FV for Dummies

[Greg]

To someone who is fairly ignorant about the FV (like myself for instance), what is the FV about? In a nutshell, if that's possible, and in layman's terms, how and where do they err? Sorry for this very basic question, but I was just wondering if someone could briefly give a condensed overview of what the FV teaches. Thanks.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Best to get it from the horse's mouth:

Federal Vision: Resources for Understanding

The "Joint Federal Vision Statement" is a concise summary.

 

[Gryphonette]

I'll have a crack at it.

To someone who is fairly ignorant about the FV (like myself for instance), what is the FV about? In a nutshell, if that's possible, and in layman's terms, how and where do they err? Sorry for this very basic question, but I was just wondering if someone could briefly give a condensed overview of what the FV teaches. Thanks.

Basically the premise of the FV is that there is both a temporal and an eternal version of the Ordo Salutis, barring glorification. When one is baptized, one is "saved" into the Covenant and the Church. That's a form of salvation, which explains the Scripture passages wherein God promises the Israelites their children will be saved. Therefore, all those baptized are temporally regenerated, as in being "reborn" into the Church. Being placed into the Church is also viewed as a form of justification.

All those baptized are regenerated by being "saved" into the Church, but not all of those will persevere to the end and be - at final judgment - eternally saved.

Because it is the LORD who predetermines who will persevere to the end and who will not, the FV'ers feel justified (a pun! a bad pun, but a pun!) in considering themselves Reformed/Calvinistic.

That's the nickel explanation. Well, maybe .

 

[JohnV]

Well, let me try my summary as well, Greg. On the particulars of FV and what its proponents actually say, I should allow those who know this better than I to give you a brief statement. Mine will be to a different point of error.

FV stands on the newly found freedom that has entered into Presbyterianism in the past half century or so, namely that any theory that does not violate the Confessions is equally valid as a belief in the Word of God. Does someone have a personal view that the Bible teaches Postmillennialism, or teaches Presuppositionalism? He may assert them as Bible doctrine if that is what his conscience tells him. Thus the Confessions of the church are substantially broadened to include many things it does not specifically say, and may be included as Bible doctrine. Thus, in sum, the term "Bible doctrine" has been stretched to mean not merely that which the Word of God reveals, but also that which people are individually convinced that the Word of God reveals.

So it can be that God reveals Amillennialism or a classical apologetic in one church, and He reveals Postmillennialism or Presuppositionalism in another. It could be that in one church the Bible teaches the Framework Hypothesis, while in another the Analogical Day Theory, and in still another the Six Day view. The views that are held are not disqualifying views, so they are deemed as "just as Biblical" by their proponents.

Thus you have it that in some churches the Word of God teaches a view of salvation that is "also true", while in other church it teaches what is true. What changes the Word of God is the people who read it, instead of the people being changed by the Word of God. The Word itself is no longer univocal in a corporate sense. We are no longer bound by a common confession, but splintered by a wide open hermeneutical system that allows different things as "Bible doctrine" within the same confessional atmosphere.

These people are sometimes beyond the reach of discipline because they appeal to their freedom of conscience to personal beliefs and opinions that do not technically violate the Confessions. They are not disqualified for raising personal opinion to the same level as confessed doctrine, because that binding of conscience has been forgotten. They are under no obligation to submit their personal views to their elders, to the Presbytery, or to the General Assemblies before they preach them, because these views are not disqualifying. And these views are not disqualifying because men do not mark a clear and distinct difference between confessed doctrine and personal opinion. For surely nothing is clearer than that raising opinion to the level of sure revelation is a huge, huge step, a giagantic leap, though they often make that as the smallest and least noticeable of hops before men. "Bible doctrine" has two meanings, and they get in under the radar with the free use of the second meaning.

That's why I don't much participate in FV discussions. For me the issue was over as soon as it started. There's nothing difficult about it. It is interesting that they have these views, but they have no licence to be preaching them. No one gave that to them; they were only allowed to get away with it on their own supposed authority. It doesn't require an indepth knowledge of the fine points of justification and election. It's a simple matter of Confessional binding and mutual obligation in dealing with the Word of God.