Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by Doulos McKenzie, May 16, 2017.
Just wondering y'all's thoughts.
many of those holding to Dospensationalism still would agree on the justification of the Cross as Reformed would, but think those in FV have a different justification model, correct?
FV is inherently anti-Gospel, get in by baptism stay in by works.
Dispensationalism, as horrendously stupid it is and for all their torturous exegesis does not deny the Gospel. Older forms by implication may(like antinomianism and as well as some two covenant types but, by and large it is not the mainstream dispensationalism any longer.
Most modern dispensationalists today (you will find very few Scofieldists) hold to sola fide.
FV is more dangerous to theology. Dispensationalism is more dangerous to the Church.
could you elaborate?
FV ruins the doctrine of salvation. Dispensationalism ruins the doctrine of the church
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that Dispensationalism is more dangerous to the church than the FV. The FV is the most divisive doctrinal dispute I have ever personally experienced. It even separates previously close friends. The FV's doctrine of the church is very problematic, being a rather authoritarian version of church government. I have seen case after case of church power being abused. And yes, while Dispensationalists believe that there are two peoples of God, which is highly problematic, I can usually get along better with them than with ANY FV supporter.
I came out from those circles, and can say that a majority of the Christians who are still really into it were not seeing it as being saved bylaw and now Grace, but more dividing what the church and Israel now still is...
How so though? as they still would see the church as being made up of both Jews and Gentiles, just see still a distinction between Israel and Church?
Federal vision is more dangerous overall. It is a romanizing doctrine and therefore a tactic of antichrist. I'm not sure if you can say the same thing about dispensationalism, since I don't see dispensational people crossing the Tiber.
In part, Dispensationalism has always made a separation between the NT "church" and the OT "people of God". The degree or sharpness of the separation has relaxed some since the early manifestations of Dispensationalism, but the seperation remains. There is one people of God, saved by Christ alone, period. Is the church different, segregated groups, saved by various means or one people of God saved by Christ alone? I believe that is why Rev. Winzer on one occasion commented, in part, that if one is not covenantal, they are by definition, dispensational
I was raised up and taught on it though, and was always taught that there has only been one way to get saved, that being the Cross of Christ...
Did God fall back on Plan B?
How many peoples of God are there?
No, as he always had the church in mind, as it was destined to start at Pentacost....
One right now....
One always. Past Present and Future. If that is denied then by definition you are not Reformed.
Since there has always been just one way to be saved, would there not be just one people of God?
Ask a Dispensationalist if Abraham & David are their brothers..... Progressive Dispensationalists may answer this a bit differently......
You have, perhaps inadvertently, proven my point. While a good FV heretic may get in your face and otherwise make himself (I haven't run across any leading FV women) unwelcome, the Dispensationalists are going to be winsome infiltrators, eager to volunteer and help out, as they sneak into leadership roles and subvert the Church over time.
Overall? We can bracket out things like Covenant of Works, since that leads to questions regarding Supra and Infra.
Are we currently in God's parenthesis, ending with the rapture of the church?
As to theology, FV has been labeled heresy by respectable sources. (See some of the older threads here). Dispensationalism is merely grave error.
As to the threat to the church, generally see my comment above to the Rev. Keister. It's generally easy to smoke out and deal with FVers. Dispensationalists are going to work their way into position to spread their error.
I will say dispensationalism has done the most damage and continues to do so.
I have never met any one who holds to the FV.
I hold to a bi-weekly "pizza day". This is irrespective of Josh's bathing and cologne application schedule......
Not really sure what you mean?
Just trying (and failing) to add a little levity to the current discussion....
Think that most of my friends who are still in Dispensational churches would disagree with trying to force a takeover though....