The Federal Vision and Heresy (Mr. McMahon) - Page 2

sotzo · #41 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007, 11:35 AM

Anyone ever feel down about how the perspecuity of the Bible seems at stake by all these precise discussions? I mean, after reading through these tedious arguments about how one is made right with God, discouragement can often set in to me. The fact that one could miss being in heaven one day with Jesus because he didn't have time to sort out FV issues and may be holding to something other than the true, precise Gospel is disturbing.

I'm all for theological discussion, but the way some men have handled this issue (sadly like Doug Wilson), they write their views on these matters as if we are talking about the latest football scores. We are talking about the wrath of God being turned away from sinners which is light years more serious that even the worst imaginable cancer diagnosis!

Is the Bible's perspecuity, as far as one knows he/she is right with God, at stake by the very fact that we keep paying attention to all this, thereby, bringing some to doubt whether they can even trust that the Bible is relibale in how it lays out the way in which God redeems his people?

elnwood · #42 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Don,

Why do you keep calling Dr. McMahon out? If he wanted to answer you, he would by now.

Why do you care if Dr. McMahon considers parts of Lutheran theology to be defective or even heretical? Why do you want him to either label or not label Martin Luther himself a heretic? Calvin, for instance, showed deference to Luther by disagreeing with some things that Luther taught but didn't mention him by name out of respect.

In the end, Dr. McMahon is not a Synod or a Council to declare a man inside or outside the visible Church and he is not Christ to declare who He is/isn't in union with. As a Confessional Presbyterian, he rejects the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration as profoundly deficient. If you don't like that then take it up with the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith when you get to heaven.

Rich,

I think an author ought to clarify what he wrote. It is good for both the readers and the author who wishes to make his views clear.

It's not a matter of disagreeing with Luther's position because he and I both disagree with Luther's position on baptism. The question is whether Luther's view is heretical.

In this case, McMahon wrote what appeared to say that baptismal regeneration is a heresy. He wrote:

Quote:

The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is heresy. Reformed Theology teaches that the benefits of the covenant of grace are only efficaciously conferred by the Holy Spirit to the elect. End of story.

From his response, McMahon has said that baptismal regeneration in of itself is not heresy, but it is heretical when coupled with the FV view of justification. From what I know of his views, this is what I had thought he believed, which is why I wanted him to clarify. I don't want McMahon to be seen as believing Luther (or Lutherans) was a heretic if that is not his view.

R. Scott Clark · #43 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007, 01:11 PM

There is some reflection on Luther's view of baptism here.Luthe

Semper Fidelis · #44 (**permalink**) 06-06-2007, 03:28 PM

Fine Don. So PM him or something. If he wants to respond he will.

I also assume you know the difference between when somebody writes "Luther's view" and "the Lutheran view".

Further, this one sentence is not the sine qua non reason for the FV's error. Lutherans tend to be squishy about their theology in affirming certain things in contradiction with one another. They uphold Total Depravity on the one hand but then don't see the logical contradiction of denying limited atonement on the other.

Either way, he spoke of a single error, did not claim Luther is a heretic and, finally, he does not have to clarify what he wrote if he does not desire to.