Pristine Grace
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107

Thread: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Ray:

    You wrote:



    Calvin wrote right at the beginning:



    Calvin says you are deceived. I'm still studying the matter on the issue of the covenant and am not prepared to state if you are deceived or not on the issue of what the covenant is and does. What I do think is pretty clear is that your belief about the covenant contradicts what Calvin teaches. And that's okay. Just say, "Calvin is wrong!" There's no shame in that. Calvin was not infallible. But there is shame in trying to make people say what you wish they said.
    I seen that Chuck. When reading Calvin elsewhere in speaking of the covenant he must needs then call himself deceived and contradicts himself. I cannot look at Genesis 17:7 and judge from it alone. I have to take into consideration his other comments on the Lord's covenant throughout Scripture to do justice to his comments.

    On the basis of Genesis 17 verse 7 alone, I do reject his commentary. Verse 7 alone is confusing language Calvin uses to define God's covenant. Calvin attaches "grace" "faith" "assurance" "the promise of God" in his definition to God's covenant. He is not talking about multiple covenants (which I also reject, it is but one) but is speaking of the one , everlasting covenant of God. I do not do so lightly as to think I am something of better repute. I do so from the systematic reformed confession that followed Calvin and exposed errors and were dealt with by the reformed faith.

    Canons of Dort , 2ND HEAD.

    Article 8. For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, he purchased for them by his death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in his own presence forever.



    The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

    II. Who teach: That it was not the purpose of the death of Christ that he should confirm the new covenant of grace through his blood, but only that he should acquire for the Father the mere right to establish with man such a covenant as he might please, whether of grace or of works. For this is repugnant to Scripture which teaches that Christ has become the Surety and Mediator of a better, that is, the new covenant, and that a testament is of force where death has occurred. Hebrews 7:22; 9:15,17.


    IV. Who teach: That the new covenant of grace, which God the Father through the mediation of the death of Christ, made with man, does not herein consist that we by faith, in as much as it accepts the merits of Christ, are justified before God and saved, but in the fact that God having revoked the demand of perfect obedience of the law, regards faith itself and the obedience of faith, although imperfect, as the perfect obedience of the law, and does esteem it worthy of the reward of eternal life through grace. For these contradict the Scriptures: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," Romans 3:24,25. And these proclaim, as did the wicked Socinus, a new and strange justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole church.
    V. Who teach: That all men have been accepted unto the state of reconciliation and unto the grace of the covenant, so that no one is worthy of condemnation on account of original sin, and that no one shall be condemned because of it, but that all are free from the guilt of original sin. For this opinion is repugnant to Scripture which teaches that we are by nature children of wrath.

    5th Head:


    The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those: I. Who teach: That the perseverance of the true believers is not a fruit of election, or a gift of God, gained by the death of Christ, but a condition of the new covenant, which (as they declare) man before his decisive election and justification must fulfill through his free will. For the Holy Scripture testifies that this follows out of election, and is given the elect in virtue of the death, the resurrection and intercession of Christ: "But the elect obtained it and the rest were hardened," Romans 11:7. Likewise: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" Romans 8:32-35.

    Thus on the basis of the reformed confessions with respect to God's covenant, when terms as "grace", "faith', "assurance" are used it is always specific to the elect and also that there are no conditions attached to the covenant of God that can be fulfilled by the creature.


    Notice even what Calvin says in the passage you brought up:

    Calvin speaks of Ishmael apostacizing from the covenant. This language is very similar to things that the FV folks say. Ishmael is said to have cut himself off from the covenant after once being part of the covenant.
    I seen that and Calvin leaves himself wide open for criticism especially when he fails to comment on verse 21.




    I'm still trying to decipher exactly how Calvin understood "the everlasting covenant."
    That is why I am not so quick to refute Calvin. If you take the instances in God's Word where "everlasting covenant" is stated and then check Calvins commentary on his comments regarding the text(I'm thinking the Isaiah texts), even he admits that the everlasting covenant cannot be broken, yet here in Genesis 17 he seems to allow for it.



    That may very well be but Calvin is saying that blessings of the covenant are conditioned upon obedience.
    There is no room for the language of "conditions" in the reformed faith . It leads to anarchy. "conditioned upon obedience" itself is an oxymoron. Only Christ has perfect obedience. For man the blessing are unconditionally given. Man cannot preform a condition , he is dead.




    In the above you seem to be equating election and covenant as does the PRC. I think it is pretty clear from reading Calvin that Calvin did not. He saw the covenant and election as related but not as the exact same thing and he saw that God elected people from eternity and that God covenanted with people but that some of the people whom God covenanted with were not of God's elect. Again, I'm still studying the issue of the relationship between covenant and election. I received my copy of The Federal Vision in the mail today and I expect to find some, maybe many problems with it. I'll post a critique of it here when I'm done. Due to the request of those immigrating to the states, the PRC took an official stand on the covenant. Because of that stand it seems that many within the PRC view those who hold to a different position on the covenant than they do as being heretical and outside of the confessions. My only point in all of this is that a person doesn't have to hold to the position of the PRC on the covenant in order to be within the bounds of the confessions. It seems that due to the equation of covenant with election, when those within the PRC read of a person who teaches some kind of conditional covenant, they think that the person is teaching conditional election and assume that the person is on the road to Rome.
    Assumption is not needed. It is proven fact , and has been from the beginning. Election defines the covenant. They are parallel to each other. That is the damnation of the Federal Vision. They look at election through the covenant, the covenant as defined by them. The covenant of God to the FV babbler is breakable, thus in their scheme and they admit it as well, election is breakable. Never , ever is the covenant to be defined apart from election. They are inseperable.

    Some within the FV seem to advocate some kind of conditional election because they believe it is Scriptural to do so. However, what they mean by "election" is not the same as what Reformed dogmaticians have meant by "election" and so those who act like they are are engaging in equivocation. I do think there are problems with this use of election but they make it very clear that they believe that God has elected who will be saved from eternity and that these people will really be saved.
    The Fv adocate is a radical evangelical that comes to the reformed faith so to speak and redefines it as they see fit. I say leave it alone and if you will not, then leave the reformed faith, and do not call yourself a reformed calvinist. You are not. Out you go.




    I take the catechism to be referring to true believers in the visible church. But the catechism refers to ALL children of believers as being in covenant with God not just all believers who are children whose parents are believers.
    Then that stands in contrast to what is confessed in the Canons of Dort. The Heidelberg can only speak of those within the visible church. Here all are members. That is not so with the covenant. All are not members. All are not "in Christ" the head of the covenant. That is impossible.



