Describe FV in one paragraph

Romans922 · #1 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 01:42 PM

Who can give the best 1 paragraph definition of FV?

Poimen · #2 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 02:37 PM

Objective:

An attempt by some in the Reformed community to recover the confessional truths of the Reformation.

Subjective:

An attempt by some in the Reformed community to undermine the confessional truths of the Reformation by subjecting our theology to a healthy dose of sacerdotalism and works righteousness.

**Gryphonette** · #3 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

Who can give the best 1 paragraph definition of FV?

The key point in the FV is that everyone in the Church is - in some unspecified, undefined, vague way - saved, even those who are not "elect to eternal life". At a bare minimum one is "elect to" and "saved to" the Church, and being placed in the Church through baptism is regarded as a type of "regeneration." It's in that sense the FV believes in baptismal regeneration (although some FV'ers go much farther than that). The FV does not believe in a literal works-righteousness, though it certainly appears to since the primary difference between the ECM and NECM seems to be the actions of the former.

Daniel Ritchie · #4 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 03:03 PM

Here is a summary by John Otis in his book Danger in the Camp:

Quote:

Entrance into God’s covenant is objective via our water baptism. There is no distinction between the visible and invisible church. The term “elect” applies corporately to those who are objectively in the covenant. Water baptism is the distinguishing mark of those who constitute the elect of God. Our water baptism, be it infant baptism or adult baptism constitutes true union with Christ, meaning that we have all of the saving graces at our baptism. Since we are in genuine union with Christ at out baptism and since apostasy is a real warning in Scripture, those who renounce the faith or who live rebellious lives with regards to God’s commandments can lose their salvation. This means that one loses his initial justification. There is a final justification that must be maintained by faithful obedience to God’s law throughout one’s lifetime. Justification is seen in terms of “obedient faith” or as “faithfulness.” Good works are not merely the genuine fruit or evidence of saving faith; it is seen as the essence of faith. We are justified by covenantal faithfulness, and justification is progressive in the sense that we will be declared justified on the Day of Judgment as long as we did not apostatize during our lifetime. The covenant of works is non-existent. Jesus’ active obedience or His righteous keeping of the law has nothing to do with the basis of our justification on the final Day of Judgment. Christ’s obedience to the law enabled Him to be the worthy, sinless, sacrifice, giving Him a right standing before God the Father so that union with Christ in His resurrected and glorified life is what is creditied to us, not His meritorious works on our behalf.

shackleton · #5 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 03:21 PM

It sounds sort of like Catholicism, in that there is baptismal regeneration and being a member of the church and participating in the sacriments saves. It falls just short of universalism but in a way it is, if you are a part of the church. It is universalism within the church.

**Gryphonette** · #6 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

It falls just short of universalism but in a way it is, if you are a part of the church. It is universalism within the church.

"Universalism within the church".....by jingo, that's exactly what it's like, isn't it?

Davidius · #7 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

It sounds sort of like Catholicism, in that there is baptismal regeneration and being a member of the church and participating in the sacriments saves. It falls just short of universalism but in a way it is, if you are a part of the church. It is universalism within the church.

But don't they teach that those who are in the Church, although they partake of the benefits of salvation, can lose their election through disobedience?

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

It sounds sort of like Catholicism, in that there is baptismal regeneration and being a member of the church and participating in the sacriments saves. It falls just short of universalism but in a way it is, if you are a part of the church. It is universalism within the church.

But don't they teach that those who are in the Church, although they partake of the benefits of salvation, can lose their election through disobedience?

Yes, they definitely don't teach universalism.

**Gryphonette** · #9 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 05:56 PM

ISTM it's sort of a limited universalism, silly as that doubtless sounds. Univeralism has salvation as the default position.

To the FV anyone in the "Church" world is saved...salvation is also the default position.

It's the "salvation as default position" due to temporal circumstances (being human in the universalist scheme of things; being baptized in the FV's scheme of things) that is reminiscent of universalism.

Clearly y'all are right, however, and the FV is not strictly and truly universalist.

jaybird0827 · #10 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

It sounds sort of like Catholicism, in that there is baptismal regeneration and being a member of the church and participating in the sacriments saves. It falls just short of universalism but in a way it is, if you are a part of the church. It is universalism within the church.

