Several years back a young man published online a “rosy” evaluation of the self-described “Federal Vision” movement. This evaluation no longer appears to be available online. It was also published in the Christian Renewal magazine, which serves the conservative Dutch Reformed community. On 30 April 2009 Mark Beach and Wes White published a critique of Minich’s account of the FV movement. Joseph has replied with this helpful response and retraction. It will be interesting to see if the Christian Renewal publishes this retraction or if they will continue their policy of treating the FV movement as just another variety of orthodox Reformed theology (despite the categorical rejection of the FV by the United Reformed Churches, the OPC, the PCA, the RCUS, and the RPCNA as contrary to the confession of the Reformed churches).
Filed under: federal vision | Tagged: federal vision
It’s astonishing that these guys consider themselves within confessional bounds. I’d have more time for them if they admitted they weren’t.
Not that hard really. Just redefine what Confessional means and you’re in.
The original article by Minich appears to be here:
http://www.geocities.com/dakloost@sbcglobal.net/Minich_CR_Federal_Vision_article.htm
I think you can add the ARP to your list, now, too. I’m pretty sure I read that they rejected FV at their GA this summer.
Yes. That’s it. Thanks for the link, Rich.
Who is Joseph Minich and what are his credentials?
This was one of the strange things about this whole episode. My recollection, going back a few years, is that Joseph was then an undergraduate in an east coast university. I don’t recall where. His assessment was problematic on a number of levels and I’m happy that he’s reconsidered but I was surprised that it was so well received and endorsed, as I recall, by people such as John Frame. Here’s a quotation:
“I have read the article, and my judgment is that it is a wonderful piece. It is by far the best thing I’ve ever read on the Federal Vision and/or New Perspective. I hope this essay gets the widest possible distribution. People concerned with these issues, whatever their persuasion, need to meditate deeply about it. And it provides a model of careful, thorough, thoughtful theological criticism.”
To be sure, it’s possible for undergrads to do important work. Buckley’s critique of Yale comes to mind, but I’m reasonably sure that, whatever its virtues, this essay was not God and Man at Yale.
I don’t want to offend anyone, but I’ve never been fond of Frame and this irresponsible blurb gives me one more reason for my conviction.
Chunck, I studied and had classes from Mr. Frame. I also share your viewpoint. And extremely glad for the work the Reformed faith groups have done on this crucial issue.
To be clear: My point here is not to bash JMF. One can forgive Minich for thinking that he was on to something. After all, it was promulgated around the web as the definitive treatment of the FV! It was blurbed by folk with credibility in positions of leadership. It was published, without rebuttal (as I recall) in a leading Reformed magazine. The problem here is the way people in positions of leadership, who should have known better, put their imprimatur on this piece not because it was really true (even it’s author now doubts the truth of what he wrote) but because it argued for tolerance of what most of the NAPARC churches/denominations/federations now recognize as a serious error. In
Most encouraging-but we shouldn’t hold our collective breath waiting for Doug Wilson to issue a mea culpa.
It really should not come as any great surprise that Frame puffed Minich’s piece defending the FV -after all Frame’s defense of Shepherd should also not go unnoticed simply because Shepherd is one of the contributing factors in the birth of the FV. Connect the dots.
I studied under Shepherd and JFM back in the day. I remember the confusions, conflicts and charlie-horses between my ears. I remember the rancour. I remember the boldness, often sinfully mixed with discourtesy. I remember few professors standing up to Shepherd aside from Dr. Bob Godfrey and my true and only mentor at Westminster, the Rev. Dr. Philip Edcumbe Hughes. There were a few others also. I am very thankful for my days there, but have not recommended and will not recommend WTS east. Here I stand, boldly but courteously. West yes, but not east.
DVP
I was also at WTS at that time. Both Robert Knudsen and W.Standford Reid were equally outspoken in their opposotion to Shepherd’s teaching.
“The problem here is the way people in positions of leadership, who should have known better, put their imprimatur on. . . .”
Too much of that happening these days.
GLW J:
Yes, they did. I remember Dr. Knudsen at a lecture at Blue Bell OPC standing in the back. Shepherd lectured–and he could be winsome–and Dr. Knudsen objected during the Q/A period following. If not mistaken, Dr. PE Hughes was one of the first voices to object, along Dr. Godfrey. Dr. Reid was before my time. “Uncle Cornie” Van Til was retired, but would amble around the campus. I have no idea what his thoughts were. I can tell you this, as a reader of the English Reformers, Calvin exerted tremendous and enormous influence on the English Reformation–and they sang Calvin’s songs on covenant, justification and faith…at least for seventy years after Cranmer. I would heartily commend WTS west. Thanks for the reminder.
