Federal Vision and Roman Catholicism

ColdSilverMoon · #1 (**permalink**) 02-22-2009, 08:56 PM

It is obvious to anyone who understands even a small amount of Reformed theology and is the least bit familiar with the Federal Vision that the latter is very close to (if not indistinguishable from) Roman Catholic beliefs regarding election, assurance, and in many ways justification. I'm not an *expert* on FV by any means, but do its proponents have anything to say about these similarities? Do they deny them in any way? It seems many of the proponents of the FV tout it as being super-Confessional or extra-Reformed, yet it is obvious the exact opposite is true. Is this brought up in discourse with FV proponents at all, either in theological debate or in the disciplinary hearings conducted by PCA presbyteries?

In my reading on here and other places the FV ties to RC theology are mentioned in passing, but never seem to be addressed in depth...

Knoxienne · #2 (**permalink**) 02-22-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

It is obvious to anyone who understands even a small amount of Reformed theology and is the least bit familiar with the Federal Vision that the latter is very close to (if not indistinguishable from) Roman Catholic beliefs regarding election, assurance, and in many ways justification. I'm not an *expert* on FV by any means, but do its proponents have anything to say about these similarities? Do they deny them in any way? It seems many of the proponents of the FV tout it as being super-Confessional or extra-Reformed, yet it is obvious the exact opposite is true. Is this brought up in discourse with FV proponents at all, either in theological debate or in the disciplinary hearings conducted by PCA presbyteries?

In my reading on here and other places the FV ties to RC theology are mentioned in passing, but never seem to be addressed in depth...

Brian Schwertley has several Anti-Auburn Ave/FV messages on Sermon Audio where he goes into depth comparing FV with RC. Super meaty and informative! Schwertley used to be Roman Catholic and knows the religion backward and forward.

A.J. · #3 (**permalink**) 02-22-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knoxienne

Brian Schwertley has several Anti-Auburn Ave/FV messages on Sermon Audio where he goes into depth comparing FV with RC. Super meaty and informative! Schwertley used to be Roman Catholic and knows the religion backward and forward.

His articles on the subject may be found here: Defending the Faith.

KS_Presby · #4 (**permalink**) 03-14-2009, 09:23 PM

I don't know if this helps but several avid Catholic apologists were students at WTS during the Shepherd controversy. Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, and Gerry Matatics to name the ones that come to mind. I know former students of Scott Hahn at FUS who, at least in the 1990s, recall Hahn using and being highly influenced by NT Wright. About ten years ago, I spoke briefly to Bob Sungenis at a conference here in Wichita about Hahn's use of Wright and Sungenis thought that Hahn needed to "let Wright go" as Wright employed "forensic justification". How is that for a bag of confusion?

E Nomine · #5 (**permalink**) 03-19-2009, 11:21 AM

It's challenging linking RC & FV because, while the Catholics are very consistent and forthcoming with their beliefs (e.g. their cathecism and the magisterium), FV proponents are very slippery and divers.

Knoxienne · #6 (**permalink**) 03-19-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Nomine

It's challenging linking RC & FV because, while the Catholics are very consistent and forthcoming with their beliefs (e.g. their cathecism and the magisterium), FV proponents are very slippery and divers.

Very true. I remember when Joe Morecraft came out against the 2002 Auburn Ave conference and was accusing them of heresy. I had listened to these men for so long and got so much out of their messages and books, and I was hurt and angry to hear someone say their teachings were heretical. But then Bill and I did some more studying and research on what the FVs were saying, vs. others. I praise God every day that the Lord opened my eyes to what was really going on with that teaching, because even today you cannot convince so many folks that FV is wrong, wrong, wrong.

**armourbearer** · #7 (**permalink**) 03-19-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

It is obvious to anyone who understands even a small amount of Reformed theology and is the least bit familiar with the Federal Vision that the latter is very close to (if not indistinguishable from) Roman Catholic beliefs regarding election, assurance, and in many ways justification.

I don't imagine this can be substantiated in the slightest.

