounded like he answered the question. Perfect example of how a novice might miss an important point. The larger issue is really whether or not someone who is not vitally united to Christ has his sins covered by the Atonement.

To make it plain, Reformed theology has always held that it is only the Elect of God, known before the foundation of the world, that receive grace from God that grants them faith by regeneration. Faith, alone, is the instrument that vitally unites that person to Christ in Whom is found forgiveness of sins, justification, adoption, definitive sanctification, and eternal life. The FV wants to say that everybody baptized into the Church is united to Christ in some sense. That is to say that union with Christ is not faith alone but baptism and Covenant membership in their view. Oh, they make allowances for those that are "truly elect" and those who will fall away but everyone, by virtue of their baptism, is said to participate in forgiveness of sins and salvation in a certain sense (that's the key word always used). Friend, we believe that participation in the grace offered through baptism is only enjoyed by the elect. It is not something that we participate in as long as we don't "break the Covenant."

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by caoclan

Another piece to the equation is I am new to the Reformed faith (less than 2 years), so my questions might seem uninformed or beginner-esque anyway. There is a lot of information on all things theological and Reformed, so I just wanted to shortcut this issue.

That is understandable. Lane is a much more patient fellow than I am so don't interpret him as being short. You generally know when I'm being short here.

I think you hit the nail on the head at being new. The reason it's taken 7 years and they still have people that buy the illusion that they are misunderstood is that the unorthodoxy of their position is very subtle. The nature of the Sacraments and the Covenant is not well understood and, frankly, is even poorly understood and taught by many in Reformed Churches. Without trying to diss Baptists, some Presbyterians are functionally Baptistic in their appreciation for the nature of the Sacraments and the Covenant.

The FV, then, accost some of the language of our Reformed tradition on the Sacraments and the Covenant and some of their critics are underdeveloped in their criticism of it because they need to reform their own appreciation of the same but from a completely different extreme. The FV advocates are often emboldened by what they perceive as broadly evangelical Reformed folk that have their own orthodoxy problems but are calling the FV on the carpet for their orthodoxy problems.

We have discussed this at length and it might be difficult to ascertain at first but I think the folks at Covenant Radio are without excuse for trying to pretend as if they're on the fence. When they were here, I pointed out a number of black and white issues where the Confession said one thing on the nature of union with Christ and Wilkins said another and they hemmed and hawed over it.

There are a number of diversionary tactics at play. A favorite is to say that the WCF teaches up to a certain point on a dogma such as election but that there is a "fuller" Biblical teaching that the WCF leaves unaddressed. Their view is that they have the full orbed understanding of it so they're teaching on an idea that they believe the WCF leaves unaddressed. Folks have repeatedly shown this is dishonest because the WCF anticipates the added information and roundly rejects their ideas.

A perfect example of the evasiveness is something that happened to me when I tried to get an honest answer from Doug Wilson that I had one of the hosts pose for me. I wanted a simple answer to a question about whether or not someone who is not vitally united to Christ would have forgiveness of sins. Doug Wilson hedged and stated that "...there are many types of forgiveness." No follow up and, to his hearers, I'm sure it sounded like he answered the question. Perfect example of how a novice might miss an important point. The larger issue is really whether or not someone who is not vitally united to Christ has his sins covered by the Atonement.

To make it plain, Reformed theology has always held that it is only the Elect of God, known before the foundation of the world, that receive grace from God that grants them faith by regeneration. Faith, alone, is the instrument that vitally unites that person to Christ in Whom is found forgiveness of sins, justification, adoption, definitive sanctification, and eternal life. The FV wants to say that everybody baptized into the Church is united to Christ in some sense. That is to say that union with Christ is not faith alone but baptism and Covenant membership in their view. Oh, they make allowances for those that are "truly elect" and those who will fall away but everyone, by virtue of their baptism, is said to participate in forgiveness of sins and salvation in a certain sense (that's the key word always used). Friend, we believe that participation in the grace offered through baptism is only enjoyed by the elect. It is not something that we participate in as long as we don't "break the Covenant."

I am in complete agreement with you. Even though I am new to that program and the FV ideas, it is clear to me the hosts are not "on-the-fence" about the FV and at least sympathize with the FV view, if not agree.

Gentlemen,

I'm glad to see your responses.
After the response from ToddPedlar and BaptistFire2007 i went back to the Covenant Radio site and listened to some programs (last month).

I found two things worrisome.
1. Their "Links" page combines Pro-FV (and paedocommunion) links with good links. One can only infer from this that they view them as equally sound.

2. When I listened to a program with a guest who was Covenantal Credobaptist they played a disclaimer before the program began, "The hosts of this show do not agree with the views of the guests..." or something to that effect. Yet there are no such disclaimers before ANY FV guests are interviewed.

The hosts repeatedly cry they're being slandered as Pro FV just because they have FV guests on when all they're trying to do is give equal air time to all sides. I have no problem with giving equal air time opposing views. Gene Cook does it. James White does it. And when they have done it, they haven't put a disclaimer on before the program started. What's the difference? You know Gene and James position - the hosts of Covenant Radio refuse to state their position.

After looking at their links page and listening to a few of their programs i discontinued the podcast feed.

Thank you brothers for your input.
*****
Also - I'm elated to hear the PB "does not tolerate FV or its sympathizers"