Federal Vision Spreading To Baptists? James White & Andrew Sandlin

[psycheives]

Apologia Studios/Apologia Radio/Dr. James White/Jeff Durbin etc's 2019 Reformed Con seems to have booked both Federal Vision's Andrew Sandlin and Doug Wilson's Associate Pastor Toby Sumpter with his Cross Politic Podcast.

https://reformcon.org/

R. Scott Clark's warnings and concerns are founded: https://heidelblog.net/2019/11/just...n-of-the-federal-visionists-and-their-allies/

Ask Doug: Could a Reformed Baptist hold to The Federal Vision?

 

[Elizabeth]

When I listened to White's reply to the concerns on A/O, I was a bit troubled. Basically (to my ear) he seemed to say that these matters are simply adiaphora, and that by questioning Wilson (who White finds to be a brilliant fellow), one is simply being a 'fundamentalist'.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wilson's fake-repentance a few years ago was marketing move of sheer genius.

 

[Dachaser]

When I listened to White's reply to the concerns on A/O, I was a bit troubled. Basically (to my ear) he seemed to say that these matters are simply adiaphora, and that by questioning Wilson (who White finds to be a brilliant fellow), one is simply being a 'fundamentalist'.

isn't a fundamentalist though merely a Baptist who upholds the essentials of the Faith, which FV is not?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

You can't hold to FV and be a member of the PB so that option should not really be there so I have removed it. If this is being explained away then I'm concerned. But not sure this is any different than what is already happening or happened in the PCA.

 

[RamistThomist]

isn't a fundamentalist though merely a Baptist who upholds the essentials of the Faith, which FV is not?

"Fundamentalist" today is basically a derogatory term to mean "someone who is slightly more strict than I am."

 

[Joshua]

"Fundamentalist" today is basically a derogatory term to mean "someone who is slightly more strict than I am."

That’s just something fundamentalists say, Jacob.

 

[Elizabeth]

I should have added 'rabid' to "fundamentalist". That's how White was using the term, in my opinion.

 

[arapahoepark]

It's too bad White is rubbing elbows with them and his explanation was cheesy. That said, I doubt Apologia is close to FV the way Clark implies. Most of what I see comes down to cultural conservatism, something they do rather well while other denominations don't.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

How come there's no "Not concerned" option?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

How come there's no "Not concerned" option?

Moderating. I have now added that option in place of the pro FV option I deleted as noted above.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Not concerned.

Apologia (as Baptists) partnering with FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues is no more concerning than Apologia (as Baptists) partnering with non-FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Not concerned.

Apologia (as Baptists) partnering with FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues is no more concerning than Apologia (as Baptists) partnering with non-FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues.

Except that there is a massive difference, as Federal Visionism arguably overturns justification by faith alone.

 

[Charles Johnson]

It's hard to take Dr Clark seriously on these matters, since his articles tend to read more like a conspiracy theory web than something written by an erudite professor of theology. His bold mischaracterization of the tweet from Mr Wedgeworth alone is worth a chuckle. Mr Wedgeworth's actual viewpoint on the FV is not, as Clark incorrectly states, that the FV does not exist, but that there are at least three distinct (but related) paradigms within the FV movement. His analysis tends to be a lot more intelligent than Clark's "most things I disagree with (including Piper!) are connected to FV and all FV is basically the same."

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Except that there is a massive difference, as Federal Visionism arguably overturns justification by faith alone.

None of which has anything to do with the areas in which Apologia has partnered with certain FV leaning paedobaptists.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

None of which has anything to do with the areas in which Apologia has partnered with certain FV leaning paedobaptists.

So, partnering with people who hold dubious views on justification by faith alone does not concern you?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

So, partnering with people who hold dubious views on justification by faith alone does not concern you?

Well, James White was an elder of my church for six of the seven years I've been a member there and is also a friend of mine. He's actually also debated Doug Wilson on this topic and his point of view on this matter couldn't be more clear.

So, no. It doesn't really concern me one bit.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Here's a much better question to ask:

WHY is Apologia "partnering" with the Wilsonites? What WORK are they accomplishing? Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?

 

[Grant]

Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?

Help me out here:

1. What area?

2. What is "heavy-lifting"?

3. What is "NOT doing it"?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Well, James White was an elder of my church for six of the seven years I've been a member there and is also a friend of mine.

I have followed his work on and off for 17 years, and he actually preached at my church about 18 months ago (I could not attend for health reasons). These factors make me much more concerned that he is associating with the Wilsonites.

He's actually also debated Doug Wilson on this topic and his point of view on this matter couldn't be more clear.

Again, this factor is all the more reason to be concerned that he is wanting to give a platform to such people. Surely he must know how slippery and dangerous they are.

Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?

I recall years ago hearing people say that we should give the FVers/Wilsonites a pass because they do so much great work on the family and culture, which others were not doing. Maybe others could be doing more, but this approach is surely setting family and cultural issues above the gospel. Besides, there was a fair lot of legalism and "creative" exegesis going on in FV cultural commentary.

 

[RamistThomist]

He's actually also debated Doug Wilson on this topic and his point of view on this matter couldn't be more clear.

I listened to it when it first came out. That was more of a "Friendly disagreement" than one of White's typical debates.

 

[Dachaser]

I should have added 'rabid' to "fundamentalist". That's how White was using the term, in my opinion.

One can fault it's judgemental stance, but not it's theology regarding salvation.

 

[psycheives]

How come there's no "Not concerned" option?