    I'm glad to see you admit your disagreement with Ursinus. But if doctrinal positions are taken which claim not to be new confessions but an affirmation of what the confessions already teach on a given topic, how can they be proper explanations if those who wrote the confessions would not be able to subscribe to the document which is supposed to be the proper interpretation of what they themselves wrote? (sorry for the long run-on sentence)
    I will not judge Ursinus based on one statement, neither I with the Federal Vision advocate. This is a drawn out process where the fruits are shown to be good or evil. I have not the statements of Ursinus on the Heidelberg to comment further. I do know the Heidelberg and the Canons of Dort conform to each other and do not refute each other as reformed confessions of unity. That is laughable.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Our brothers in the Presbyterian church see the filth of covenant breaking as advocated by the Federal Vision babblers:

    Tabletalk Rewrites the CovenantMarch 2004[FONT="Arial,]Friends,

    The February 2004 issue of Tabletalk, a monthly magazine published by Ligonier Ministries, contains a lethal misrepresentation of the Covenant of Grace. In its February 18 "devotional," we read these words:
    [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]"The book of Hebrews uses this story [of ancient Israel] as a basis for warning Christians to persevere, thereby proving that the new covenant can be broken as well [as the Mosaic could].... [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]"The fact that Hebrews gives real warnings and teaches that the new covenant can be broken might seem strange to those of us from a Reformed background. After all, are not the elect secure in their salvation? Surely it is not possible for the elect to lose their salvation?... How then can these warnings be real? [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]"The answer lies in the concept of covenant. When God makes a covenant, He makes a covenant with both believers and unbelievers, with both the elect and the reprobate.... Human beings are responsible to keep the covenant...." [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]Nothing could be further from the truth. First, Hebrews says that the new covenant is better than the old Mosaic covenant: [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]"But now he [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as he is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises [than the Mosaic covenant]. For if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second."[/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]Second, the new covenant, says Hebrews, is better because it cannot be broken: [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]"I will put my laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them " (Hebrews 8:10-11). [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]There is no possibility of these things not happening: "All shall know me." [/font]

    [FONT="Arial,]Third, God does not make the new covenant, the Covenant of Grace, with both the reprobate and the elect, despite what Tabletalk says. The Covenant is made with the elect only. Question 31 (and many other questions as well) of the Westminster Larger Catechism makes this perfectly clear:[/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]"Q.31 With whom was the Covenant of Grace made? [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]"A. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]In the new and better covenant, God the Father made an agreement with God the Son, Jesus Christ. Acting as the Mediator, as the Representative and Substitute for his people, the elect, Jesus Christ fulfilled all the conditions of the Covenant of Works that Adam had failed to fulfill. Jesus procured all the blessings of salvation for his people, and that salvation he gives to them all as a free gift.[/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]What Tabletalk is teaching is false doctrine. Tabletalk's covenant is the basis of the Antichristian Neolegalism that is sweeping through Reformed churches. This false covenant does not recognize the role of Christ as Mediator. Instead, it requires believers to fulfil unspecified conditions of the covenant in order to keep their salvation. In this false covenant, there is no room for Christ as the Substitute for and Representative of his people, who alone met the conditions the holiness of God requires for salvation: perfection. In this false covenant there is no room for Christ as Savior. In this false covenant, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the necessary and sufficient ground for salvation of sinners is denied. In this false covenant, sinners are told that they themselves must meet the conditions of salvation, the "obligations of the covenant," and by their own "covenant faithfulness" obtain the blessings of the covenant.[/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]If they love the brethren and the truth, the writers, editors, and publishers of Tabletalk must issue an immediate apology to their readers, and a correction and retraction for these false statements. Their failure to do so will justifiably cause many more to doubt the doctrinal soundness of Tabletalk. For three years Tabletalk gave Douglas Wilson, a proponent of Neolegalism, a platform for his views; now the magazine is giving George Grant, a featured speaker at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (which is the primary source of Neolegalism in the PCA), a platform for his views.[/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]When taken to task two years ago for saying in Tabletalk that Peter was the head of the church, the editor of Tabletalk refused to issue a correction or retraction to his readers. So the magazine's record is not good. [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]The question we must ask is, Will Tabletalk repudiate Neolegalism and its proponents, or will it continue to teach it and to give the proponents of Neolegalism a platform?[/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]John Robbins
    The Trinity Foundation
    March 4, 2004
    [/font]
    [FONT="Arial,]For further reading go to Review Archives at http://www.trinityfoundation.org[/font]
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Calvin speaks of the "generally elect" and the "specially elect" in his commentary on the Hebrews. He did not speak of non-elect members of the covenant but of generally elect members of the covenant who were not among the specially elect. Zwingli said similar things and even went so far as to say that if Esau had died in infancy he would have been one of God's elect since his unfaithfulness would not have been shown. The Cannons seem to take a similar position:


    CAN 1:17
    Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy. Zwingli even goes so far as to say, "Indeed it is my opinion that all infants who are under the testament are doubtless of the elect by the laws of the testament."

    I know that Homer Hoeksema takes this a different way but it really seems to be in harmony with the statements of Zwingli and Calvin. A person who subscribes to a confession is not required to subscribe to all the writings of the authors of the confession but it would seem rather odd to claim that certain beliefs which were held by the authors of the confessions are outside of the bounds of the confessions.



    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    There is no room for the language of "conditions" in the reformed faith . It leads to anarchy. "conditioned upon obedience" itself is an oxymoron. Only Christ has perfect obedience. For man the blessing are unconditionally given. Man cannot preform a condition , he is dead.
    Given the language even by Turretin, it does not appear to be true that there is no room for conditions in the Reformed faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    The Fv adocate is a radical evangelical that comes to the reformed faith so to speak and redefines it as they see fit. I say leave it alone and if you will not, then leave the reformed faith, and do not call yourself a reformed calvinist. You are not. Out you go.
    The statement is untrue. They are using language which has been historically used by reformed writers including Calvin and Zwingli.

    The basic beliefs of the FV folks are that:

    1. God has eternally predestined an unchanging number of people out of the whole world to eternal glory with Christ (Eph. 1:11).

    2. God's covenant includes some who have been so predestined to eternal glory with Christ, but i also includes others who have not been predestined to eternal glory with Christ but who will apostacize.

    3. God addresses His people as a whole, and that includes each one in the covenant, head for head, as His elect.

    What do the Canons of Dort mean in the following?

    CAN 5:14 And as it hath pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to begin this work of grace in us, so he preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of his Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, as well as by the use of the sacraments.


    How can we understand the threatenings? How do we understand Ezek. 33:13ff.?

    Ezekiel 33:13-16 "When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. 14 "Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, 15 "if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 "None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.