I am exceedingly thankful for the example of humility demonstrated by Joseph Minich. It should be a testimony to all of us to be ready to admit when we have taught something that we come to realize was not biblical. Thank you for posting this!
What are we to think when Wilson himself says that you (R. Scott Clark) and Guy Waters are not “safe guides” in the FV controversy? This is an honest question. Most of the Anti-FVer’s I’ve met can’t tell me what FV’ers actually say. They can only quote what they’ve heard. The Church would benefit from a face to face discussion of this issue. Most of what I’ve read by TR’s is simply not a faithful representation of what FV’ers say.
TR’s would say, “The FV is….” and the FV’s would say, “No, here’s what we are saying….”
When you read the FV’s on the FV it seems pretty clear that most TR’s haven’t read their primary source data.
Wilson and Horton have already discussed the issue on Covenant Radio. How about inviting Wilson and Clark on the White Horse Inn? All of us, FV and TR would really benefit in getting this out of the conjecture world of the blogosphere and into an actual debate/discussion that all of us can access.
Jared,
You may not be aware of this but many people have spent a great deal of time researching the FV movement and theology. The problem for the FV movement today is that many of us DO UNDERSTAND them. They were better off, ecclesiastically speaking, when no one was paying attention to them.
Please take some time and read the several resources posted or linked here:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php
Jared
I don’t know what cave you been off hiding in over the past couple of years but your plea for ‘dialogue’ has run its course. The Reformed churches have analysized the FV and the verdict is in -furthermore the leading voices in the FV are as adament as ever about their views and have not retracted a single distinctive despite the numerous study reports that weighted the FV in the balance and found it wanting. All the FVers want now is gained a sympathetic hearing from people like you who blissfully are in in dark.
Wow…GLW quite the response… arrogant, and not helpful at all. I am brand new to reformed thinking and have not yet read all there is to read. I have family members who are hard-core FV and I have pastor friends who aren’t. I’m simply trying to sort it all out. That’s why I came to this blog, to get some help. Not be told that I’m living in a cave and blissfully in the dark.
Dr. Clark thanks so much for your post and the link. It’s exactly what I’m needing.
Jared,
You must understand that this has been going on for about 30 years. It began in the early 1970s in Philadelphia. The first phase ended about 1981 but it began again in the late 90s when young seminary grads and others who didn’t know the first phase or who sought to turn the tide or who sought to resuscitate Norman Shepherd’s ideas and integrate them into an adaptation of the NPP re-energized the whole argument. Indeed, Shepherd himself re-energized the discussion by publishing re-written versions of the earlier essays and arguments.
So, some of us have been at this now for a long time! In this second phase I’ve been working on this second phase since about 2000. To put this in perspective, what were you doing 9 years ago?
Second, there are pro-FV trolls who aren’t interested in learning or reading but go about saying the same sorts of things you wrote above. If one read your comments as “trolling” or being deliberately provocative (as I think Gary does/did) then one is tended to respond as Gary did. To be frank, I initially took your comments as trolling. I had to go back and revise them on the premise that it was a genuine question.
For those of us who’ve spent so much time working on this (in my case since I started reading about and thinking about the first phase in the early 1980s) the claim that “the critics of the FV movement just don’ t understand” is provocative and incredible.
Please start with the essay, “For Those Just Tuning In.”
As to the CRE see this post: “Thinking About the CRE?”
See also the latest ecclesiastical report on the FV:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/urcna-study-committee-rejects-fv/
Please take a few months and read the work of Guy Waters, the WSC faculty in CJPM (link above on the top left of this site). Read the little baptism and election booklet (link above at the top of the page) and the more substantial essay in the Confessional Presbyterian on the same topic (link on the FV resource page). See the collection of essays edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters (link on the resource page) and the early dialogue between the pro- and anti-FV folk in the Auburn Ave volume (this one might become hard to find now that Knox Seminary has changed hands and is apparently no longer publishing the work). These are just some of the resources available on this topic.
This last volume belies the continued and disingenuous claim by some pro-FV folk, who are now busily trying to rehabilitate themselves like Nixon after Watergate or like Clinton after Monica, that there’s never been any dialogue. Nonsense. There’s been plenty of dialogue. This is the same tack taken by the Remonstrants at Dort: “You don’t understand us.” As I’ve been saying for years now, I’m so thankful that the Synod of Dort did understand the Remonstrants and spoke up and I’m thankful for the RCUS, the URCs, the OPC Report, the PCA General Assembly, and the RPCNA who have each and all read, marked, digested and evaluated the biblical, theological, historical, and practical claims of the FV. I’m thankful for the faculties at GPTS, MARS, and WSC who have done the same. Each and all of them has rejected the FV but only after study and deliberation.
