Pastor Greco, thank you for your take on the contrary I do find the colloquium at Knox Seminary very helpful and I am thankful for the contribution of those who were contra to the FV position. On the issue of the republication of the covenant of works goes I disagree with your assertion. Contrary to modern opinion; the Republication theory as some have so called this doctrine was not invented in lab back in 1979 by Meredith Kline with some help of some Lutherans, Antinomians, and Quasi Liberals. In fact republication was part of the doctrine of Thomas Boston (R. Scott Clark “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” pg 64 n. 82), Charles and A.A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Samuel Rutherford, Francis Tertian, James Buchanan, John Owen, John Calquhoun (Treatise on the Law and Gospel), J Gresham Machen, Louis Berkhof and many others. I believe if I am told correctly that Chad Van Dixhoorn’s work is bringing home the bacon so to say as documenting that the Westminster Divines mostly held to republication and that republication is the official position of the confession. The shift away from republication is novel invention that is only 60 some odd years old starting with John Murray’s great tenure at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. (Please see Introduction essay and Brenton Ferry’s essay and also T. David Gordon’s essay in “The Law is Not of Faith” ed. by Brian Estelle, John Fesko, and David VanDrunen pages 1-22 & 70-105 & 240-259). I’ll stop at this point and wait for your reply.

To Todd and Semper Fidelis,
So to not broad brush Theonomists since many have different differing versions of theonomy ranging from whatever each individual thinks theonomy is. It would be unfair and in accurate for me to pin down any particular author or version of theonomy and apply it to all since there is no central official teaching of theonomy. I would have to go from individual to individual and apply my polemics individually. With that being said I believe that in this forum that I am free to hitch my wagon so to say on a leading reformed scholar’s findings. My question to you guys is this: If theonomy had nothing to do with FV if I believe that is what you are saying. Why does Guy Waters in his well researched and insightful accurate book; The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology; why does Guy Waters make a connection between Theonomy and FV in pages 296-298? As Guy Waters outs it. “We have seen that the hermeneutic employed by many FV proponents resonates with theonomic conceptions of covenantal continuity” (Page 296). If Guy Waters can see the connection between Theonomy and FV then why can’t you? I am not saying and neither is Guy P Waters, that all Theonomist are FVists, there are some theonomists that are against FV and praise the Lord for that we welcome your opposition to this pernicious error. Second if theonomy is the great enemy of FV then where are the great works against FV written by theonomist? Finally if Theonomy is 100% in line with and the official position the confession then why do leading well studied academic historical theological theologians and scholars call into question with all due diligence the legitimacy of theonomy as being confessional? (I am referring to R. Scott Clark’s book; Recovering the Reformed Confessions page 61-69?) BTW this is another book and scholar and big Christian brother I am hitching my wagon on.

__________________
Jason Rivera
Member
Covenant OPC Berkeley, CA
Romans 4:5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Who said there's no connection or common threads?

Again, who said there isn't one?

Who said anything about theonomy being the great enemy of FV?

Who said that Theonomy was 100% in line with the WCF?

You're attributing LOTS of things to people who haven't said them. That's bearing false witness. Please be more careful with your claims and insinuations (and tone). Perhaps you're unaware of it, but your tone is quite insulting.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

In the interests of putting rumors to rest. 1. Per Rutherford. In Mike Brown’s piece in The Confessional Presbyterian journal last year, he cites Rutherford contrary to Goodwin and Owen. "Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), a Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, said, 'the law as pressed upon Israel was not a covenant of works,'" The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh, 1655) 60. CPJ 4, p. 157.
2. Per Chad Van Dixhoorn. I've worked with Chad, who has been very generous in his support of my squibs on things Westminster; I contacted him when I read the below as I thought it sounded strange (he's very stringent on requirements for proving intent of Westminster). He tells me he has no idea how he got enlisted for republication advocacy research. He does grant the position was held by some assembly members. But he is not working on the subject and is not remotely championing that the Westminster Assembly held any formal position on republication.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

bump.

You mean I knew what I was talking about?

Any chance of a retraction?

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)