    It would seem that the statements in the Ezek. passage contradict the Hoeksemenian position. It would seem that if Hoeksema were there he would be saying, "No, no, don't tell them that they will live, some of them are reprobate as is evidenced by the fact that some of them will die later on."
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Calvin speaks of the "generally elect" and the "specially elect" in his commentary on the Hebrews. He did not speak of non-elect members of the covenant but of generally elect members of the covenant who were not among the specially elect. Zwingli said similar things and even went so far as to say that if Esau had died in infancy he would have been one of God's elect since his unfaithfulness would not have been shown. The Cannons seem to take a similar position:
    If that is what Calvin suggests that some are generally elect, then his commentary here is refuted by the reformed confessions and I refute it as well:
    Canons of Dort, 1st head, rejection of errors;
    II. Who teach: That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and that the latter in turn is either incomplete, revocable, non-decisive and conditional, or complete, irrevocable, decisive and absolute. Likewise: that there is one election unto faith, and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation. For this is a fancy of men's minds, invented regardless of the Scriptures, whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted, and this golden chain of our salvation is broken: "And whom he foreordained, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified," Romans 8:30.



    CAN 1:17
    Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy. Zwingli even goes so far as to say, "Indeed it is my opinion that all infants who are under the testament are doubtless of the elect by the laws of the testament."

    I know that Homer Hoeksema takes this a different way but it really seems to be in harmony with the statements of Zwingli and Calvin. A person who subscribes to a confession is not required to subscribe to all the writings of the authors of the confession but it would seem rather odd to claim that certain beliefs which were held by the authors of the confessions are outside of the bounds of the confessions.
    That is absurd. It makes no difference whether an infant, child, or adult. Either they are predestined to election or reprobation. The intent of the article is not to state that all children head for head of believing parents are elect. It is stating that parents ought not to doubt because in reality it is beyond their scope and knowledge whom God has predestined to election and reprobation. Parents are not to wrestle with God's sovereign good pleasure here. Zwingli's statements regarding Esau are babble and are to be written off.

    That does not refute the truth that only the elect enjoy covenant fellowship with God.


    Given the language even by Turretin, it does not appear to be true that there is no room for conditions in the Reformed faith.
    Then one might as well opt for a full revision of the Canons of Dort. The reformers of the time of the Canons were off their rocker. This is exactly what the Federal Vision babblers what. A revision of the confessions to suit there own vain philosophy. They can hit the road.


    The statement is untrue. They are using language which has been historically used by reformed writers including Calvin and Zwingli.
    Fine , then you concede the Federal Vision babbler is given over to tunnel vision in his exegetical grasp of scripture twisting. Ask them rather to deal with the plain language of the Canons of Dort, then see how they whimper and whine. They are to be rejected for the errors they harbour.


    The basic beliefs of the FV folks are that:

    1. God has eternally predestined an unchanging number of people out of the whole world to eternal glory with Christ (Eph. 1:11).
    and has generally elected some as well who evetually go lost even though they were "in Christ".



    2. God's covenant includes some who have been so predestined to eternal glory with Christ, but i also includes others who have not been predestined to eternal glory with Christ but who will apostacize.
    Thus we as Federal Vision babblers reject the perserverance of the saints and refute assurance. God's promise and His covenant are indeed breakable. You the sinner must fulfill conditions in order to attain eternal glory.


    3. God addresses His people as a whole, and that includes each one in the covenant, head for head, as His elect.

    What do the Canons of Dort mean in the following?

    CAN 5:14 And as it hath pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to begin this work of grace in us, so he preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of his Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, as well as by the use of the sacraments.
    The preaching of the Gospel which the Federal Vision babbler is oblivious to, is a sharp two edged sword. It is a savor of life unto life for the elect, and a savor of death unto death for the reprobate. When the Canons mentions "us" they speak of the elect alone. Preservation of the elect saints. This to the Federal Vision babbler is foolishness and a stumbling block to their blinded theology of dung.



    How can we understand the threatenings? How do we understand Ezek. 33:13ff.?

    Ezekiel 33:13-16 "When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. 14 "Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, 15 "if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 "None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.


    It would seem that the statements in the Ezek. passage contradict the Hoeksemenian position. It would seem that if Hoeksema were there he would be saying, "No, no, don't tell them that they will live, some of them are reprobate as is evidenced by the fact that some of them will die later on."
    Did it ever occur to you that if the Lord does not say "live" the sinner remains dead? Or do you advocate that the sinner apart from God can "live". God not only speaks "live" but He also preforms and gives His elect the gifts in order to "live". Will you now advocate that the Lord tells the reprobate vessel of dishonor to "live", yet that vessel wills to remain dead and rejects what the Lord tells it? So much for a sovereign , all predestinating God . He has become god, subject to the whims of the creature. That is far removed from your make believe Hoeksema scoffer of God. Try again.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Ray:

    Neither FV nor Calvin teaches various kinds of election to eternal life. They do teach various kinds of elections but this is necessary given the fact that everytime God says "I choose/chose something" he is electing. God chose Israel and then called a people who were not his people his people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    That is absurd. It makes no difference whether an infant, child, or adult. Either they are predestined to election or reprobation. The intent of the article is not to state that all children head for head of believing parents are elect. It is stating that parents ought not to doubt because in reality it is beyond their scope and knowledge whom God has predestined to election and reprobation.
    The article does not say that though. The article tells all those who have had children who die in infancy not to doubt the salvation and election of their children. I think to say that they should not doubt because they should just plead ignorance and say only God knows is a very unnatural way to read the confession.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    The preaching of the Gospel which the Federal Vision babbler is oblivious to, is a sharp two edged sword. It is a savor of life unto life for the elect, and a savor of death unto death for the reprobate. When the Canons mentions "us" they speak of the elect alone. Preservation of the elect saints. This to the Federal Vision babbler is foolishness and a stumbling block to their blinded theology of dung.

    But if the canons mean the elect alone then what is the purpose of the threatenings?

    Did it ever occur to you that if the Lord does not say "live" the sinner remains dead? Or do you advocate that the sinner apart from God can "live". God not only speaks "live" but He also preforms and gives His elect the gifts in order to "live". Will you now advocate that the Lord tells the reprobate vessel of dishonor to "live", yet that vessel wills to remain dead and rejects what the Lord tells it? So much for a sovereign , all predestinating God . He has become god, subject to the whims of the creature. That is far removed from your make believe Hoeksema scoffer of God. Try again.
    The FV folks do not deny that God does all the work. But sense must be made of this passage. And the passage says that those who were once told that they will live will die if they act unrighteously.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Ray:

    Neither FV nor Calvin teaches various kinds of election to eternal life. They do teach various kinds of elections but this is necessary given the fact that everytime God says "I choose/chose something" he is electing. God chose Israel and then called a people who were not his people his people.
    Take your time and reread what the Canons says again, you seemed to have missed the point.