The claim that the orthodox do not understand the FV is not only false but it is a slander of those of us who’ve spent so much time reading this amateur nonsense when we could have spent the decade reading actual Reformed theology. The truth is, the FV is, by and large, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight and this because, from a technical pov, many of them are untrained and most of them are technically incompetent to do Reformed theology. It’s no mere coincidence that the 2nd phase of the FV movement arose at the same time as the internet where amateurs flourished very early on.
Jared
You are more than welcome.
You need to plug in the link for “For Those Just Tuning In.” Then delete this comment.
Thanks!
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/for-those-just-tuning-in-what-is-the-federal-vision/
Dr. Clark, are there any other denominations that rejects the FV, other than the RCUS, the URCs, the OPC Report, the PCA General Assembly, and the RPCNA ?
What about the PRCA ?
Hi Slabbert,
There is a theonomic Presbyterian denomination that was among the earliest to reject the FV. I don’t know about any others outside of NAPARC. I don’t know if the PRs have said anything officially. I know that, unofficially, the PRs are quite opposed to the FV but searching this page and others on their site I saw nothing official.
You can search the church sites linked to the NAPARC site (www.naparc.org) for yourself to see if you might find something.
I think the Protestant Reformed would naturally reject the FV. For example, the PRC takes a strong stand for unconditionality in the Covenant of Grace. They also tend to explain covenant identity in decretal terms, something FV proponents like Barach and Wilkins rail against. Issues related to the FV resulted in a substantial split in the PRCA in 1953. See works like For Thy Truth’s Sake: A Doctrinal History of the Protestant Reformed Churches by Herman Hanko and Ready To Give An Answer by Hanko and Hoeksema.
In my reading of the FV debate, I see many say that the FV’s central problem is, rejecting the covenant of works doctrine. But then, we have the PRCA, who rejects the covenant of works, but still rejects FV very strongly.
This maybe suggests that the dividing line in this controversy, is not if your for or against the covenant of works, because you get people in both camps that are for or against the FV.
Any explanation for this ?
Slabbert,
I don’t think the dividing line is exactly the covenant of works. You’re right that there are people who are orthodox on justification who either reject the FV or would (e.g. John Murray) who rejected or questioned the covenant of works.
The problem isn’t the covenant of works here, although I regard it as a significant mistake to reject the covenant of works, but failure to distinguish the principles of works and grace or law and gospel. The FV completely misses this distinction. The PRs get this and so did Murray but both the PRs and Murray, for different reasons, do not connect these principles to their covenant theologies the way that the classic Reformed theologians did.
The second problem at root is the failure to distinguish and rightly relate the decree to the administration of the covenant of grace. I think Murray got this right mainly but he moved toward Schilder’s view and this created a problem as it tends to allow the administration to swallow up the decree. The PRs have the opposite problem as the decree swallows up the administration.
The classic Reformed guys got it right. They kept the balance/tension between decree and administration. I try to explain this in the booklet (see above in the “Order Scott’s books section” of the site) on Covenant, Election, and Baptism. See also the essay in the Confessional Presbyterian linked at http://www.wscal/edu/clark/fvnpp.php
May I suggest that the dividing line is not a denial of the covenant of works? The dividing line is a denial of the covenant of grace. While the FV does not claim to deny the covenant of grace and do claim to deny the covenant of works (generally), the reality is that they deny the covenant of grace. They say that all covenants have the same structure, and that structure is most analogous to how the Reformed defined the covenant of works. According to them, all covenants are “do this and live” covenants. Faith alone is the condition before and after the fall. And thus, they define faith alone in a way that really is just “my own obedience.”
This is where I’ve come to on this issue, though I’ve said this less clearly in older statements like this one: http://johannesweslianus.blogspot.com/2007/12/merit-covenant-of-works.html
One of the biggest mistakes I think we can make in discussing an issue is to simply take at face value the way our opponents define the terms. The FV has said that they deny the covenant of works, but it is more accurate to say that they turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works and thus have nothing but covenants of works.
Hi Wes and others participating. Thanks to Professor Clark for hosting this discussion. I am enjoying it.
Wes, I think your comment about the FV denying the Covenant of Grace is quite telling. After again reading the Book of Romans, I cannot but help be mystified as to how all the legalism that comes out of the FV can be considered so biblically insightful by FV proponents and fans. Curiously, I often encounter two defenses of the FV: 1) It is an affirmation of more Reformed truth than most Reformed people are willing to affirm; 2) It is a stripping away of accretions foreign to an authentic Reformed perspective. Neither of these is convincing and are fine examples of FV sophistry.
