The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > Theology > Federal Vision/New Perspectives

Federal Vision/New Perspectives Discussion of the various innovations regarding justification (New Perspective on Paul, Federal Vision, Shepherdism)

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-02-2007, 10:22 AM
CalvinandHodges's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,365
Thanks: 384
Thanked 410 Times in 180 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
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CalvinandHodges For This Useful Post:
Josiah (12-03-2007), KMK (12-03-2007), Stephen (12-03-2007)
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:21 PM
Stephen's Avatar
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:
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 04:34 PM
NaphtaliPress's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 12,501
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 1,589
Thanked 2,012 Times in 1,112 Posts
The original FVists chose it for the title of their book of lectures, didn't they?
__________________
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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to NaphtaliPress For This Useful Post:
CalvinandHodges (12-06-2007)
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 04:45 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress View Post
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)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 04:46 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 05:48 PM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 8,601
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 3,594
Thanked 1,317 Times in 758 Posts
Next thing you know they will call it "Consistent Confessional Vision"
__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 05:58 PM
Ivanhoe's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 9,986
Thanks: 887
Thanked 824 Times in 512 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges View Post

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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Ivanhoe For This Useful Post:
CalvinandHodges (12-06-2007)
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 08:22 PM
Semper Fidelis's Avatar
Dux Tyrranus
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern Virgnia
Posts: 17,812
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 2,442
Thanked 6,029 Times in 2,447 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges View Post

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.
__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post:
CalvinandHodges (12-06-2007)
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-03-2007, 09:04 PM
Ivanhoe's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 9,986
Thanks: 887
Thanked 824 Times in 512 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges View Post

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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69