Another FVist goes Papist

Status
Not open for further replies.
On a practical point, comparing salvation via FV versus RC, I would go with RC any day. You may have to burn off sins in purgatory for a few thousand years (unless you have some nice relatives who can pitch in a few bucks to shorten your stay), but as long as you haven't committed a mortal sin, you will get to heaven!

With FV you can delude yourself into thinking that you have been the most faithful covenant keeper the church has ever known and when it comes the final judgment and your "final Justification" you all the sudden find out that you got short changed by the Holy Spirit and didn't get the gift of perserverance. Next stop? Lake of Fire!!


You don't know many Catholics have said, "if I can just make it purgatory....." ;)
 
And what is the response by a key Federal Visionist regarding those who are apostatizing due to Federal Vision teachings...

James Jordan comments on this in "Biblical Horizons" No.197, August 2007 edition...

"And it does not help, of course when unstable young men, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, drift through the Federal Vision Conversation and then move on to Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or Ango-Catholicism. But that cannot be helped. It is the risk we take for being Biblical and open to the future." (emphasis mine)

The last two sentences are perhaps the most utterly audacious statements I had read throughout my journey through this controversy. I say perhaps because a paragraph after the one above above he has the audacity to say...

"The Calvinistic churches are little more than extensions of the academy. The black robe is the robe of the scholar, not the angelic white robe of a worship leader. The heart of the meeting is the long lecture-sermon. Candles? No! Colored paraments on table and pulpit? No! Flowers? Maybe. The darkets part of the room is the center where the dark wood table and the dark wood massive pulpit and the black-robed preacher are. It is like looking into hell itself."

For all the 'boo hoo hoo, people are not treating us with love' from the Federal Visionists, one would think they would take some responsibility for heir own actions and speak with more love and grace.
 
Last edited:
I can't link the site from this computer. What is his name?

Matt Yonke

* Age: 27
* Gender: Male
* Astrological Sign: Leo
* Zodiac Year: Monkey
* Industry: Construction
* Occupation: Electrician
* Location: Wheaton : Illinois : United States
A former member of my congregation; they left this past Summer. Please remember Matt and his new wife in your prayers. :pray2:
 
And what is the response by a key Federal Visionist regarding those who are apostatizing due to Federal Vision teachings...

James Jordan comments on this in "Biblical Horizons" No.197, August 2007 edition...

"And it does not help, of course when unstable young men, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, drift through the Federal Vision Conversation and then move on to Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or Ango-Catholicism. But that cannot be helped. It is the risk we take for being Biblical and open to the future."
That's disturbing.

I thought I'd search for this so I could read the whole article. I haven't read it through yet, but came across this as I was skimming:
What we have found, however, is a Biblophobic hostility toward any attempt to deal Biblically with the Bible. If the Westminster Confession defines “election,” for its purposes, as “elect to glory,” then we are not allowed to point out that in the Bible “election” is usually used in the sense of chosen to office, chosen for mission, or chosen to be baptized into the church.​
Biblophobic? I know this is a serious debate, and I try to maintain a serious attitude, but things like this (forgive me) make me chuckle. Biblophobic?
 
And what is the response by a key Federal Visionist regarding those who are apostatizing due to Federal Vision teachings...

James Jordan comments on this in "Biblical Horizons" No.197, August 2007 edition...

"And it does not help, of course when unstable young men, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, drift through the Federal Vision Conversation and then move on to Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or Ango-Catholicism. But that cannot be helped. It is the risk we take for being Biblical and open to the future."
That's disturbing.

I thought I'd search for this so I could read the whole article. I haven't read it through yet, but came across this as I was skimming:
What we have found, however, is a Biblophobic hostility toward any attempt to deal Biblically with the Bible. If the Westminster Confession defines “election,” for its purposes, as “elect to glory,” then we are not allowed to point out that in the Bible “election” is usually used in the sense of chosen to office, chosen for mission, or chosen to be baptized into the church.​
Biblophobic? I know this is a serious debate, and I try to maintain a serious attitude, but things like this (forgive me) make me chuckle. Biblophobic?


That's the exact point I would make to Jordan. What Jordan describes is the Catholic view of "election." The guy is just not Reformed nor Calvinist. If he doesn't want to be...then fine. You don't have to call yourself a Roman Catholic just stop calling yourself a Calvinist. Nobody has the courage to leave a movement or group anymore. It's all about asserting the will in place you are not welcome. When I was Catholic I got so mad at people who claimed to be Catholic yet rejected most all Catholic dogma. Mush-mouthed post-modernism I guess... Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
 
This taken from the article:

Homesick No More
Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. - Jeremiah 6:16
Monday, August 27, 2007
On How The Federal Vision Made Me Catholic

So there's much hubbub lately about the Federal Vision controversy. The conservative reformed world is fast becoming a house divided against itself over the issues of the reality of the sacraments and what they confer upon the recipient and the real possibility of apostasy.

Having been myself a member of both a Federal Vision community (lo, I am a pharisee of pharisees coming from Christ Church itself, the very Mecca of the FV movement) and a non-FV reformed community (OPC to be precise) and now a communing Catholic (in that order) I have thought about the question a fair bit. I still keep up on the matter, though through a glass dimly, mostly because the ideas of the preachers of the FV movement were largely the ideas that lead me to be accepted into the Catholic Church.




It appears he has proved out to be a Hebrew 6 and 10 apostate. What an abominable doctrine FV is.
:( Very sad indeed! We are in the last days, Matthew 24:24. :think:
 
Free Greg Bahnsen message anticipating this very subject.

Download the "Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified"

Funny, you just linked to a pro-FV site.

Bahnsen's message stands or falls regardless of said site. And listen to the message: he slams any kind of reunion with Rome. Almost brutal. Makes PB look soft.

I just listened to this message. Great message. I am thinking about starting a thread of this nature but I am not sure how I want to frame the issue yet. I need to give it some thought and prayer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top