Strangely enough, one FV leader seems to want to turn your argument around. In fact, he believes that the Covenant of Works is the crux of the matter. Doug Wilson boldly claims the following in Credenda Agenda:
“If you believe that Adam was “on his own” as he tried to navigate the difficult task of staying away from the tree in the middle of the Garden, then you are a critic of the Federal Vision. If you believe that Adam should have obeyed God by continuing to trust and rest in Him, and that striking out “on his own” is what got us into all this trouble, then in principle you are in sympathy with the Federal Vision.”
See http://www.credenda.org/issues/19-3doctrine101.php
As it has been already noted in this discussion, some people who reject CofW are or would have been FV critics making Wilson’s contention absurd. However, it is interesting that Wilson sees the issue as crucially important. Does this mean that rejection of the CofW is a decisive mistake?
No, as I said above (or below) the decisive mistake is confusing law and gospel and grace and works. This manifests itself, in the FV and in the Shepherdites in their denial of the covenant of works but there have been orthodox people who have been uncomfortable with the covenant of works (about which I think they were mistaken) who did not carry their problem through to a denial of the distinction between works and grace or between law and gospel.
I agree. I regret that I was beating a dead horse. Why do you think Wilson sees the CofW issue as so important in the FV debate? How would you respond to the Credenda article I referenced above?
It seems to come down to the law/gospel distinction more than anything else. From what I’ve seen though, it isn’t just FVers denying it, but supposedly good, solid Reformed men. I read a comment on another blog claiming a WTS guy (who will remain nameless) said CJPM reflected a ‘Lutheran’ view of justification and that Calvin wouldn’t have agreed with it!
Dr. Clark, thank you for the explanation.
I have not given the debate about the CoW much consideration, because I do not see the term or the doctrine discussed clearly in the Three Forms of Unity. But, I am planning to study it more in the future, hopefully. Any specific articles you would recommend, esp. a good introduction on the CoW ? I recently read an article on the ref fellowship website about this
(I think it was by a rev. Lemms ?), and it started me of think about the CoW again.
I also think the problem with the FV and the Schilderian covenant idea, is their (a) rejection of what I call ‘distinguish’ theology, i.e. that not all are the same way ‘in’ the covenant, and/or (b) not distinguish correctly how one could be ‘in’ the covenant.
All classic reformed theologians (1600-1900), including Kuyper and Hoeksema (20th century), at least ‘distinguished’, although they differed specifically on the ‘how’:
- internal and external (Kuyper)
- essence and administration (Bavinck)
- sphere of the covenant and covenant itself (Hoeksema)
- etc.
Slabbert,
On the prelapsarian covenant in the Belgic see the URCs 9 Points, specifically #2:
We reject the errors of those
2. who, in any way and for any reason, confuse the “commandment of life” given before the fall with the gospel announced after the fall (BC 14, 17, 18; HC 19, 21, 56, 60);
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/9points.php
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/exposition9pts.php
See also:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/classicalcovtheology.php
Wes, glad to see your name here. I wanted to write on your blog, but now I can do it directly here. I see you mentioned the ‘Synopsis Purioris Theologiae’ on your website. How is your english translation coming along, because I need a copy, please ? I see there is also a dutch translation by a rev. D van Dijk, but not available right now.
Really would love to study this work.
Brandon,
I can’t answer for DW. You’ll have ask him. Some in the FV movement have tried to divide Reformed orthodoxy over the question of the covenant of works but, as I say, I don’t think it works.
See the opening chapter in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry.
See the other resources on the FV/NPP page
http://www.wscal/edu/clark/fvnpp.php
Congratulations! That is absolutely the most ignorant statement I’ve read in a long long time.
speaking of trolls…
I feel like so much of the “sources” that people read are only slightly better than “dt”s comment. I know men like Dr. Clark and “greensbaggins” have studied the issue of FV a lot, and I respect them for that. I still feel like their representation of FV is lacking – that is, it doesn’t match up with my first hand experience of FV. I feel like FV and other Reformed denomination are talking past each other. I think this man (http://katamatthaion.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/a-war-of-narratives-what-the-pca-can-learn-from-n/) put it quite well.
I read anti-FV materials, and it makes FV sound like quite the heresy. The only thing is, their accusation don’t match up with what I happen to know because my pastor is Doug Wilson. The clearest example is the accusation the FV teaches justification by faith plus works. I have never heard such clear explanation of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone than Doug Wilson’s weekly sermons.
That’s why this is so confusing to me…. and I apologize if I’m just naive and ignorant…I’m sincerely not trying to be. In fact I’ve been hanging out with a solid URC Minister/Westminter Grad in an effort to try to sort this out.
