Newbie to Federal Vision

[johnwillby]

Hi from the UK...

My first post on this illustrious forum.

I have been requested by one of my pastors to do some research into this Federal Vision theology. As it is beginning to influence one or two in this country and he has some concerns about it.

I was given a lengthy paper, from a source unknown to me, advocating the Federal Vision. Some of the thinking and arguments sound very similar to some tenets and trends advocated by those who espouse 'biblical theology' that i have come across before.

Anyway after this I am eager to read good rebuttal! So I am considering buying The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis by Guy Waters.

Can anybody tell me if this is a good book to read on this topic or are there other better rebuttals in print that maybe I am not aware of?

Kind regards

John

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Guy Waters' book is a good choice. I would also recommend this book:

Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry

 

[Semper Fidelis]

These Threads are great primers:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18274
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18377
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18523

 

[johnwillby]

Hi

Thanks I might try and get hold of that book also.

I have been reading a few of the threads on here.

I also noticed when I looked up that book there were several other titles that sounded interesting.

Misunderstanding Paul?: Responding to the New Perspectives by J. Ligon Duncan

Although this appears to not yet be in print so I guess we have to wait for this!

Also I saw -

By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification
by David F. Wells

Also what position is Richard B Gaffin taking in this book -

By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Oakhill School of Theology Series) by Richard B. Gaffin Jr.

Thanks

John

 

[Machaira]

John,

Guy Waters' book is an excellent resource. Also, if you would like to listen to someone refute FV teaching click on the following link. You will find there 6 mp3 files entitled "Brian Schwertley, Auburn Avenue Theology Refutation." You'll find them close to the beginning of the "multimedia resources" list.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/new_perspective.html

 

[tewilder]

I suggest you look at Patrick Poole's website as a good starting point for research, with many primary sources from both sides:

http://www.paulperspective.com/

My take on it is here:

http://www.contra-mundum.org/vision/vision.html

 

[Magma2]

I'm going to recommend Christianity and Neo-Liberalism by Paul Elliot (http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=156).

Besides being a powerful examination of the issues, players and the tactics involved in advancing the cause of the so-called "Federal Vision," Elliot is one of the few men who also deals with Richard Gaffin's central role in the rise of the FV in the OPC, and, more importantly, how Gaffin's own teachings are in fundamental agreement with the false gospel of the Federal Vision.

 

[greenbaggins]

While not wishing to side-track the issues here, not all are in agreement with what Gaffin's role in all this is. My position is diametrically opposite to Sean's, for instance. You need to decide for yourself about Gaffin. The best way to do that is to read his recent book _By Faith and Not By Sight_.

 

[wsw201]

John,

I would also recommend the OPC Study Report on Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul. You can find it HERE

 

[wfl3]

Guy Water's book is a good book on the Federal Vision. Recently, he spoke on the subject at Woodruff Road PCA. It was a day long session, so it serves as a Summary, but would perhaps be a good introduction to concerns regarding this view.

Click on "MISC sermons" for iTunes.

http://www.woodruffroad.com/

 

[Poimen]

Here is a fairly comprehensive list of materials:

http://wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php

 

[Magma2]

While not wishing to side-track the issues here, not all are in agreement with what Gaffin's role in all this is. My position is diametrically opposite to Sean's, for instance. You need to decide for yourself about Gaffin. The best way to do that is to read his recent book _By Faith and Not By Sight_.

Reverend Keister's position is completely irrelevant to the decades in which Dr. Gaffin ardently and publicly defended the most egregious supporters and teachers of the false gospel of the Federal Vision. Men like Norm Shepherd who Gaffin defended and protected during the SEVEN years the controversy raged at Westminster over Shepherds aberrant and deadly teaching.

Perhaps Reverend Keister has failed to read O. Palmer Robertson's historic account of the Shepherd controversy and failed to note Gaffin's critical role defending the man and his gospel destroying doctrines?

Perhaps Reverend Keister failed to read the transcript of Gaffin's defense of one of Shepherd's more vocal students, John Kinnaird, during Kinnaird's heresy trial at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php?

I'm quite sure he didn't read any of these sources since they're all available at the Trinity Foundation site run by John Robbins who Reverend Keister calls a "vitriolic loose cannon with a publishing house who has done little good for the cause of Jesus Christ" while Richard Gaffin is a "polite scholar."

Concerning the OPC report on Justifcation, here is the position of former OPC R.E. Paul Elliot as it relates to Dr. Gaffin:

To summarize, Gaffin’s own “New Perspective on Paul” echoes Roman Catholic Church dogma to an alarming degree. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that union with Christ through water baptism is the way of salvation and the means of redemption. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism marks the transition from death to life, and that baptism brings about saving union with Christ. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that adoption comes through union with Christ in baptism. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism brings about justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism confers sanctification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that justification and sanctification are indistinguishable, thus making both faith and works instruments of justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach a “first justification” at baptism as well as a “final justification” at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christ’s.

The Justification Study Committee Report contains many statements of sound doctrine that contradict Richard Gaffin’s public teachings. The Report affirms that salvation involves union with Christ, but not the “existential” and “experiential” union taught by Gaffin. The Report asserts that regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not water baptism, marks the transition from death to life. The Report upholds the Biblical distinction between justification and sanctification.

