A Joint Federal Vision Statement - July 2007

Civbert · #1 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 01:15 PM

A Joint Federal Vision Statement (PDF)
The following is the opening statement:

Quote:

Many of us who have signed this statement are also confessionally bound to the Three Forms of Unity or to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The following brief statement therefore should be understood as being in harmony with those other confessional commitments, a supplement to them, and not an example of generating another system of doctrine. In any place where statements here would constitute an exception to whatever confessional standards we are under, they are exceptions that have been noted and approved by our respective presbyteries or classes. We have sought to maintain an eagerness to submit our teaching to our respective presbyteries for their evaluation, and see this statement as consistent with that desire.

In addition, in the books, articles and websites that are part of the broader Federal Vision discussion, there are many issues being discussed and distinctive positions held that are not addressed below. We have limited ourselves here to those issues that have been a significant part of recent controversy, or which, in our view, have silently contributed to it.

This statement represents the views of those who drafted it, contributed to it, and signed it. It should not be taken as a confessional statement by any ecclesiastical assembly or body, particularly the CREC. There are things stated here which do not represent the views of the CREC as a whole, or of certain CREC ministers in particular. The CREC is not an FV denomination, but is rather a confederation which welcomes convictions like these as being “within the Reformed pale.” This statement therefore represents the views of the CREC men who signed it, and it represents what CREC men who could not sign it believe to be within the realm of acceptable differences. It should further be noted that not all the signatures are from the CREC.

On the other side, there are many people who should be considered as full and friendly participants in the Federal Vision “conversation” who cannot sign this statement (even though they might want to) because of one or two issues—paedocommunion, say, or postmillennialism. This statement is not drawing the borders of our fellowship, and it certainly does not represent any club from which we are trying to exclude people.

We offer this statement in good faith, and we pray that it will do some good in promoting unity in the broader Church. At the same time, we recognize that some of our differences with our brothers in Christ are “sub-systematic” and may not be obvious on the surface, on the level of systematic theology—what one writer described as looking like the “same theology, different religion.”

We have no desire to present a “moving target,” but we do want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to refine our formulations as critics point out ambiguties, confusions, or errors. We therefore ask others to accept that the following represents our honest convictions at this stage of the conversation. This statement is therefore not an attempt at evasion or trickery, but simply represents a desire to be as clear as we can be, given our circumstances.
...

It was signed by:

John Barach (minister, CREC)
Randy Booth (minister, CREC)
Tim Gallant (minister, CREC)
Mark Horne (minister, PCA)
Jim Jordan (minister, teacher at large)
Peter Leithart (minister, PCA)
Rich Lusk (minister, CREC)
Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA)
Ralph Smith (minister, CREC)
Steve Wilkins (minister, PCA)
Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC)

Lot's of interesting things that one can comment about.

wsw201 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 01:18 PM

I read this a couple of days ago. Same old tired song.

Poimen · #3 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 01:23 PM

I asked this question elsewhere but I will ask here too:

Is Jordan under the authority of any ecclesiastical body?

wsw201 · #4 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 01:26 PM

He belongs to a micro-denomination. I think its about two or three churches.

LadyFlynt · #5 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 01:31 PM

Let's not start picking on micros...there are good reasons for some.

Poimen · #6 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

He belongs to a micro-denomination. I think its about two or three churches.

Which one? I find it curious that the document did not mention it.

wsw201 · #7 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 01:46 PM

Daniel,

Its Providence National Presbytery and its 3 churches.

JohnV · #8 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 02:01 PM

I would like to see this statement explained more carefully:

Quote:

In any place where statements here would constitute an exception to whatever confessional standards we are under, they are exceptions that have been noted and approved by our respective presbyteries or classes.

Poimen · #9 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

Daniel,

Its Providence National Presbytery and its 3 churches.