I agree with Daniel… I’ve never heard a denial of justification by faith alone, or many of the other claims… again, I acknowledge my newness to all of this.
Also, I listened to Guy Waters’ critique on sermonaudio.com and it was so terribly mis-leading… and I’m convinced that Waters owes Wilson a big apology for that lecture. I don’t know about other stuff Water’s has written but that lecture was terrible! He says Wilson believes things that Wilson has outright denounced.
When I said the anti-FV crowd seldom seems to know what FV is I should have been more specific. I’ve met with three pastors (excluding my URC friend) and asked them about FV. One was a PCA minister, one was a Southern Baptist, and the other was non-denominational. They all said FV was pretty dangerous stuff, but I couldn’t get any of them to tell me what FV is.
When John MacArthur says you must display works (Lordship Salvation) why is it OK? That’s an HONEST question, not slight of hand…Is MacArthur’s ‘Lordship Salvation’ any different from FV’s requirement of good works?
Daniel,
How well read are you in the published literature that critiques the FV?
Have you read
Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry? (http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=917)
“Baptism and the Benefits of Christ”?
BECG (http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=1341)
The recent URCNA report ,
The Mississippi Valley (PCA) report (http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/PDFs/Public%20Miss%20Valley%20Pres%20AAPC2.pdf)
Johson and Waters, eds. By Faith Alone (http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=1165)
Tthe exposition of the 9 points of the URCs contra the FV (http://www.wscal.edu/clark/exposition9pts.php)
John Fesko’s volume on justification (http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=1943)
Guy Waters’ critique of the FV (http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=890)?
Are you suggesting that none of these has really addressed the claims of the FV?
Jared,
Let me be so bold as to suggest that you and Daniel don’t understand what is at stake. An expert on the NPP (PhD Duke, on the NPP with one of the leading proponents of the NPP) who has done extensive research into the primary sources of both the NPP and the FV movement(s) comes to conclusions and you call him a liar and yet you admit that you’re new to all this. This is the arrogance fostered by the internet. Slow down and do some reading before you start making accusations of which you’ll have to repent later.
MacArthur has said some infelicitous things on justification. He’s been rebuked for it and he’s retracted them in some places but, as far as I know, he keeps reprinting the Gospel According to Jesus without substantial revision. I haven’t kept up with it.
Please read the the resources listed above.
No one is saying that EVERYTHING the FV fellows said is false. Virtually all of the NAPARC denominations have concluded, however, that they’ve made about 9 serious errors.
If you’ll read the literature listed above you’ll see that, over the years, we have distinguished between the errors made by this movement. Some of them make more errors than others. All the ecclesiastical reports have recognized that Wilson is among the more orthodox of the proponents of the FV but that he has made some of the same mistakes criticized in others e.g. denying the internal/external distinction, which, in my view, is at the heart of the FV program and teaching paedocommunion among other things.
Dr. Clark, I started by writing a long response, but I prefer to stay brief.
Yes, I am suggesting that none of those reports (or at least the majority) truly represent the FV. I have not read all of them, but enough of them to get the gist. (mostly the PCA stuff as I’m PCA)
The perfect example is the PCA’s 9 points against FV. I can’t think of one FV person that would adhere to half of them. You can find those 9 points (maybe – I’ll trust them on that) in different men, but those nine points are not “Federal Vision.” The proponents of the FV were not contacted to say, “yeah, that’s what I believe/say.” I read those 9 points and I do not recognize what I know of the Federal Vision.
As I said, I am PCA. Before moving here to Moscow (for school), we met with Frank Barker, our pastor from AL, and have had many discussion with other PCA men concerning FV. I have heard the same thing over and over, and it doesn’t add up. I do think I understand what is at stake. The gospel of grace that I have heard from men such as Doug Wilson is the same gospel I have heard for years and years. Having grown up as an MK (MTW), and I have heard many many Reformed preachers (since we had to travel a lot).
Another aspect is that FV is often viewed as the same thing as NPP. I disagree strongly with NPP. I believe in the “Old Perspective” so to speak. But again…the fact that FV and NPP are linked quasi-inseparably in those reports speaks to the fact that those reports do not understand the FV. They, on the contrary, are refuting a doctrine I don’t know of. I agree with their refutations. But who are they refuting? Again, they are not refuting anything I have experienced in the theology of FV.
What is at stake is the specific accusation that FV teachers Justification by faith + works. That is the accusation, in particular, which mis-represents the FV.