There was! Chris deleted it. But now added it back w/o the original FV comment attached.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

I used to love Dr. Clark’s work but his attitude of “Everything I don’t like is Federal Vision/neonomianism!” Has put me off his work unfortunately.

The insinuation that Jeff Durbin and Dr. White are forgoing justification by Faith alone is absurd.

It’s on the level of Pulpit and Pen conspiracy theory and six degrees of Kevin Bacon guilt by association in my opinion.

Why are people gravitating toward Wilson, Durbin, and co’s method of cultural engagement? Honestly in my opinion it’s because the church has surrendered that to the modernists and Tolerance Mafia and favored a weak method of cultural apologetic that shames any use of the serrated edge of the gospel and apologetics.

 

[RamistThomist]

With the exception of the Revoice guys in the PCA, who in the NAPARC are abandoning the culture to the Tolerance Mafia?

No, White isn't compromising justification by faith alone. But for him to associate with a group that "still affirms what I wrote in the FV Joint Statement" is troubling.

 

[Charles Johnson]

FV theology is similar in a lot of ways to Book of Concord Lutheranism. In some respects, like christology, the errors of Lutherans are far more severe. I'm not a Lutheran, I don't worship with Lutherans if there's a Reformed Church around, and I pray that Lutherans would come to a better understanding of the truth, but if I were to see that a Lutheran were speaking at a conference, I wouldn't sound the alarm, and I wouldn't condemn others for associating with them, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing moderate FV types treated more like Lutherans and less like Arians. Sure, they shouldn't be able to teach their errors in Reformed Churches, but moderation in rhetoric and charity in judgments would be good in my opinion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

No, White isn't compromising justification by faith alone. But for him to associate with a group that "still affirms what I wrote in the FV Joint Statement" is troubling.

and I would also agree that R. Scott Clark goes a bit overboard in asserting that anyone who disagrees with him is pro-Federal Vision. Sadly, though, this tendency is nothing new. Back when theonomy was still a hot topic, many of us got frustrated with him on this very point as it was harming the anti-FV case to yoke all the theonomists with the FV. Now, that is not to say that there was not a link at all between the theonomy movement and the FV, but it should have been more clearly acknowledged that one could be a theonomist without being an FVer.

That said, for those who oppose the FV to be giving a platform to someone who still upholds FV theology - even if they have abandoned the label - is a serious cause for concern and they should be kindly admonished to give up these associations.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

With the exception of the Revoice guys in the PCA, who in the NAPARC are abandoning the culture to the Tolerance Mafia?

No, White isn't compromising justification by faith alone. But for him to associate with a group that "still affirms what I wrote in the FV Joint Statement" is troubling.

Has the former PCA RE in Houston who ran on a pro sodomite, pro abortion ticket been church disciplined? If not why not? Why has everyone just forgotten all about that?

Why can P&R publishing publish a book that denies historic Reformed teaching on men and women, have it endorsed by big names, and anyone who disagrees is labeled as a sympathizer of DW and Vision Forum?

This type of thing is a symptom of a systemic issue in the PCA and NAPARC. It shows that we’re far more affected by the culture and it’s benevolent Enlightenment secular humanism than we realize.

Young people see this and they’re far more perceptive then we realize and far more susceptible to people who will promise them a way out of all that. Until we get folks willing to be straight up and uncompromising like the Crosspolitic, DW folks, we’ll see younger people gravitate to this more of a no holds barred engagement with the root and branch of the Militant Secularism engulfing our nation.


This entire thing belies one big issue though,
Don’t Baptists deny the objectivity of the Covenant and therefore it’s impossible for them to be FV?

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

FV theology is similar in a lot of ways to Book of Concord Lutheranism. In some respects, like christology, the errors of Lutherans are far more severe. I'm not a Lutheran, I don't worship with Lutherans if there's a Reformed Church around, and I pray that Lutherans would come to a better understanding of the truth, but if I were to see that a Lutheran were speaking at a conference, I wouldn't sound the alarm, and I wouldn't condemn others for associating with them, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing moderate FV types treated more like Lutherans and less like Arians. Sure, they shouldn't be able to teach their errors in Reformed Churches, but moderation in rhetoric and charity in judgments would be good in my opinion.

I agree with this. Among the strains of FV the quasi Lutheran ones can be made peace with.

 

[BottleOfTears]

FV theology is similar in a lot of ways to Book of Concord Lutheranism. In some respects, like christology, the errors of Lutherans are far more severe. I'm not a Lutheran, I don't worship with Lutherans if there's a Reformed Church around, and I pray that Lutherans would come to a better understanding of the truth, but if I were to see that a Lutheran were speaking at a conference, I wouldn't sound the alarm, and I wouldn't condemn others for associating with them, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing moderate FV types treated more like Lutherans and less like Arians. Sure, they shouldn't be able to teach their errors in Reformed Churches, but moderation in rhetoric and charity in judgments would be good in my opinion.

I wasn't aware Lutherans were in the business of denying/undermining justification by faith alone.

Also, Lutherans are very clear that they are Lutherans, FV people claim to be Reformed, and are a lot more vague in what they believe. That's why its more of an issue, people read Doug Wilson for his cultural commentary and such, and this other stuff gets stuck in under the radar. It's a lot harder to parse the good from the bad in those situations.

Another thing is, even if James White was right that Baptists can't be FV so him and his crew are safe from such errors, does he not realise lots of non-baptists listen/watch his material? Is he fine with just exposing them to heresy?