Thanks Wayne. In case anyone is interested they have a website:

http://www.providencepresbytery.org/

Southern Presbyterian · #10 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

A Joint Federal Vision Statement (PDF)
The following is the opening statement:

It was signed by:

John Barach (minister, CREC)
Randy Booth (minister, CREC)
Tim Gallant (minister, CREC)
Mark Horne (minister, PCA)
Jim Jordan (minister, teacher at large)
Peter Leithart (minister, PCA)
Rich Lusk (minister, CREC)
Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA)
Ralph Smith (minister, CREC)
Steve Wilkins (minister, PCA)
Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC)

To quote a favorite cartoon commentator, "Blah, blah, blah... yackity smackity."

It's the same "song" different verse.

I've manitained all along that most of their print and internet material puts me in mind of the throne room scene in Wizard of Oz. Lots of sound and pyrotechnics but no substance and all the while they are saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" or "Watch while we dazzle you with fancy words and humor, but don't pay attention to the what we really teach."

py3ak · #11 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 08:12 PM

Actually, this document raises at least one interesting question, already raised by T.E. Wilder on Lane's blog.

Quote:

We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding.
We deny that a mere formal adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to keep the very common polytheistic and unitarian temptations of unbelieving thought at bay.

This says basically three things.
1. The Trinity is the model for all covenant relations.
2. Theology must be Trinitarian.
3. The Trinitarianism of theology must be lived, practised.

I suppose that most of us would not have any difficulty with 2 or 3: Paul and Peter seem to have and use Trinitarian theology.
But what about point number 1?

armourbearer · #12 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

But what about point number 1?

Covenant is an agreement between two parties. The "unity" of the three is more than mere agreement. Traditionally it is described as numeric, or consubstantiality. It is better to refer to "covenant" as the means which the Triune God has employed in order to make His elect partakers in His own blessed life and glory. To suggest that "covenant" in any sense describes the essential unity of the Godhead is un-Trinitarian.

py3ak · #13 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 08:45 PM

Let me see if I understand the critique. The Trinitarian relations are not constituted by a covenant: they are ontological.

Would this statement pose any difficulties for the covenant of redemption?

Quote:

Covenant is an agreement between two parties. The "unity" of the three is more than mere agreement. Traditionally it is described as numeric, or consubstantiality. It is better to refer to "covenant" as the means which the Triune God has employed in order to make His elect partakers in His own blessed life and glory. To suggest that "covenant" in any sense describes the essential unity of the Godhead is un-Trinitarian.

armourbearer · #14 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Would this statement pose any difficulties for the covenant of redemption?

No, because one refers to the life of God in Himself, and the other to God's intention re. the elect.

py3ak · #15 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007, 11:54 PM

Very good, thank you.

Now in the FV statement they do remark that their views should not be taken as being contrary to the 3FU or Westminster Standards. But their statement on the Trinity doesn't seem to mesh neatly, does it? Am I missing something?

tewilder · #16 (**permalink**) 08-01-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Very good, thank you.

Now in the FV statement they do remark that their views should not be taken as being contrary to the 3FU or Westminster Standards. But their statement on the Trinity doesn't seem to mesh neatly, does it? Am I missing something?

Well, three things:

1) Leithart has talked about a relational theology in which essences are ends, not being. Also his post-modernist Against Christianity contributes to the impression that he cannot consistently hold to a Nicene/Chalcedonian theology.

2) Ralph Smith brought out three books on the Trinity, which have been critiqued by various people, notably by Rick Phillips. There the Trinity is a covenant relationship. It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond. Also, the FV anthopology says that man is created to participate in this covenant bond, so I sounds like man is part of God, too. Now the FV people deny that this is what the mean, but at the same time they seem unable to say what it is they mean. I think that unless people can show the consistency of doctrines such as these with the Nicene/Chalcedonian theology, they should not be allowed to teach their speculations under the label of orthodoxy. It they claim that this is forcing them into some "hyper technical" "scholastic" mold, then we say, "You are not part of Western Christian orthodoxy, let alone Reformed."