To make it more clear. Justification is by faith alone, plus nothing. Being faithful to the covenant has nothing to do with a man’s salvation. There is nothing we can do to gain’s God’s favor. It is all of free grace. It is based on works, but not ours – on the merit and perfect works and perfect covenant keeping of Christ which He did in our stead, that is FOR us. Having accomplished it for us, He then imputed that righteousness to the forgiven sinner, and when God sees, and will ultimately judge, us on the last day, all He will see of merit in us is the righteousness of Christ with which we are clothed.
This is what I have always believed, and this belief has only been fostered by having Doug Wilson as my pastor, attending New Saint Andrews, and going to a CREC church. Do I understand what is at stake?
Daniel,
You cannot leverage the entire FV discussion, which goes back to 1974, by your experience in Moscow.
Most critics of the FV concede that the folk in Moscow are more formally orthodox on justification than other members of the FV. The problem is that they are not always consistent in their orthodoxy on justification. Remember that Wilson was a signatory to the FV statement just after the PCA GA.
You want to reduce the problem to misrepresentation and misunderstanding. That dog won’t hunt. Not here. Not by a long shot.
If refuse to take the time to do the reading I recommend, why should I take the time to re-hash the entire FV episode with you? I can’t do it. Please do the reading and then come back to me.
Dr. Clark,
I understand that you can’t rehash it all here. My main complaint is that the FV has been labeled a heresy. That’s a serious charge. It creates a break in the body when that charge is leveled. I wish we would learn from Church history the gravity of schism. Just think what would have happened if The Roman Church had not “considered heresy” the Reformed Church? The worst of Roman theology came post-reformation.
I WANT the PCA to help balance the FV. I want the reformed denominations to consider the FV “problems” (because there are problems/unbalances) as their own.
As for the list, I’ll consider it a homework assignment. I have read a good deal of it already, and do have my doubts that I will read anything new – but I will give it a go!
While I do think there has been mis-representation, my real issue is the labeling as heretic. I don’t care if FV is mis-represented if we’re willing to work on that as brothers in Christ.
This struck me when I was denied membership on puritainboard.com because I had FV leanings. I want to work through these issues, and discuss them. Is that kind of policy really helpful? I have never changed my theology concerning justification at all – and here I have an association with these FV men, and I am basically ostracized. I have had basically no major theological changes – just the normal growth that I would have in most any church – but am labeled a heretic. This is the problem.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my posts. I believe you are honestly seeking truth and purity in the church. Just as you gave me literature to read (looking forward to reading through it!), may I encourage you to listen to Doug Wilson’s sermons? I wouldn’t assume you had the time for that except that you claim to be an expert on the topic, and perhaps could make the time. I can hardly imagine that you would find anything unorthodox. If if that is so, perhaps it is a mistake to call him a heretic (and me by association)?
In Christ,
Daniel
Daniel,
No NAPARC body has labelled the FV a “heresy,” at least not in the strict sense.
It is a complex of errors. Some are worse than others. The confusion of law and gospel is serious. Those who follow the Shepherdite definition of faith, in the act of justification, as trusting AND obeying, that’s gross error. Those who teach a virtual ex opere (one of the FV boys even used this phrase to describe their view of the sacraments) view of baptism or baptismal election and union with Christ, that’s a very serious error. Paedocommunion is a significant corruption of the sacrament. The denial of the the internal/external is a serious error.
This whole thread began with Joseph Minnich’s recanting of his defense of the FV. Why do you think this happened? Because he didn’t know what he was doing when he started! Here you are at the beginning of your study of these issues. Why do you want to repeat Joseph’s mistake? Take a cue from him and hold your tongue and do the reading and talk to me in five years. I’m serious about that.
Daniel, you should stop and ask yourself, “Could I be wrong?” You don’t see a problem but the faculties of WSC, MARS, GPTS, (the old Knox Seminary), and virtually all the NAPARC denominations have a problem. You say that Guy Waters doesn’t get it and I say that’s one of the few who does get it.
The internet and the public generally is not a good place to “work through” things like the FV or the doctrine of justification. Shared ignorance is not useful. This is why I keep pushing you back to careful published works.
Dr. Clark,
I have asked myself on very numerous occasions about whether I could be wrong, and still do regularly. I don’t claim to adhere to FV theology so much as belief that at least certain advocates are not heretics, and should not be treated as such. I also thing they bring a lot of good things to the discussion table. I take each doctrine that comes my way one at a time, comparing it with scripture first (only true authority), church fathers and tradition second, and modern scholarship and churches (most of your links are in this category, but so is most FV) third.
I’m not quite at the beginning. I’ve watched and listened for about 5 years, and will continue. But it has been 5 pretty intense years – not reading a book here and there, but seeing the theology lived out. My conclusion? I believe it to be the closest to the historic Reformed tradition. End of story? No…I’m still listening and watching.