    The article does not say that though. The article tells all those who have had children who die in infancy not to doubt the salvation and election of their children. I think to say that they should not doubt because they should just plead ignorance and say only God knows is a very unnatural way to read the confession.
    Well then will you now go on record to advocate that all children of believers who die in infancy are elect? It is far from pleading ignorance, it takes God at His Word as truth.




    But if the canons mean the elect alone then what is the purpose of the threatenings?
    I see you struggle with God threatening His own. Maybe we should disregard Revelation 2. Threatening is too offensive for the elect.




    The FV folks do not deny that God does all the work. But sense must be made of this passage. And the passage says that those who were once told that they will live will die if they act unrighteously.
    Simple.... God's sovereign good pleasure. Do you have a problem with that Chuck? Is this not a means which God can use? Or do you think that this is "below" God. It sounds as if you question God's methods. One wonders how God could not blantantly see "no iniquity" in Jacob yet He says it nonetheless.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    Take your time and reread what the Canons says again, you seemed to have missed the point.
    I have reread it and the cannons still appear to be adressing the issue of election unto eternal life specifically. Calvin did not speak of the generally elect as being elect unto eternal life.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    Well then will you now go on record to advocate that all children of believers who die in infancy are elect? It is far from pleading ignorance, it takes God at His Word as truth.
    I'm not willing to go on record as advocating either position on this issue. My concern at present is to discover whether or not this view is in harmony with the reformed confessions.

    I see you struggle with God threatening His own. Maybe we should disregard Revelation 2. Threatening is too offensive for the elect.
    I don't find offense in the idea of God threatening his own, but I don't see how it could fit into the PR grid.

    Simple.... God's sovereign good pleasure. Do you have a problem with that Chuck? Is this not a means which God can use? Or do you think that this is "below" God. It sounds as if you question God's methods. One wonders how God could not blantantly see "no iniquity" in Jacob yet He says it nonetheless.
    God saw no iniquity in Jacob because he saw his sins covered by the blood of Christ. I just wonder if the statements made in the Ezekiel passage are really that different from statements made by ministers which caused the PR split in the 50's.

    Here are some statements from Scripture made regarding apostates:

    Matthew 21:42-44 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'? 43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 "And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."

    Matthew 13:20 "But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;

    Luke 8:13 "But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

    Luke 8:14 "Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.

    John 15:1-6 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

    1 Corinthians 10:1-13 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

    Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

    Hebrews 10:26-31 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    Hebrews 12:22-26 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven."

    2 Peter 1:9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

    2 Peter 2:20-21 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

    Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Is there a "visible" part of the covenant where everyone is included?

    God covenented with Israel, but all of Israel was not all Israel right? The blessings and curses were for everyone correct?

    AS far as presumptive "anything" I do nto see how one could or even consider this option.

    If the believeing parent makes the child "holy", then why does nto the believing spouse make the unbelieveing spouse holy according to Paul?
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    I have reread it and the cannons still appear to be adressing the issue of election unto eternal life specifically. Calvin did not speak of the generally elect as being elect unto eternal life.
    I was referring to the second statement the remonstrant would use "Likewise: That there is one election unto faith and another unto savation (notice the seperation), so that election can be unto justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation."





    I'm not willing to go on record as advocating either position on this issue. My concern at present is to discover whether or not this view is in harmony with the reformed confessions.
    It is quite simple Chuck. It is taking the Lord at face value. You mean to tell me for all the times you have read Romans 9 you now, still, cannot state without fail that the Lord alone deteremines before any are born as to there predestinated end?
    I think quite simply put , you apart from the Word of God, are sympathetic to the thinking that all children who die in infancy, head for head, of believers are elect, period.




    I don't find offense in the idea of God threatening his own, but I don't see how it could fit into the PR grid.
    I am surprised that the idea that the Lord would threaten His elect in Scripture is foreign to you. The Ezekial text is not an isolated event. You mean to tell me that only this text confuses you?




    God saw no iniquity in Jacob because he saw his sins covered by the blood of Christ. I just wonder if the statements made in the Ezekiel passage are really that different from statements made by ministers which caused the PR split in the 50's.
    History proves that the ministers who left injected conditions on the part of man to fulfill, for God's covenant. They made faith a prerequisite. But ministers who have a low view of the sovereingty of God, and are vain philosophers will indeed foolishly see conditions for man to fulfill to be part of the covenant of God. Christ gets the boot, he no longer "is" the head of the covenant in their scheme's.

    Here are some statements from Scripture made regarding apostates:

    Matthew 21:42-44 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'? 43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 "And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."
    verse 44 shows the difference between the elect and the reprobate.


    "But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;

    Luke 8:13 "But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

    Luke 8:14 "Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
    "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given," Matthew 13:11.

    Canons of Dort 3/4th Head
    Article 9. It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ, offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the word, refuse to come, and be converted: the fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the word by perplexing cares, and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. - This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower. Matthew 13.


    "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
    Canons of Dort 1st Head, rejection of errors


    V. Who teach: That the incomplete and non-decisive election of particular persons to salvation occurred because of a foreseen faith, conversion, holiness, godliness, which either began or continued for some time; but that the complete and decisive election occurred because of foreseen perseverance unto the end in faith, conversion, holiness and godliness; and that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, for the sake of which he who is chosen, is more worthy than he who is not chosen; and that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions, which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur. This is repugnant to the entire Scripture, which constantly inculcates this and similar declarations: Election is not out of works, but of him that calleth. Romans 9:11."As many as were ordained to eternal life believed," Acts 13:48."He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy," Ephesians 1:4."Ye did not choose me, but I chose you," John 15:16."But if it be of grace, it is no more of works," Romans 11:6."Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son," I John 4:10.


    Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
    Canons of Dort 5th Head:
    Article 11. The Scripture moreover testifies, that believers in this life have to struggle with various carnal doubts, and that under grievous temptations they are not always sensible of this full assurance of faith and certainty of persevering. But God, who is the Father of all consolation, does not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it, I Corinthians 10:13, and by the Holy Spirit again inspires them with the comfortable assurance of persevering.


    For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
    Canons of Dort, 1st head:
    Article 14. As the doctrine of divine election by the most wise counsel of God, was declared by the prophets, by Christ himself, and by the apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God's most holy name, and for enlivening and comforting his people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High. Acts 20:27;Romans 11:33,34;12:3;Hebrews 6:17,18.