3) Jeff Meyers has a ritual Trinity. God in his view is an eternal mutual sacrifice of three persons. (See Leithart's essays on this at the Biblical Horizons website, for example.) Man is the image of God and thus homo sacrificans and therefore sacrificial ritual, priesthood etc. is more basic than the sin/redemption cycle in Scripture, and the Aaronic priesthood, the New Testament sacraments, etc. and even the work of Christ are to be understood first in regard to this fundamental ritualism, and only secondly with regard to sin/salvation. This ritualism follows the symbol system build into creation (following the "insights" of Meredith Kline).

What does this imply? First, I am not at all sure that 1, 2 and 3 are even compatible with each other. Second, it seems to be an altogether different theology from the Nicene/Chalcedonian and what is in every dogmatics book. Secondly, the FV do not seem to be disposed to make an effort to explain how all these things can go together. Third, certain critics of the FV, who are fond of Covenant Renewal ritualism prefer to pretend that the problem of point 3 does not exist.

Gryphonette · #17 (**permalink**) 08-01-2007, 11:39 AM

I have a real problem with the whole covenant-within/between-the-Trinity theory, and this statement neatly summarizes it: "It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond."

ISTM the trouble arises when a covenant is viewed as existing between persons instead of beings. The LORD is a Trinitarian being while people are mono-beings. Three Persons/One Being vs. One Person/One Being.

A covenant is intended to establish a relationship between two beings, I'm thinking. The whole reason a covenant exists is because there was originally a disconnect between two beings and a covenant establishes a connection between them.

If this is so then there can surely be no covenant within/between the Trinity as a disconnect never existed between them.

fredtgreco · #18 (**permalink**) 08-01-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

I have a real problem with the whole covenant-within/between-the-Trinity theory, and this statement neatly summarizes it: "It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond."

ISTM the trouble arises when a covenant is viewed as existing between persons instead of beings. The LORD is a Trinitarian being while people are mono-beings. Three Persons/One Being vs. One Person/One Being.

A covenant is intended to establish a relationship between two beings, I'm thinking. The whole reason a covenant exists is because there was originally a disconnect between two beings and a covenant establishes a connection between them.

If this is so then there can surely be no covenant within/between the Trinity as a disconnect never existed between them.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The covenant of redemption is a intra-Trinitarian covenant. But it is an economical (i.e. purposeful) covenant, not a ontological covenant (as Smith implies exists in the Trinity).

toddpedlar · #19 (**permalink**) 08-01-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

I have a real problem with the whole covenant-within/between-the-Trinity theory, and this statement neatly summarizes it: "It sounds like polytheism. Three gods sharing a family bond."

ISTM the trouble arises when a covenant is viewed as existing between persons instead of beings. The LORD is a Trinitarian being while people are mono-beings. Three Persons/One Being vs. One Person/One Being.

A covenant is intended to establish a relationship between two beings, I'm thinking. The whole reason a covenant exists is because there was originally a disconnect between two beings and a covenant establishes a connection between them.

If this is so then there can surely be no covenant within/between the Trinity as a disconnect never existed between them.

I disagree with your premise, namely that there need be a disconnect between the persons involved in a covenant, and that covenants can only take place between "beings". Part of the problem here is that we have no knowledge (apart from God Himself) of a distinction of persons that is not a distinction of beings. In the Trinity, we have the personal distinction without a "being" distinction, and the Triune God is thus unique.

To posit that separate BEINGS is needed for a covenant isn't warranted, I think.

If that objection goes by the wayside, then we still need to deal with the other premise with which I disagree - that there must needs be a disconnect.

Adam was created in perfect harmony with God. There was no disconnect to repair, no breach to resolve. The covenant of life with Adam was in place between two already-in-harmony persons. We think of covenants in terms of being a breach-repairer because we are so attuned to thinking in terms of the covenant of Grace - but the covenant of life (and the covenant of redemption) need not be thought of in the same terms at all.

Just a couple of cents out of the pot,

Todd