A tree is known by its fruit. I’m actually concerned about the PCA’s trajectory. Not its theology, per se, but its fruit. The Pharisees has “good theology” (well, kind of) but their fruit was bad.
It’s hard to judge the FV on some of its less-than-perfect theology (no denomination is perfect anyway) when it is showing such good fruit – specifically, generational faithfulness.
But, the best fruit is that which is proven over very much time. Just as someone in 1517 might say, “I’m eager for much fruit to justify the Reformed way” so will I say now.
Blessings, and thank you again for taking the time to respond to my comments,
Daniel
Daniel,
Not everyone in Moscow has had an equally happy experience. I’ve had enough email from rational people (not cranks) so justify my suspicion than your experience isn’t everyone’s.
Here’s Horton and Wilson:
http://www.canonpress.org/shop/item.asp?itemid=841
I doubt Horton (whom I love!!!!!!) would walk away saying “Wilson is wicked” It’s a good exchange
Dr. Clark… I very much appreciate your candor, your firmness, your balance, your conviction, your patience, and gentleness… It’s a great model for all of us.
Dear Dr. Clark,
I just wanted to clarify for the record that my recantation should not be construed as a concession that FV critics are correct about everything (or even mostly everything). My recantation was not an endorsement of FV criticism en large (though there are good critiques out there), but an unmasking of my own “overly-rosy” interpretation in a particular area (the difference between redemptive benefits received by the elect and the reprobate in the covenant). And even here, my recantation assumes an interpretation of FV that is often denied by the critics…namely…that they DO make and believe in a distinction between these benefits. I have simply argued that the distinction is so vague as to be problematic…and that when pressed to clarify, the waters tend to get more muddy rather than more clear (this in constrast to the Reformed tradition). Perhaps I am still too “rosy” in my reading of the FV in several other areas, but I’m (at the moment) persuaded that many readings are still too “thorny.”
Joseph
Interesting that James Jordan posted a scathing article in relation to this over at Biblical Horizons. He branded those who oppose the FV as Reformed Gnostics and cited reasons other than a return to Orthodoxy for Minich’s recantation. The article has now been removed by the author.
The striking similarities bewteen the reaction of the FV and that of the Remonstrants during and after the Synod of Dort are uncanning but fascinating.
Is there any place I can read about this online? How about any MP3 stuff? I work 11 hours a day with my iPod on my hip.
Check out the WSC bookstore
We did a conference on this
Sent from my iPhone
If the FV see a need to emphasize our call to sanctification, which follow our justification (we are saved by faith alone, a faith that is never alone, i.e. works will follow as fruit of the justification, HC q/a 64), then my reaction will be:
a. yes, preach it, and
b. you say nothing new so why all the fuzz, because that has always been the message of Paul (Rom.3:31; 6:1,2, etc) and James (chapter 2, esp. 2:18), followed by our reformed confessions and great reformed theologians (Aug, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Turretini, Kuyper, Bavinck, etc.) through the ages.
Slabbert
Your take on the FV would be fine-if that were all the FV was about-but it is not. Instead we have a twofold election as well as a twofold justification and in both cases election and justification are conditional and can be lost. The Remonstrants would have whole heartedly agree.This is only two of the FV distinctives.
This is a genuinely honest question…..
If FV says they believe the elect can be lost then why do they say,
“We deny that any person who is chosen by God for final salvation before the foundation of the world can fall away and be finally lost. The decretally elect cannot apostatize.”
-From “A Joint Federal Vision Profession”
Are they, in your opinion, just speaking out both sides of their mouth?
According to the reformed tradition, is Union with Christ only something that happens to the decretally elect? If union only happens to the decretally elect then it would appear that FV is speaking out of both sides of their mouth because just prior to what I quoted above they write:
“We affirm that apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians. All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace. The branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away from someone, cut out of a living covenant body. The connection that an apostate had to Christ was not merely external. ”
So from that statement, if union only happens to the elect, then they seem to be contradicting themselves. However if they say you can be united and not decretally elect…. ugh… as I type this it just doesn’t make sense.
Romans 6:5
“For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” That’s certainly NOT speaking of people who will “fall away”
See the booklet BECG and the Conf Pres Journal essay on this
There are not two kinds of election in Reformed theology
Sent from my iPhone
Jared, those united to Christ (who have the possibility of apostasy) are only those who are, to use traditional language, in the “visible church.”
We can’t know men’s heart, obviously, but it basically comes down to this:
If you’re in the church, you can be a hypocrite and yet have true benefits of being in the church. You have the communion of the saints, the gospel preached to you, etc. But if you are not individually regenerate, then you can “fall away,” and become apostate. You are falling away from something real, but you are not loosing a salvation, because it was never truly there.
