The Arminianism of the Federal Vision

[Reformed Covenanter]

Puritan Board members may be interested in a post on my blog entitled:

The Arminianism of the Federal Vision

If what I have written is correct, then why is their even a debate about whether or not the FV is in the Reformed mainstream?

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Interesting article, Brother Ritchie.

Please excuse my denseness, but are you saying that the FV folks are arminian or that they are like arminians? If it
is the latter, what term would you coin for this view?

I'm not disagreeing, for I think you are definitely onto something here, just seeking clarification in my own mind.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Interesting article, Brother Ritchie.

Please excuse my denseness, but are you saying that the FV folks are arminian or that they are like arminians? If it
is the latter, what term would you coin for this view?

I'm not disagreeing, for I think you are definitely onto something here, just seeking clarification in my own mind.

I suppose I had better say that they are like Arminians, as they do not have the honesty to admit to being Arminians. I am not sure that it makes much difference one way or the other.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Well, you are bound to get some increased blog traffic.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

BTW, do you have a link to a larger version of the poster that you have at the top of the blog? It looks very
intersting, but my aging eyes can't makeout all the detial in the small version posted.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Interesting article, Brother Ritchie.

Please excuse my denseness, but are you saying that the FV folks are arminian or that they are like arminians? If it
is the latter, what term would you coin for this view?

I'm not disagreeing, for I think you are definitely onto something here, just seeking clarification in my own mind.

I suppose I had better say that they are like Arminians, as they do not have the honesty to admit to being Arminians. I am not sure that it makes much difference one way or the other.

Well, in most cases they don't have the honesty to admit that anything they hold to is outside the reformed
camp (In my humble opinion). However, to say that they are "like" arminians would indicate (to me at least) that their views
could lead one down a path toward arminianism, which I think is valid. So in that sense they are guilty of
"leading" reformed folk toward an arminian view, just in the same way that they are guilty of "leading" reformed
folk into the RCC. Am I making sense? Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

Anyway. Good article. There are many dangers to their "views" and you have shown the light on yet another.

 

[AV1611]

Puritan Board members may be interested in a post on my blog entitled:

The Arminianism of the Federal Vision

If what I have written is correct, then why is their even a debate about whether or not the FV is in the Reformed mainstream.

Glad to see you have caught up

My blog post from September 2006:

Federal Vision is the teaching of a group of Presbyterian and Reformed men in the United States. The teaching has been set out formally in the “Summary Statement of AAPC’s Position on the Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” which was approved by the session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church on 26 September 2002. A revised statement was adopted unanimously 3 April 2005. In a book entitled The Federal Vision one can find a number of papers which explain in greater detail what is found summarised in the summary statements and which are based upon addresses from the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference.

One aspect of its teaching is that through baptism the children of believers are brought into the covenant and this “baptism marks them out as God’s elect people” which “is a status they maintain so long as they persevere in faithfulness” (Lusk, The Federal Vision, pp289). However it is possible to become un-elected. Steve Wilkins writes that “the elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect – they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing” (Wilkins, The Federal Vision, pp58). So how do they come to this conclusion? John Barach explains: “I believe that the Bible teaches that God makes His covenant with believers and their children, but some in the covenant have not been predestined to eternal glory with Christ” (Barach, The Federal Vision, pp23).

The foundation of this teaching is a wrong understanding of the covenant of God. They teach that the covenant is conditional and that grace within the covenant is universal. So every child of believers are elect and in the covenant but one stays within the covenant and maintains their election through works. This they teach as the historic, confessional Reformed faith! The truth however is that they have introduced Arminianism into the theology of the covenant of God.​

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

BTW, do you have a link to a larger version of the poster that you have at the top of the blog? It looks very
intersting, but my aging eyes can't makeout all the detial in the small version posted.

I think John Robbins designed it; though I am not aware of a bigger version online.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It turns out the graphic was designed by Jeff Meyers - an FV proponent.

 

[Poimen]

Daniel:

Doug is blogging about you-
BLOG and MABLOG

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel:

Doug is blogging about you-
BLOG and MABLOG

Thanks, I know, but he has not answered the objection about the extent of the atonement or the unconditionality of election. Just more double-talk.