But don't they teach that those who are in the Church, although they partake of the benefits of salvation, can lose their election through disobedience?

And in the RCC, you lose your election/salvation through "mortal sin" if it isn't absolved by confession or last rites (more works salvation).

Theogenes · #11 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 06:20 PM

No need for a paragraph, how about two words: "VEILED ROMANISM".

Daniel Ritchie · #12 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theogenes

No need for a paragraph, how about two words: "VEILED ROMANISM".

Well put.

**Southern Presbyterian** · #13 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theogenes

No need for a paragraph, how about two words: "VEILED ROMANISM".

Well put.

shackleton · #14 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 08:44 PM

So can it be refined to say that if one is a good and faithful church goer, one who partakes of the sacraments regulary, this will sort of keep them in the faith?
People outside of the church are not saved and the fate of wayward members may be in question, but those who have the means of grace exhibited towards them are in good standing with God and the church and are thus secured?

Just thinking.

Eoghan · #15 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 04:28 PM

I am picking up something of what is meant and would like to say that as a Baptist Federal Vision is irrelevant. I can't, there is the sneaking suspicion that our kids should become christians. I have heard it expressed with regard to the qualifications for an elder (teaching) in that if his kids are not converted he should not be in the pulpit. This was said of a teaching elder who's kids, to my knowledge, are all over 21 and away from home.

I pray for my children, I teach them as best I can about God - but ultimately I have to leave the rest to the Holy Spirit working in them. FV (as I read it here) would fill the vacuum of uncertainty about children. Personally I would say that vacuum is unknown, but is not a genuine vacuum because it is filled by my confidence/trust in my God.

Was it not James Packer in "Knowing God" who said we can never know God exhaustively, but by diligently studying Scripture we can Him intrinsicaly - enough to place our trust in Him without reservation.

***toddpedlar*** · #16 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

So can it be refined to say that if one is a good and faithful church goer, one who partakes of the sacraments regulary, this will sort of keep them in the faith?
People outside of the church are not saved and the fate of wayward members may be in question, but those who have the means of grace exhibited towards them are in good standing with God and the church and are thus secured?

Just thinking.

Sort of... in the FV view, in order to retain the benefits of salvation that a person is endowed with at
baptism, one must continue to live a life of faithful obedience, (which includes participation in
the sacraments) to the end, or else lose those benefits. It is said quite clearly (and ALMOST in
so many words) that you enter covenant by grace, and stay in it by works.

Romans922 · #17 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 01:08 AM

Are there any good descriptions of FV in a paragraph that could be understood by most people in the church. I find most answers thus far to be over many people's heads.

***Semper Fidelis*** · #18 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Here is a summary by John Otis in his book Danger in the Camp:

Quote:

Entrance into God’s covenant is objective via our water baptism. There is no distinction between the visible and invisible church. The term “elect” applies corporately to those who are objectively in the covenant. Water baptism is the distinguishing mark of those who constitute the elect of God. Our water baptism, be it infant baptism or adult baptism constitutes true union with Christ, meaning that we have all of the saving graces at our baptism. Since we are in genuine union with Christ at out baptism and since apostasy is a real warning in Scripture, those who renounce the faith or who live rebellious lives with regards to God’s commandments can lose their salvation. This means that one loses his initial justification. There is a final justification that must be maintained by faithful obedience to God’s law throughout one’s lifetime. Justification is seen in terms of “obedient faith” or as “faithfulness.” Good works are not merely the genuine fruit or evidence of saving faith; it is seen as the essence of faith. We are justified by covenantal faithfulness, and justification is progressive in the sense that we will be declared justified on the Day of Judgment as long as we did not apostatize during our lifetime. The covenant of works is non-existent. Jesus’ active obedience or His righteous keeping of the law has nothing to do with the basis of our justification on the final Day of Judgment. Christ’s obedience to the law enabled Him to be the worthy, sinless, sacrifice, giving Him a right standing before God the Father so that union with Christ in His resurrected and glorified life is what is creditied to us, not His meritorious works on our behalf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

Are there any good descriptions of FV in a paragraph that could be understood by most people in the church. I find most answers thus far to be over many people's heads.

