How should we consider NPP and FV folks?

[Prufrock]

Lynnie,

You are absolutely right that, in order to establish or convince someone of our doctrines, we can in no way go to the confessions, but to scripture alone. However, with the FV topic, context is everything. When we're in the setting of ecclesiastic courts, etc., and the opponents are claiming that what they are teaching is what our confessions allow, or that it is the Reformed teaching, scripture is (in such a case) irrelevant. Scripture can't demonstrate what is Reformed, only what is true. Thus, first we must correct the historical/ecclesiastical misunderstanding (i.e., that they are teaching what we [the Reformed] have been teaching all along), and then we correct the Biblical understanding. So in the form of the present FV disputes, appealing to the confession is not only proper, but it is also most necessary.

 

[lynnie]

Prufrock, what you just said goes back to what was mentioned above. You are talking about the teachers leading people astray, and yeah, you are 100%right and it is disgraceful that they claim to be confessional.

I am thinking though, of the average person exposed to this and the struggles they have (I don't exactly hang out with the big names). And there you must be prepared to reason with scripture alone. The thread starter was talking about their friends and I'd say that with your friends, be ready to debate only from the word. You CAN lay the groundwork of Christ's merit alone with scripture. Some doctrines like say limited atonement are harder but I don't think this one is so hard.

The WTS grad guy we know got a job on staff at a PCA church sympathetic to Wilson and NT Wright. I get upset thinking about it. ( he is sooo kind and nice and humble, far more gracious than many people I know). Yeah, they claim to hold to the confession but it is so twisted. I've lost all my grand illusions about the PCA the last couple years. I try to pray faithfully but I just get upset

 

[Scott1]

Lynnie,

You are absolutely right that, in order to establish or convince someone of our doctrines, we can in no way go to the confessions, but to scripture alone. However, with the FV topic, context is everything. When we're in the setting of ecclesiastic courts, etc., and the opponents are claiming that what they are teaching is what our confessions allow, or that it is the Reformed teaching, scripture is (in such a case) irrelevant. Scripture can't demonstrate what is Reformed, only what is true. Thus, first we must correct the historical/ecclesiastical misunderstanding (i.e., that they are teaching what we [the Reformed] have been teaching all along), and then we correct the Biblical understanding. So in the form of the present FV disputes, appealing to the confession is not only proper, but it is also most necessary.

I'm not formally theologically trained and have a limited understanding of the intricacies of "Federal Vision" and "New Perspectives" theology.

However, one of the early things I noticed in the ofttimes strident manner of people arguing for "FV" was that on the one hand, they said they agreed with the Confession, on the other that the Confession is not clear on major points- the implication being it needs to be amended or changed.

On the one hand, saying they are "very" confessional (more confessional than the rest of the reformed) and then pitting the confession against Scripture- saying that the Confession does not really represent Scripture.

All that, before the re-defining of key confessional (and biblical) words like justification and other confessional terms, commonly understood like "union with Christ," "perseverance of the Saints," and "visible church."

It was clear that when one "FV" leader starting defining his multiple definitional differences with words like "justification" and "union with Christ" as "quibbles," we were dealing with something seriously in error, both biblically and confessionally.

 

[Peairtach]

It was clear that when one "FV" leader starting defining his multiple definitional differences with words like "justification" and "union with Christ" as "quibbles," we were dealing with something seriously in error, both biblically and confessionally.

And also confused and confusing which is not a sign of sound theology.