But if you believe in the gospel, and not in a hypocritical way, then you have assurance that “He who began a good work will complete it,” and that it not possible for you to fall away.
A true Christian of the heart will remain faithful to the covenant, not because he is remainging faithful by his own works, but rather, God has begun a work, and God will complete it in that sinner.
To quote Calvin,
“Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, but which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he “is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” [I Cor. 1:30]. Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies…Thus is is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.”
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk III, ch. 26.1
That’s my understanding.
-Daniel
I will be very interested to see if anyone disagrees with what you’ve stated… I can’t imagine they will. However, it still doesn’t answer the question in regards to how Union with Christ and the Elect relate does it?
I’ve always thought that the only ones that are united to Christ are the “decretally” elect… which is to say “The Elect”
Jared,
One of the great problems with the FV is that they speak of election is two senses at the same time and they move back and forth between them rather fluidly. The second and more serious problem is that they tend to downplay (in the mild cases) or deny the old Reformed distinction between those who have only an external relation to the covenant of grace (e.g. by baptism and profession) and those who have both an external AND and internal relation (by grace alone, through faith alone) to the covenant of grace.
In my view this is the fundamental problem of the FV that leads to all the other problems.
See this booklet for a popular account:
http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=1341
See this essay for a more detailed, heavily footnoted account:
http://www.cpjournal.com/articles/r-scott-clark-baptism-and-the-benefits-of-christ/
The whole thing is not online, but you can get the essay via inter-library loan.
See also http://www.wscal.edu/clark/exposition9pts.php
Jared,
You’re right, and here’s where some terminology comes in which has been botched a lot, but is really not that hard to understand.
Someone who is baptized is “united to Christ” in the sense of being united to the body of Christ, the Church. There is an element in which he truly is “united to Christ.” That’s what I was referring to in my last comment concerning the benefits of Christ applied to someone not truly regenerate.
A decretally elect, as in “The Elect,” are truly united to Christ, eschatologically. When I say “eschatologically” I’m not saying, “those who endure,” (though they will do so), I’m meaning that in the “visible Church” you have people who will not be united to Christ in the resurrection because they are not baptized “of the heart.”
So, those “baptized of the heart” are united to Christ internally and externally – eschatologically.
Those not baptized of the heart are truly united to Christ and his body in an external way. They are not regenerate, and never were. They are united temporally in this case – they are a part of the visible church, the church combatant.
Daniel, can you please show us where the Scriptures narrow the scope of “the elect” to the “decretally elect” as opposed to the “non-decretally elect”?
Chunck, the bible will speak of the “elect” in different ways. It is clear in the OT that “not all Israel is Israel” as Dr. Clark pointed out.
\
I hinted at this earlier, but has anyone done some comparative analysis between MacArthurs “Lordship Salvation” and FV’s view of justification?
Maybe they are worlds apart, but I’m just joining the discussion and they sound pretty close to me. If I’m way off, then just say, “You’re way off” and I’ll go dig a little deeper.
They aren’t world’s apart
See Horton, ed. Christ The Lord
Sent from my iPhone
Chunck,
it helps to distinguish between the national, typological “election” of Israel and the use of “election” to relative to the ordo salutis (application of redemption). Rom 2:28 makes a crucial distinction in re the latter. This is why Paul says, “Not all Israel is Israel” (Rom 9:6).
National Israel was intentionally (Gal 3) a unique case. To carry over that “national” election the visible, institutional church today is a mistake. Paul is trying to sort this out in Romans 9. There was never any time or any sense in which Esau was elect in the sense in which Paul uses that language in Romans 9. He was a part of the visible people of God, he had an external relation to the covenant of grace. In contrast, I’ve had FV people tell me that Esau was elect but he lost it because he didn’t persevere.
Dr. Clark,
I realize not everyone has had a good experience. Find me a church, especially a fairly large church that has been around a while, that doesn’t have dissatisfied congregants. It’s a fallen world, which means fallen pastors and fallen congregants.
Back to some of my previous comments, I was wondering if you had seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLy88cB3gCQ
This is very much how I feel about the whole thing, and Piper’s points are basically my points – not a defense of FV as a whole, just the fact that they are not heretics.
Blessings,
Daniel
Daniel
I replied to the video at length here on the HB.
See “a Gentle Rebuke…”
There should still be a link on the top left or use the search function.
Did you see the “Thinking About the CRE” post I linked above?
I don’t buy the “nuts & sluts” (quoth one of Bill Clinton’s friends) defense. Too many credible witnesses. Many of them are afraid to speak up for fear of what will happen if they do.