I think the quote above is an excellent summation in a paragraph.

I think for those in the movement, it's best understood by them in a sense of hyper-covenantalism. Everything about the Covenant is in the extremes. Everyone is in the Covenant in a "mashed together" degree that destroys the Scriptural distinctions between visible and invisible. The roots are really all about the kids. They want to link a child's Covenant participation to the work of the parents so the parents become a means of Grace. All in the Covenant are in Christ and not merely those that have a saving faith that is a gift of God to the elect alone. Thus, messed up parenting = shipwrecked childhood faith. They want to account for the consequences of poor parenting in a way that goes beyond means of parenting and down to the here and now so that God's election becomes dependent upon the success/failure of the parent (or by extension the Church) to train a child in the way he/she should go. The adult and the child are in the same Covenant and everyone participates in the same way to include the Sacraments so that when a child or adult apostasizes they have really lost covenant connection and identification with Christ in the same way that everyone else in the Church is connected to Christ who has remained faithful.

I don't know if that's any easier and it probably doesn't qualify as a real paragraph. When you boil it all down, these people are most concerned about their chidren. Now, to some extent, that concern seemed to start out as a valid reaction against a casual "Oh well, I guess God didn't elect my kids" that characterizes many Reformed households who neglect catechism and real training of their children. We really ought to be able to guage a man's fitness for leadership by looking at the state of his home and many Churches have taken an un-Biblical attitude that "...Johnny must not be elect...."

Nevertheless, the cure is just as poisonous as the disease. It attempts to rescue the dying patient and kills him with something else.

**BobVigneault** · #19 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 08:14 AM

Summarizing the FV into a paragraph cannot be done because as soon as you think you have captured the essence then an FVer will say, "No, that's not what it is." If you list what you believe is a specific belief of the FVer, he will reply, "I would never sign off on that." The best one word description of FV teaching is CONFUSION, however the FVer will quickly add that "You are the one who has confused matters." OY!

Daniel Ritchie · #20 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Summarizing the FV into a paragraph cannot be done because as soon as you think you have captured the essence then an FVer will say, "No, that's not what it is." If you list what you believe is a specific belief of the FVer, he will reply, "I would never sign off on that." The best one word description of FV teaching is CONFUSION, however the FVer will quickly add that 'You are the one who has confused matters. OY!

In my experience of interacting with them, that is exactly what they do. But this is what heretics have done down through the ages. For instance, the RCC does not claim to believe in salvation by works, yet their doctrine of justification means that they do, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.

Thomas2007 · #21 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 10:44 AM

Federal Vision is a soteriological denial of Sola Scriptura.

**wsw201** · #22 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

So can it be refined to say that if one is a good and faithful church goer, one who partakes of the sacraments regulary, this will sort of keep them in the faith?
People outside of the church are not saved and the fate of wayward members may be in question, but those who have the means of grace exhibited towards them are in good standing with God and the church and are thus secured?

Just thinking.

Sort of... in the FV view, in order to retain the benefits of salvation that a person is endowed with at
baptism, one must continue to live a life of faithful obedience, (which includes participation in
the sacraments) to the end, or else lose those benefits. It is said quite clearly (and ALMOST in
so many words) that you enter covenant by grace, and stay in it by works.

There is one caveate! One can never be sure that they have the gift of perseverance. So you can be as faithful as you want and when you get to heaven you suddenly find out that though you have been effectually called, justified, adopted, and sanctified you won't be glorified because perseverance was not apart of the deal.

DTK · #23 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

It sounds sort of like Catholicism, in that there is baptismal regeneration and being a member of the church and participating in the sacriments saves. It falls just short of universalism but in a way it is, if you are a part of the church. It is universalism within the church.

Indeed it does, for the tendency of FV adherents is to replace soteriology with ecclesiology, while acknowledging little or no distinction between the visible/invisible church. Like Romanists, they do not like the visible/invisible church distinction, because for them, ecclesiology is a replacement for soteriology.

DTK