    For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
    Canons of Dort, 5th head, rejection of errors:

    VII. Who teach: That the faith of those, who believe for a time, does not differ from justifying and saving faith except only in duration. For Christ himself, in Matthew 13:20, Luke 8:13, and in other places, evidently notes, besides this duration, a threefold difference between those who believe only for a time and true believers, when he declares that the former receive the seed in stony ground, but the latter in the good ground or heart; that the former are without root, but that the latter have a firm root; that the former are without fruit, but that the latter bring forth their fruit in various measure, with constancy and steadfastness.
    VIII. Who teach: That it is not absurd that one having lost his first regeneration, is again and even often born anew. For these deny by this doctrine the incorruptibleness of the seed of God, whereby we are born again. Contrary to the testimony of the Apostle Peter: "Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible," I Peter 1:23. IX. Who teach: That Christ has in no place prayed that believers should infallibly continue in faith. For they contradict Christ himself, who says: "I have prayed for thee (Simon), that thy faith fail not," Luke 22:32; and the Evangelist John, who declares, that Christ has not prayed for the Apostles only, but also for those who through their word would believer: "Holy Father, keep them in thy name," and: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one," John 17:11, 15, 20.



    But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven."

    2 Peter 1:9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
    Canons of Dort,3/4th Head, rejection of errors:

    VIII. Who teach: That God in the regeneration of man does not use such powers of his omnipotence as potently and infallibly bend man's will to faith and conversion; but that all the works of grace having been accomplished, which God employs to convert man, man may yet so resist God and the Holy Spirit, when God intends man's regeneration and wills to regenerate him, and indeed that man often does so resist that he prevents entirely his regeneration, and that it therefore remains in man's power to be regenerated or not. For this is nothing less than the denial of all the efficiency of God's grace in our conversion, and the subjecting of the working of Almighty God to the will of man, which is contrary to the Apostles, who teach: "That we believe according to the working of the strength of his power," Ephesians 1:19. And: "That God fulfills every desire of goodness and every work of faith with power," 2 Thessalonians 1:11. And: "That his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness," 2 Peter 1:3.


    For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

    Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
    Canons of Dort, 1st head:
    Article 10. The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election; which doth not consist herein, that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a condition of salvation; but that he was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to himself, as it is written, "For the children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil," etc., it was said (namely to Rebecca): "the elder shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," Romans 9:11,12,13."And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," Acts 13:48.

    Article 18. To those who murmur at the free grace of election, and just severity of reprobation, we answer with the apostle: "Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Romans 9:20,and quote the language of our Savior: "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?" Matthew 20:15.And therefore with holy adoration of these mysteries, we exclaim in the words of the apostle: "O the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counselor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. - Amen."

    It is clear that the reformers were not a loss for words as to what to confess and what to reject. That is exactly the kind of "in your face" statements that are needed to reject these whimpy , uncertain thinkings of the FV babblers.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Here is some more babble from another Federal Vision babbler , Rev. Douglas Wilson:

    Doug Wilson's Presbytery Examination [mp3] [pdf]

    Because of the hue and cry over his theological innovations, Doug Wilson asked his presbytery to examine him again to clear him of any potential ecclesiastical charges. The MP3s are recordings of his floor examination, and the .pdf file are his written answers to presbytery questions.

    Douglas Wilson, A Short Credo on Justification

    "The second covenant is a covenant of redemptive grace. The thing that the two covenants have in common is grace, not works. The condition for keeping this covenant is the same as the first, although the circumstances are different. The condition always is to believe God. These points are made, not to smuggle "works from the covenant of works into the covenant of grace, but rather the opposite. I believe we must insist that autonomous works be banished from every human realm and endeavor, whether fallen or unfallen (1 Cor. 1:31)."

    Douglas Wilson, Beyond the Five Solas

    "When confronted with any scriptural truth that is new, or as in this case, with any that sounds new, misunderstanding can do two things with it. One ignoble option is to roll up into a tight little "orthodox" ball, and call anything outside that ball heresy. This is the misunderstanding of the one who says, "It might be biblical, but that doesn't make it confessional!" Another option is to misunderstand the new emphasis in just the same way, but with this difference: the misunderstanding is embraced. This fellow says, "It doesn't sound very confessional-it must therefore be biblical!" The former doesn't understand that true confessional faithfulness is the basis of confessional growth. But the latter will pick up any little piece of doctrinal tumbleweed that blows down the road."

    Douglas Wilson, The Objectivity of the Covenant

    "The church is therefore a covenanted body, organically connected to Christ. As a covenant body in history, it contains organic members who are faithful and organic members who are not. The faithful members persevere to the end only because God has decreed it and given it to them. The unfaithful members are cut out because of unbelief. While they experienced grace, they were not given persevering grace."

    Douglas Wilson, Judas was a Bishop

    "Because American evangelicals (and fundamentalists) tend to believe that the invisible church is visible, this means that to include someone in the church is tantamount to a declaration of peace and harmony. Conservatives see that the Christian faith and liberalism are two antithetical faiths in principle, and so they exclude liberals. The whole thing is so simple: those guys can’t be Christians. Evangelical moderates see that schism is distressing, and so they raise the welcoming glass to just about anyone, and try to promote the general glow of bonhomie. The conservative wants standards and no unity. The moderate wants unity and no standards. The biblical requirement is to demand both unity and standards, backing up the demand by fighting for both."
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Wilson
    When confronted with any scriptural truth that is new, or as in this case, with any that sounds new, misunderstanding can do two things with it. One ignoble option is to roll up into a tight little "orthodox" ball, and call anything outside that ball heresy. This is the misunderstanding of the one who says, "It might be biblical, but that doesn't make it confessional!" Another option is to misunderstand the new emphasis in just the same way, but with this difference: the misunderstanding is embraced. This fellow says, "It doesn't sound very confessional-it must therefore be biblical!" The former doesn't understand that true confessional faithfulness is the basis of confessional growth. But the latter will pick up any little piece of doctrinal tumbleweed that blows down the road.
    AMEN!!! How can you call this babble, Ray? To deny this would be to be the babblingest blabbering brook that ever babbled.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    AMEN!!! How can you call this babble, Ray? To deny this would be to be the babblingest blabbering brook that ever babbled.
    I can deny this babble because at present Rev. Wilson talks of confessional adherance but himself and the CREC do not have a confessional stance. He has stated that it will eventually be the Westminster confession of England and yet finds it confessionally correct to administer the sacrament of the Lord's supper to his young grandson who has not professed faith. Thus Wilson rewrites the confessional stance to suit his own vain philosophy. He maintains paedocommunion. This is the outworking of his FV babble.

    As an FV advocate, he has the audacity to speak of being biblically and confessionally reformed.

    J.V. Fesko, The Federal Vision and the Covenant of Works

    This paper was presented in Dec. 2004 to the PCA Stated Clerks meeting.

    "The federal vision's formulation of the Adamic covenant naturally leads to a different understanding of the covenant of grace... Their construction of their Adamic covenant brings them closer to a semi-Pelagian Arminian theory of the atonement than anything that one might find in historic reformed theology. Moreover, by removing the need for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, they create a vacuum which is filled by the believerís obedience. The federal vision mixes what reformed theology has historically distinguished, faith and works. Given these divergences, it is fair to say that the federal vision does not simply represent a variation within reformed theology but virtually an entirely alien system of doctrine, one at odds with the reformed system of doctrine outlined in the Westminster Standards."