***greenbaggins*** · #8 (**permalink**) 03-20-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

It is obvious to anyone who understands even a small amount of Reformed theology and is the least bit familiar with the Federal Vision that the latter is very close to (if not indistinguishable from) Roman Catholic beliefs regarding election, assurance, and in many ways justification.

I don't imagine this can be substantiated in the slightest.

Certainly not in terms of a paper trail. Many FV advocates loudly denounce any who suggest that there is the slightest connection. However, looking at the actual doctrine itself, one can see certain similarities. And there are at least two individuals now in the Catholic faith that claim the FV led them to it: Taylor Marshall and Matt Yonke (though the link to Yonke's article no longer exists).

ColdSilverMoon · #9 (**permalink**) 03-20-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

It is obvious to anyone who understands even a small amount of Reformed theology and is the least bit familiar with the Federal Vision that the latter is very close to (if not indistinguishable from) Roman Catholic beliefs regarding election, assurance, and in many ways justification.

I don't imagine this can be substantiated in the slightest.

Certainly not in terms of a paper trail. Many FV advocates loudly denounce any who suggest that there is the slightest connection. However, looking at the actual doctrine itself, one can see certain similarities. And there are at least two individuals now in the Catholic faith that claim the FV led them to it: Taylor Marshall and Matt Yonke (though the link to Yonke's article no longer exists).

Yes, I wasn't trying to draw a formal link between FV and Roman Catholicism, but the closeness in belief is apparent. Since I originally started this thread a month ago I have found numerous articles and blog demonstrating the similarity between the two. I think Dr. Clark's statement on his blog summarizes it best:

Quote:

“Here’s a gift and here’s what you have to do to keep it” isn’t good news for sinners who cannot do “their part,” not even with the help of grace. If “grace and cooperation with grace” is such good news, why not skip the FV and simply become Roman Catholic? Honestly? That’s been the consistent Roman doctrine since the early middle ages. It’s been the official Roman doctrine since the session 6 of the Council of Trent.

TimV · #10 (**permalink**) 03-20-2009, 10:10 AM

Didn't Horton or someone draw a comparison to the FV and Abelard's teachings?

***Semper Fidelis*** · #11 (**permalink**) 03-20-2009, 10:48 AM

I think it's probably fairer to group FV with semi-Pelagian understandings of faith as faithfulness vice trying to simply equate FV with Roman Catholicism. There are similarities between FV, Arminianism, and Roman Catholicism on this point but they all approach it from a different angle and diverge widely in actual practice.

In other words, one of the things that these beliefs share is that our faith is a form of righteousness. It's much more developed in Roman Catholicism where grace is associated with a sacerdotal system and man must cooperate with the grace infused by visible and physical sacraments dispensed by the One Church. In Arminianism, God gives grace evenly to all men and men must cooperate with it and add their faith, which becomes the basis for justification. In the FV, the Sacraments unite a person to Christ and faithfulness keeps one united to Christ as long as they remain in the Covenant.

In all instances, the true nature of Evangelical faith and its connection with Sovereign election is obscured but I'm not comfortable with simply equating Roman Catholicism with the FV. It's not because I have any love loss for the FV, per se, but I think it just confuses the real issues. Lets draw the appropriate similarities where they exist but let's not overstate the critique.

**armourbearer** · #12 (**permalink**) 03-20-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Yes, I wasn't trying to draw a formal link between FV and Roman Catholicism, but the closeness in belief is apparent. Since I originally started this thread a month ago I have found numerous articles and blog demonstrating the similarity between the two. I think Dr. Clark's statement on his blog summarizes it best:

Quote:

“Here’s a gift and here’s what you have to do to keep it” isn’t good news for sinners who cannot do “their part,” not even with the help of grace. If “grace and cooperation with grace” is such good news, why not skip the FV and simply become Roman Catholic? Honestly? That’s been the consistent Roman doctrine since the early middle ages. It’s been the official Roman doctrine since the session 6 of the Council of Trent.

I don't see any virtue in attacking the Romish view of works by denying the Protestant view of it.