What is more dangerous to our theology? FV or Dispensationalism?

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by Doulos McKenzie, May 16, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    Chances are, if you 'know' any FVers, Hyper-preterists, Kinists, Furries, Flat-earthers, etc, it is because you spend time searching the internet. The chances of you ever meeting one, and having a lengthy enough conversation to discover these things about someone, doesn't usually happen IRL. ;)
  2. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    This is interesting to me, as it seems that the group that would advocate for the Pre trib pre mil views would be Presbyterian Reformed, while those who support it from the Baptist side would be Dispensational like Dr Macarthur then?
  3. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    Maybe but I'm not sure. There's sort of always a "middle" that seems to go along with whatever side of the conversation predominates. I think we're awash in a sea of sociological "givens" by some who are so focused on racial reconciliation and "racial justice" (I still don't know exactly what it means) that they may have an outsized voice to the actual concerns of day-to-day ministry. Don't get me wrong, I think the issues of race and culture are important but I was reflecting upon this today. My day-to-day thoughts about ministry and life span a wide swath of technical, religious, theological, political, economic, and many other issues. Even when I'm thinking about the Church my interests and concerns range across many issues impacting the broader Church as well as my local context where I serve as and Elder.

    I think there are many in a new focus on these issues who really spend far too much time seeing everything through a single lens. I think it actually tends to make the more illiberal than liberal because they conceive of everybody as either caring as much about their issue or not at all. There is sort of "new orthodoxy" with some that you actually have to accept notions of white privilege (and use the term) and other terms borrowed from sociology that have been baptized for supposed Christian use but don't have very clear definitions. If you don't use them then you're viewed as not taking seriously the plight of others. My closest comparison is the hard corps theonomists who want to turn every conversation in the direction of having a full-orbed worldview that corresponds to their particular version of a "truth project" edifice where you either accept their economic and political theories and applying God's Laws to them or you're not really a serious Christian. In other words, the political and sociological theories are "take it or you're against me" on both sides - the hard-corps theonomist or the "you must believe in white privilege or you cannot minister to minorities" racial justice folks. Honestly, I don't want to take sides on the issue but want to maintain friendships and be able to partner and let them have their particular convictions but the fervor makes it really hard to just "get along".

    I guess what I'm getting at is that most people don't have the same amount of zeal and so the "true believers" end up accusing everyone of incrementalism and get fed up and leave. I think that would be sad for the Church as people need to learn to be challenged with their views and recognize that sanctification is a winding road but some are so focused on it (and really write or talk about little else) that they're sort of in a bubble of the like-minded and can't see that the rest are not really moving with them nor can they understand how to just talk to normal folk who don't have the time (or even education) to understand how race theory really blends with Christianity and, after all, is this really what is most pressing for the American Church?

    Sorry if I'm unclear but I sometimes think that these issues (though concerning) may not have the long-term legs we are concerned about at the moment because the proponents end up burning too hotly and cannot sustain that amount of energy and frustration in the long run. I think that's why FV has fizzled out in many places as well. Maybe a lot of it has to do with the fact that their own children are not taking up the mantle of the "cause".

    I also think we'll be in for some debates over "sexual identity" and see whether folks will be able to resist the culture or keep coming up with creative ways to avoid the notion that our corruption is actual sin and not some sort of "natural evil" where we can, like blindness, chalk things up to being "born that way" but "to the glory of God" and that we just have to love who we are (or they are) and...well we'll see.

    Again, I'm not a prophet but I think some will lose patience. Let's just leave it at that.

    True. I think there are always dangers. The fact that FV is sort of teeny tiny doesn't mean it's not dangerous for those who are buying into it. Correspondingly, just because we're not in danger of buying into the FV wholesale doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of antinomianism either. I see a lot of versions of Tullian's theology in many corners.

    I agree. Given what I noted about some of the things that are occupying the PCA's attention, we're certainly not seeing much from FV types.
  4. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    I almost wonder if the CREC functioned as kind of a release-valve. True, it's horrible teaching and I would hate to be a female in the CREC, but it did take a lot of pressure off the PCA. That's good. I don't think the PCA could fight a two-front war against the SJW-Cultural Marxists AND the FV.
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. arapahoepark

    arapahoepark Puritan Board Graduate

    I thought they were and have lost some in some theaters of the war with FV? PNW ┬░cough*
  6. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    They did, but the FV knew that the PNW was all the territory they could really take at the moment. For a while it looked like the St Louis area would fall to the armies of FV (to continue the apt metaphor), but it seemed like the Social Justice crowd came on the scene and pushed FV out.
  7. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    The people searching the internet bring their ideas to church with them. The Federal Vision is a vision for the church. The other ideas work with separatists, and in some cases they are the catalyst for their separation. I would say the tendency towards neonomianism is more present in the church than appears at first glance; and so far as the ecclesiastical elements of the FV are concerned, there is a natural bent within sinners to turn the means of grace into grace itself. The evangelical pulpit has regularly issued warnings against ritual and nominal resting in the means.
    Last edited: May 23, 2017
  8. Edward

    Edward Puritanboard Commissioner

    I haven't had an opportunity to do so yet, but if I run across any 'white privilege' talk, I think I'll say, "It's a burden, not a privilege" and start talking about "The White Man's Burden" and Kipling's educational poem of that name.

    Remember Edward's Rules of Debate:

    Never let the other side set the ground rules. Never let the other side constrain your arguments. And move the middle ground.
  9. Von

    Von Puritan Board Freshman

    I see Douglas Wilson recanted. https://dougwils.com/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
    Well sort of...
    Or not...
    It just shows you that as soon as an idea is public property, it's not your idea anymore and it takes on a life of its own.
  10. Peter Hyatt

    Peter Hyatt Puritan Board Freshman

    I don't understand FV and I don't understand why they got involved in something that became so divisive. They began with respect of the historical confessions.
    I watched over years as snark became snarkier and irony became nasty and nastier. The race to see who could insult the deepest became the Tour de Idaho as if walking away with a smug feeling was the chief end, itself.

    Among followers, the priority of the language became the ability to argue rather than Christ, Himself, as they posted wilsonish insults.

    I got lost trying to grasp the point when "neo" was added to "neo" one too many times.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page