Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by Jeremy Ivens, Jan 2, 2016.
Did you just come up with that? It's brilliant! I'm saving that quote!
No; I can't take credit except for the paraphrasing of Durham from the MS sermon of his I'm working on. You can see a lot of his thinking that would go into his treatise on Scandal in this sermon delivered before the Glasgow synod in 1652 as the protester resolutioner fiasco was beginning.
I'll see if I can edit Durham enough to post his comment.
Can you get Durham to join the board so he can weigh in?!
I wish; I think he is eternally engaged in other things now.
Thanks for locating this, Tyler! I had forgotten about this series answering the polemic launched against the Can RC. Here we see preserved at least some of the original source translation work upon which the differentiated covenant membership was posited:
Then Rev. DeJong continues with his own observation, citing a separate Schilder work:
Would be interesting to see whether someone has undertaken a translation of the full work/article in De Reformatie cited by DeJong, as it looks to provide further elucidation of the distinction Schilder made.
It is interesting to see the way that Schilder's thought and that of the FV folks complement one another in De Jong's view:
Yes, very interesting, Tyler.
He views some of the FV folks (Barach and Shepherd) as being directly influenced by Schilder and other "Liberated" theologians, whereas he doesn't see the other FV folks as having been influenced by them directly (albeit indirectly through shepherd), but they all end up emphasizing the same things, regardless of their influences.
I don't see John Milbank as being an influence on FV. Sure, Leithart did his D.Phil under Milbank, but that was more on social theory (Yes, it was on baptism but it wasn't the same views that get FV people in trouble). Wilson openly despises Milbank