They may be right, and the Standards are wrong. OK, now where does that leave you if you swore to uphold the Standards?Moreover, to affirm the Standards, and then redefine the terms used in the Standards, is not to affirm the Standards. For example, to affirm the decretal view of election, and then to say that the Bible teaches that the elect may fall from their election, is to set the Bible over against the Standards.
Should a sermon which set forth that view justification has present and future components as well as being described as a process cause concern? Is it a FV view?
Yes, it's a NPP/FV thing. The PCA paper linked to above in Lynnie's post covers that very well.Rather, justification means that sinners “are declared in the present, to be what they will be seen to be in the future, namely the true people of God.”
Not necessarily. It depends on how that is formulated. If there is a "forgiveness" aspect that is future, then it is problematic. However, if the future element is limited to showing the world that the justified are in fact justified, then it is not problematic. The WCF even speaks of this future aspect of proving to the world that the justified are in fact justified. But in no way are the elect justified only partially. They are fully forgiven now. So, it depends on the formulation.Should a sermon which set forth that view justification has present and future components as well as being described as a process cause concern? Is it a FV view?
There's a published explanation of this point here:9. who teach that there is a separate and final justification grounded partly upon righteousness or sanctity inherent in the Christian (HC 52; BC 37).
The Roman Catechism, para. 2010 says,"We never deny grace alone as the efficient cause of all good and all salvation. We deny faith alone for anything beyond initial justification because it places faith in isolation without works, contrary to much Scripture."
When the Roman catechism says "conversion," it means "sanctification," not "moment of awakening from death to life." This language reflects the traditional medieval distinction between the grace of justification given at baptism and final justification which is granted on the basis of divinely wrought (de merito condigno) sanctity and our cooperation with that grace, to which God free imputes perfection (de merito congruo). As I understand our faith, in contrast to Rome and the FV doctrine of future justification, we believe that, at the last day, believers will stand before God only on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ."Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion."
For Rome there is ... "initial grace" in baptism and then subsequent grace following baptism. There is no complete justification in this life after baptism. There is only sanctification. In Roman theology, final justification is God's recognition of one's Spirit-wrought sanctity (and one's cooperation with that sanctity. In other words, a distinction between "initial" and "final" justification is inherent to Roman soteriology.