 » Site Navigation | | | | » Online Users: 61 | | 18 members and 43 guests | | Brad, ccnwashdc@hotmail.com, Ex Nihilo, Honor, InevitablyReformed, Me Died Blue, Puritan Sailor, Reformingstudent, satz, Simply_Nikki, Solus Christus, Theoretical, TimV | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
12-02-2007, 10:22 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Colorado Springs, CO - a little piece of heaven on earth!
Posts: 894
Thanks: 167
Thanked 170 Times in 82 Posts
| | | Objection to the use of "Federal"
Greetings: 
They call themselves "Federal Visionists" but there is nothing specifically Covenantal or "Federal" about their position. That some of them hold to paedo-communion is a hyper-federal view. They have taken the good name of "Federal" and have perverted it to hide their errors.
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.
Blessings on this Lord's Day,
-CH
__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.
Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
B.B. Warfield's definition of Theological Students: "Angels preparing to sound the Trumpets."
| | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CalvinandHodges For This Useful Post: | |
12-03-2007, 02:21 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,026
Thanks: 933
Thanked 272 Times in 180 Posts
| | |
Great observation. They certainly are not federal. How did this term "federal vision" originate? I like the term John Robbins uses, "neolegalism." Perhaps hyper-covenantalism is a good term also.
__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia :cheers:
|
12-03-2007, 04:34 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 8,046
Thanks: 898
Thanked 846 Times in 533 Posts
| | |
The original FVists chose it for the title of their book of lectures, didn't they?
| | The Following User Says Thank You to NaphtaliPress For This Useful Post: | |
12-03-2007, 04:45 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress  The original FVists chose it for the title of their book of lectures, didn't they? | Is there not the collection of essays not a collection of essays (which they contributed to) called The Federal Vision: Pros and Cons.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|
12-03-2007, 04:46 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges Greetings:
They call themselves "Federal Visionists" but there is nothing specifically Covenantal or "Federal" about their position. That some of them hold to paedo-communion is a hyper-federal view. They have taken the good name of "Federal" and have perverted it to hide their errors.
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.
Blessings on this Lord's Day,
-CH | You could refer to it as the "Auburn Avenue Theology" which Doug Wilson seems happy enough with.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|
12-03-2007, 05:48 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 4,780
Thanks: 1,753
Thanked 405 Times in 241 Posts
| | |
Next thing you know they will call it "Consistent Confessional Vision"
|
12-03-2007, 05:58 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.
Blessings on this Lord's Day,
-CH
| New Perspective and FV are more like "kissing cousins" than identical theologies. It isn't really accurate to label FV as New Perspective. Now, if you wanted to be more specific, you could say "New Perspective on Reformed Covenantal Thought."
But NPP has different tenets and emphases than FV. Of course, there are no logical contradictions between the two and the adherent of FV could easily adhere to NPP, but they are not identical. The developed (at least at first) independently of one another. In fact, Doug Wilson has about 70 blog posts critiquing aspects of NPP. Now, whether they are really critiques of substance is beside the point. The point is that if they were identical, then he would be critiquing himself!
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Ivanhoe For This Useful Post: | |
12-03-2007, 08:22 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Virgnia
Posts: 12,430
Thanks: 1,091
Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,190 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.
Blessings on this Lord's Day,
-CH
| New Perspective and FV are more like "kissing cousins" than identical theologies. It isn't really accurate to label FV as New Perspective. Now, if you wanted to be more specific, you could say "New Perspective on Reformed Covenantal Thought."
But NPP has different tenets and emphases than FV. Of course, there are no logical contradictions between the two and the adherent of FV could easily adhere to NPP, but they are not identical. The developed (at least at first) independently of one another. In fact, Doug Wilson has about 70 blog posts critiquing aspects of NPP. Now, whether they are really critiques of substance is beside the point. The point is that if they were identical, then he would be critiquing himself! | 1. I agree that FV and NPP are not identical, nor are the movements monolithic.
2. I'm not sure about the last point though. It's kind of funny reading Van Til's New Modernism where he opens a double barrelled machine gun at Barth and Brunner and his basic conclusion is that they're much closer than either would want to admit. Sometimes there are formal differences that cause deep divisions between folks that have substantive agreements. It's part of the reason, incidentally, why some in the FV end up in Rome.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post: | |
12-03-2007, 09:04 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges
I object, therefore, to the use of the term "Federal Vision" in reference to these errorists. The term "New Perspective" is more apt.
Blessings on this Lord's Day,
-CH
| New Perspective and FV are more like "kissing cousins" than identical theologies. It isn't really accurate to label FV as New Perspective. Now, if you wanted to be more specific, you could say "New Perspective on Reformed Covenantal Thought."
But NPP has different tenets and emphases than FV. Of course, there are no logical contradictions between the two and the adherent of FV could easily adhere to NPP, but they are not identical. The developed (at least at first) independently of one another. In fact, Doug Wilson has about 70 blog posts critiquing aspects of NPP. Now, whether they are really critiques of substance is beside the point. The point is that if they were identical, then he would be critiquing himself! | 1. I agree that FV and NPP are not identical, nor are the movements monolithic.
2. I'm not sure about the last point though. It's kind of funny reading Van Til's New Modernism where he opens a double barrelled machine gun at Barth and Brunner and his basic conclusion is that they're much closer than either would want to admit. Sometimes there are formal differences that cause deep divisions between folks that have substantive agreements. It's part of the reason, incidentally, why some in the FV end up in Rome. | Agreed.
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
| |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
|