    T.E. Wilder, Ecclesiology: The Achilles Heel of the Federal Vision

    "We see that those who hold to the idea of the covenant taught by the Federal Vision cannot agree on what the true church is. They cannot agree on the boundaries of the covenant. They cannot agree on who is in the covenant. Therefore they cannot agree who is elect and united with Christ." (p. 6)

    Joe Morecraft, A New View of the Covenant Creeping in Largely Unnoticed (New Southern Presbyterian Review I, 2, Fall 2002)

    Taking on the Federal Vision's understanding of covenant, Morecraft identifies the FV confusion between covenant and election:

    "This new view of "the objectivity of the covenant goes off track by failing to keep clear two Biblical distinctions: first, the distinction between the corporate election of Israel as a nation (in the Old Testament) and the soteric election of individuals in Christ (in both Testaments) and, second, the distinction between being baptized into the organized church and being incorporated into Christ."

    Morecraft includes two appendices: the first, a refutation of the Federal Vision's interpretation of John 15 (Norman Shepherd and Douglas Wilson) and Doug Wilson's rejection of the visible/invisible church distinction.



    So yes Rev. Wilson's statement above is babble.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Not all FV folks endorse paedocommunion. Schlissel took the opposing stance in the debate with Tim Gallant. Also, throughout history not all who advocated paedocommunion were part of the Federal Vision (the Eastern church since its inception, the Western church for the first 12 centuries, Wolfgang Musculus, etc.). At the very least the dutch reformed tradition has departed from its reformation roots in the way in which it often bars children from the table until they are 18 or older. Calvin saw age 11 as being the oldest a person should be before they partake. Hoeksema thought the age should be much younger. How can we seriously speak of children of believers as being in the covenant if we make them wait till age 18 when they take part in some kind of unbiblical confirmation ceremony to partake. The Heidelberg does not take a particular stand on the issue but yes the Westminster does. And no, I'm not endorsing paedocommunion. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I think the argument would be stronger from the dutch reformed folks if profession of faith ocurred at age 11-13. You seem to delight in these sweeping accusations and hasty generalization fallacies.

    It would seem to result in more frutiful discussion if you quoted actual FV folks and were more discriminatory about what you posted and then commented on what you believe is wrong with what they say. Some of what you posted by them, every reformed christian should confess and some of it is taught by the PRC. As for little quotes from those who oppose them, why should I believe what they say? I can say anything I want about anyone.

    Just writing the word 'babble' doesn't tell anyone anything. Be a good Christian. Read what these people have actually written. Get yourself a copy of The Federal Vision and then critique it.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    171
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Dear Ray,

    I have in the past so enjoyed your posts, and your insight. Reading this thread has raised up some questions about discernment however.

    You have treated all those in the FV as equally contemptable and wrong. With out discussing if I agree or disagree with the FV as a whole, I would like to discern the speakers/writers from one another. For an example, If 5 solas.org decided to have a conference and invited you to speak there. Assuming you would atend, I doubt wether you would agree with all your fellow brothers. I could see you getting a little upset if people said: : "oh those 5solas guys think "Adam was created evil" that "the church disappeared with the apostles" that "baptism is not for infants" ect. Showing clear non-confessional stands on Covenant theology (1) on the Doctrine of the church (2) and on the sacraments (3). No, I doubt you would like that, but would instead want people to evaluate you based on what you said, and not on your associtations. Yet at the end of the day I trust that you could still call your friends at 5solas brothers.

    The Lousiana Presbytery issued a formal letter clearing Steve Schlissel from the charge of being outside the pale of orthodoxy, and also reproving him for being unclear and confusing. You may want to check it out, if you havn't already.

    What Chuck brings up about Calvin, Hoeksema, and others is important, because much of what the FV says has been the posistion of many Reformed believers since the reformation. (I hope you believe that Hoeksma has a good Covenant Theology - better than M.Klein!!)

    Also concerning Baptism - you said that only the elect should be baptized. Wich means that we must be able to discern elect from non-elect. That power is clearly not given to us wether in the Old Covenant or the "New". Christ seperates the wheat from the tears - not us.

    Ray, I have not seen it your custom to atack friends. It does not suit you. Boast in Christ, as you have before - that suits you much better!
    "We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ[Acts 4:12]. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else." - John Calvin

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Not all FV folks endorse paedocommunion. Schlissel took the opposing stance in the debate with Tim Gallant. Also, throughout history not all who advocated paedocommunion were part of the Federal Vision (the Eastern church since its inception, the Western church for the first 12 centuries, Wolfgang Musculus, etc.).
    You would have to concede the rest do in fact advocate peado communion.
    Considering the amount of time given to paedocommunion by FV advocates, it is a distinctive of them, not of reformed and presbyterian churches and their subsequent church orders.

    At the very least the dutch reformed tradition has departed from its reformation roots in the way in which it often bars children from the table until they are 18 or older. Calvin saw age 11 as being the oldest a person should be before they partake. Hoeksema thought the age should be much younger. How can we seriously speak of children of believers as being in the covenant if we make them wait till age 18 when they take part in some kind of unbiblical confirmation ceremony to partake. The Heidelberg does not take a particular stand on the issue but yes the Westminster does. And no, I'm not endorsing paedocommunion. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I think the argument would be stronger from the dutch reformed folks if profession of faith ocurred at age 11-13. You seem to delight in these sweeping accusations and hasty generalization fallacies.
    The arguments in favor of peado communion have been found wanting within reformed synodical decisions. It has been denied as a "reformed" distinctive. In fact most reformed churches state within their church orders a "profession of faith" is required not only and for participation of the Lord's supper but also with respect to full church memebership with regards to congregational meetings where the congregation is to vote on specific items.

    " Moreover , proper participation at the Lord's Table requires a measure of maturity and an active , conscious faith. Voetius, in answer to the question whether or not all baptised individuals should be considered as entitled to partake of the Lord's table , answered, "No". Said he in substance: Faith may be present potentially without having as yet developed into actual faith. And actual faith is necessary for the proper celebration of the Lord's supper. The essence of faith may be present by regeneration, but the fruit of regeneration, conversion, must also be present.

    In the convention of Wezel (1568) indicated a profession of faith was required before being admitted to Holy Communion, which was later re established by the synod of Dortrecht (1578), than again in the synod of Middelburg (1581) and is in the wording we have today. The office bearers rightly are the guardians over the Lord's Table and rightly fence it.

    Strikingly, those attending the tenets of Arminianism held that attendance or non- attendance at the Lords Table should be left to individual conscience. Hmmmmm. How true to arminian form many so called churches and FV advocates are to the Arminian view that the Lords Supper is a free for all.