The dichotomy between the long-held views of Richard Gaffin and the orthodox doctrines affirmed in the Report he helped to write raises a crucial question: Does Richard Gaffin believe the doctrinal statements in the Report he helped to write? If Gaffin does in fact believe what the Report asserts about justification and related doctrines, then he must in all honesty publicly repudiate what he has consistently taught for the last forty years. Otherwise, he must admit that his own doctrinal position differs from that of the “consensus report.” When the Gospel is at stake, no ordained minister or seminary professor should be permitted to hide within a broad consensus. When the Gospel is at stake there can be no broad consensus – only a clear-cut stand for the narrow truth. We must assume that Richard Gaffin has meant what he has said, and has said what he really meant, for the last forty years. But if we were to rely on the Justification Study Committee Report for an understanding of Richard Gaffin’s theological track record, and his great influence on pastors in the OPC and on men in other Reformed churches, we would be left in the dark. Gaffin’s false teachings receive not the slightest mention in the Report prepared by the Committee of which he is a member.

Because of Richard Gaffin’s long-standing influence on men in Reformed academia and OPC pulpits, and the decades-long conspiracy of silence on doctrinal error which he himself has helped promote, it is not unreasonable to ask another question: Could it be that others on the Committee concur with some or all of Gaffin’s views, but are likewise operating under the cover of a consensus report? Each of the other members of the Committee owes it to the church to make his own position in relation to Richard Gaffin’s teachings crystal clear.

The Justification Study Committee Report not only makes no mention of Gaffin’s own teachings, it also makes no mention of Gaffin’s stalwart defense of Norman Shepherd during the 1975-1982 controversy and in the years since. The Report also makes no mention of Gaffin’s written endorsement of the heretical theological statements of John O. Kinnaird, of Gaffin’s testimony in defense of Kinnaird at his trial, or of Gaffin’s central role in bringing about Kinnaird’s ultimate acquittal.

The Report mentions that N. T. Wright was a principal speaker at the Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference (AAPC) in 2005. It also mentions that Wright’s lectures became the basis of a book titled Paul: In Fresh Perspective, which is also on the Report’s recommended reading list. But the Report makes no mention of the fact that the other principal speaker at AAPC 2005 was Richard Gaffin himself, who amicably shared the podium with Wright for three days, and delivered a series of lectures based on his book, Resurrection and Redemption. The Report also does not mention that Norman Shepherd spoke in a meeting associated with the conference.

By not addressing Gaffin’s record and associations, the Justification Study Committee has left the door as wide open as ever for the continued promulgation of heresy on justification and related doctrines in the OPC. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=227

Evidently Reverend Keister would prefer to defend this "polite scholar" every chance he gets while turning a blind-eye toward those like Gaffin who would supplant the true gospel with a clever counterfeit. I suppose for some politeness counts more than the Gospel.

 

[BobVigneault]

{Moderation On}
Let's stop the debate of Gaffin in regards to this thread. If you want to dabate Gaffin then begin another thread or do so in private messages. If you're going to get hot then definitely go to private messages.

This thread is a request for info that would guide a newbie through the FV controversy. You start generating your usual heat and bluster and the newbie will run from this important topic and never learn about the details. They will just learn that there is a lot of name calling when someone brings up the issue.

Thank you for restraining yourselves.
{Moderation Off}

 

[Theoretical]

Guy Water's book is a good book on the Federal Vision. Recently, he spoke on the subject at Woodruff Road PCA. It was a day long session, so it serves as a Summary, but would perhaps be a good introduction to concerns regarding this view.

Click on "MISC sermons" for iTunes.

http://www.woodruffroad.com/

These seminars were of great help to me about this controversy.

 

[tewilder]

We need to bear in mind that the critiques of the Federal Vision, especially the ecclesiastical ones, are not theological analyses of the Federal Vision so much as a discussion of what the particular critic feels comfortable talking about.

Things in the FV that are newer, to which a denomination can't oppose a long tradition of theology and exegesis, they probably don't know how to think about nor do they feel safe in addressing.

Also the critics may have their own hobby horses and agendas. The OPC, for example, needed to exculpate themselves and put up a shield for Westminster Seminary East, where so many of their clergy came from. So their study is party a whitewash of the OPC with finger pointing at the PCA.

Other critics may actually line up with the FV view of worship and symbol, but not like some derivative positions. Still others see this as a chance to blacken the reputations of their opponents on other issues.

This makes the whole Federal Vision discussion much more difficult.

 

[johnwillby]

Hi

Thank you all very much for the very useful links and suggestions. I may well pop up again with questions that arise as I work through this.

I am already fairly conversant with New Perspective on Paul (even though I had not heard anybody call it that) as it was gaining popularity in certain circles when I was still at Bible College a while back. We had to read N.T. Wright for our Biblical Theology lectures.

Thanks

John

 

[johnwillby]

Hi

Well I tried downloading the podcasts but unfortunately because I use Linux I can only get podcasts with Juice but unfortunately it needs a rss feed or something. The link would normally end with something like /greatsermons.xml

Then I would get a list of Episodes. Ahh well...

Ain't technology great!