    The question of age is determined by the catechism training a child receives within the reformed church they are members of. Seems to me Chuck it was not that long ago you lamented the fact that churches do not teach catechism anymore or hardly. Hmmmmmmm.

    Your lament that child could be seen as not really covenant members is also without validity. The Lord's Supper is administered in the visible church, where both the elect and the reprobate are present and have membership. "Covenant" members are the elect alone. Thus the Lord's supper will be of a gracious benefit for them alone. The reprobate who outwardly, formally , in the visible church fake such membership who partake of the Lords supper, rightly eat and drink judgment to themselves. The office bearers rightly fence the table from those who err in doctrine and lifestyle.


    It would seem to result in more frutiful discussion if you quoted actual FV folks and were more discriminatory about what you posted and then commented on what you believe is wrong with what they say. Some of what you posted by them, every reformed christian should confess and some of it is taught by the PRC. As for little quotes from those who oppose them, why should I believe what they say? I can say anything I want about anyone.
    That is a fair request. The point of me being more "discriminatory" did make me laugh though. This "discrimination" rail is infact the same old plea to be more tolerant and compromising. God forbid I would be.

    The word "some" is true. Even the arminian remonstrant used this as well to squeeze thier heresy into the reformed churches. It is a sneaky ploy yet one seen for some reason by many a minister, elder, professor within reformed and presbyterian churches as an assault on the Scriptures and the reformed confessions. Why such a fuss? How is it the FV has been able to cause splits within churches if it is in fact not such a big deal? Maybe we are really overreacting. Maybe we should let them go ahead and rewrite Scriture and then the reformed confessions. After all here in 2005 a greater light of exegetical wisdom abounds by these FV men.

    Your whine as to why we should believe folks like Moorecraft, Engelsma, Webb, Robbins, White.... et al is a laughable illogical whine.
    Why should I then believe what the FV folks say to be true if that is your intent. It is a plea to emotion and feelings that according to you should override doctrine and the antitheical lifestyle.

    I will rely on the solid exegetical doctrinal stance over emotion and logic. The remonstrant camp shows where that will lead.

    Just writing the word 'babble' doesn't tell anyone anything. Be a good Christian. Read what these people have actually written. Get yourself a copy of The Federal Vision and then critique it.
    Be a "good" Christian. Hmmmmmm. Why am I called a Christian? "
    Question 32. But why art thou called a christian?

    Answer. Because I am a member of Christ [g] by faith, and thus am partaker [h] of his anointing; that so I may [i] confess his name, and present myself a living [j] sacrifice of thankfulness to him: and also that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and [k] Satan in this life: and afterwards [l] reign with him eternally, over all creatures.
    [a]: Heb. 1:9
    [b]: Deut. 18:18; Acts 3:22; John 1:18; John 15:15; Mat. 11:27
    [c]: Psa. 110:4; Heb. 7:21; Heb. 10:14
    [d]: Rom. 8:34
    [e]: Psa. 2:6; Luke 1:33
    [f]: Mat. 28:18; John 10:28
    [g]: 1Cor. 6:15
    [h]: 1John 2:27; Joel 2:28
    [i]: Mat. 10:32
    [j]: Rom. 12:1
    [k]: Eph. 6:11,12; 1Tim. 1:18,19
    [l]: 2Tim 2:12

    I will stick with the Heidelberg catechism interpretation as to what the definition of a Christian is.

    A copy of the Federal Vision I see was critiqued by yourself. The flip flopping of Chuck continues. Well, I will in time weigh in on the book, yet I have enough to read regarding the FV from ligit resources. Of which I will submit in due course.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by samohtwerdna
    Dear Ray,

    I have in the past so enjoyed your posts, and your insight. Reading this thread has raised up some questions about discernment however.

    You have treated all those in the FV as equally contemptable and wrong. With out discussing if I agree or disagree with the FV as a whole, I would like to discern the speakers/writers from one another.
    Thank you. I am not above admonishment. I tend to be polemical yes and I admit that my choice of words bite rather than bark. Chuck , yourself , others do a good job to temper me.

    With respect to the FV I maintain that is it the old arminian error. The men involved do maintain a love for the Lord, yet there is a clear disdain for His predestinating, sovereign purposes. They explain and define apart from that reformed fact. There is clear evidence from the Canons of Dort that the 5 points of calvinism are being destroyed. Yea even the Heidelberg catechism Lords day is clear , but for some reason needs to be re explained by the FV adherant:

    XXIII. LORD'S DAY.


    Question 59. But what doth is profit thee now that thou believest all this?

    Answer. That I am righteous in Christ, before God, and an heir of eternal life. [a]

    Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?

    Answer. Only [b] by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and [c] kept none of them, and am still [d] inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any [e] merit of mine, but only of mere [f] grace, grants [g] and [h] imputes to me, the perfect [i] satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully [j] accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; [k] inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

    Question 61. Why sayest thou, that thou art righteous by faith only?

    Answer. Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the [l] worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before [m] God; and that I cannot receive [n] and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only.

    [a]: Rom. 5:1; Rom. 1:17; John 3:36
    [b]: Rom. 3:22ff; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8,9
    [c]: Rom. 3:9ff
    [d]: Rom. 7:23
    [e]: Rom. 3:24
    [f]: Tit. 3:5; Eph 2:8,9
    [g]: Rom. 4:4,5; 2Cor. 5:19
    [h]: 1John 2:1
    [i]: Rom. 3:24,25
    [j]: 2Cor. 5:21
    [k]: Rom. 3:28; John 3:18
    [l]: Psa. 16:2; Eph. 2:8,9
    [m]: 1Cor. 1:30; 1Cor. 2:2
    [n]: 1John 5:10

    XXIV. LORD'S DAY.


    Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?

    Answer. Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects [a] conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and [b] defiled with sin.

    Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?

    Answer. This reward is not of merit, but of grace. [c]

    Question 64. But doth not this doctrine make men careless and profane?

    Answer. By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of [d] thankfulness.
    [a]: Gal. 3:10; Deut. 17:26
    [b]: Isa. 64:6
    [c]: Luke 17:10
    [d]: Mat. 7:17,18; John 15:5


    For an example, If 5 solas.org decided to have a conference and invited you to speak there. Assuming you would atend, I doubt wether you would agree with all your fellow brothers. I could see you getting a little upset if people said: : "oh those 5solas guys think "Adam was created evil" that "the church disappeared with the apostles" that "baptism is not for infants" ect. Showing clear non-confessional stands on Covenant theology (1) on the Doctrine of the church (2) and on the sacraments (3). No, I doubt you would like that, but would instead want people to evaluate you based on what you said, and not on your associtations. Yet at the end of the day I trust that you could still call your friends at 5solas brothers.
    My brothers here already know where I stand, what I confess, they also know I ought to wholeheartedly confess what I say I confess. They know I subscribe to the Three forms of Unity.

    Would to God the reformed churches would come under the influence of such sovereign grace believers as the saints here. But it is clear , there is a despising of this , and rather the views of FV adherants gain wide acceptance in reformed churches instead.

    Now take a fellow like Rev. Barach, he takes great pains to dis associate himself from the FV clan. In fact he would state that no such FV movement is afoot. Yet a book comes out entitled "federal vision" in which he is a contributor. Hypocritical and an eye opener.

    The FV doctrine is what is being refuted. The men within the FV are as men prone to stumble. I will refute the doctrinal babble they put forth as I would from say..... andrew bain. Nonetheless the person themself I have no need to attack. I take seriously the warnings and admonishment of those who are called to minister and teach as professors with regards the the FV babble.

    It was one of the very first things I was introduced to when I started on reformed theological forums back in 2002.
    It can be wrapped up in one sentence ..... It leads back to ROME!

    Now I know some claim this to be an overreaction. The same claim when the reformers acted upon the deceit of the arminian camp or when conservatives acted upon the vain philosophies within the CRC. Yet the fruits will show themself for what they are.


    Now ask Ray about his affliation with being a member at 5 solas. Yes I am and happy (not hiding) to be here. There are kindred spirits here that are not afraid to confess the Lord as sovereign, to acknowledge His predestinating purposes first and foremost and that theology can only be discussed with this truth being front and center. This forum is an eye opener to the sovereign gracious work of God through out the world.

    The Lousiana Presbytery issued a formal letter clearing Steve Schlissel from the charge of being outside the pale of orthodoxy, and also reproving him for being unclear and confusing. You may want to check it out, if you havn't already.
    That would be Steve Wilkins. Yes I know of this . Mr. John Robbins has reviewed this. Steve Wilkins views have been discussed here on other threads and rightly condemned.


    What Chuck brings up about Calvin, Hoeksema, and others is important, because much of what the FV says has been the posistion of many Reformed believers since the reformation. (I hope you believe that Hoeksma has a good Covenant Theology - better than M.Klein!!)
    You are probably referring to Meredith Kline. Covenant theology has to deal with what God states it is..... everlasting, that is without end, without consumation, established with Christ in time, with Christ as it's head and the fellowship of the elect in Christ with the Godhead.

    Yet I do not deny the FV folk are rehashing the words of Mastricht ( an agreement between two parties), Turretin(difference between covenant with Christ and the elect in Christ), a Brakel(same as Turretin but lacks distinction), Hodge(adds stipulations and conditions), Vos(forerunner to Hoeksema's view, yet with conditions), Bavinck(forerunner to Hoeksema's view, yet with conditons), Berkhof(an agreement with conditions) , or Kuyper( forerunner to Hoeksema' views, yet with agreement between two parties).



    Also concerning Baptism - you said that only the elect should be baptized. Wich means that we must be able to discern elect from non-elect. That power is clearly not given to us wether in the Old Covenant or the "New". Christ seperates the wheat from the tears - not us.
    Where have I stated "only the elect should be baptised"?

    Where have I stated " We must be able to discern elect from non- elect"?



    Ray, I have not seen it your custom to atack friends. It does not suit you. Boast in Christ, as you have before - that suits you much better!
    I attack false doctrine. It is because my boast is in the Lord Jesus Christ and His perfect satisfaction for the sins of His elect chosen through His limited atonement where He irresistably graces His chosen from before the foundation of the world and comforts and assures them, giving the gift of faith that He has purposed it and promised it , and that His Word shall never fail, nor that I as a wretched sinner can break that command He has purposed but will be wholly conformed as a vessel of honor forever.

    Why?

    To the Triune God, my Lord, be the honor and glory alone forever. Amen.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Ray:

    I'm not flip-flopping, I'm dealing with the reality that we are all sinful human beings. I'm not going to adopt a caveman mentality and say FV good, Hoeksema bad or vice versa. Both Hoeksema and those in the FV were/are sinners and so I will be a Berean and test what both of them say against the Scriptures.

    It is also untrue that the bulk of what they write is concerning paedocommunion. I only remember a couple of sentences I think by Leithart in the book that spoke of it at all. The FV group is very, very strong on catechism but just like Hoeksema they don't believe communion should be withheld prior to the time catechism is completed.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Ray:

    I'm not flip-flopping, I'm dealing with the reality that we are all sinful human beings. I'm not going to adopt a caveman mentality and say FV good, Hoeksema bad or vice versa. Both Hoeksema and those in the FV were/are sinners and so I will be a Berean and test what both of them say against the Scriptures.
    we shall see in the months to come.

    It is also untrue that the bulk of what they write is concerning paedocommunion. I only remember a couple of sentences I think by Leithart in the book that spoke of it at all. The FV group is very, very strong on catechism but just like Hoeksema they don't believe communion should be withheld prior to the time catechism is completed.
    What I stated is that the rest of the prominent FV folk advocate paedocommunion. www.peadocommunion.com

    Yet Hoeksema would then admit and true to subscription remain silent on the issue since the reformed churches have rendered what is decent and in good order regarding who should partake of the Lord's supper. Or as the form of subscription states clearly

    "And if hereafter any difficulties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrines should arise in our minds , we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately propose, teach, or defend the same, either by preaching or writing, until we have first revealed such sentiments to the Consisitory, Classis, or Synod, that the same may be there examined , being ready always cheerfully to submit to the judgment of the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, under the penalty, in case of refusal , of being by that very fact suspended from our office. "

    This brings up 2 questions for me.

    1. Where does Hoeksema state what you refer to above?

    2. What is Rev. Barach still doing in the office of minister given that the URC has indeed rendered it's verdict with respect to his views on paedocommunion and will not submit to them?
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    1. Where does Hoeksema state what you refer to above?
    In his Triple Knowledge. I was pretty surprised when I read it. Unfortunately I read it awhile ago and don't have a page reference to give you but believe it was included somewhere in the section on the sacraments. Neither the church order nor the Three Forms of Unity give an age at which communion can take place and neither say that it must occur after catechism has been completed. In Presbyterian churches it has been at a much younger age than in the Dutch-Reformed tradition. It is true that the Reformed churches following in the footsteps of the Western church which they came out of forbade for the most part paedocommunion, but there were exceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    2. What is Rev. Barach still doing in the office of minister given that the URC has indeed rendered it's verdict with respect to his views on paedocommunion and will not submit to them?
    I am unaware of Barach making any statement saying that he supports paedocommunion. There is a larger issue due to the issue that came up with Gallant. Here's a short explanation of what happened with Gallant from his own web page:

    Tim graduated in May 2000 with honours in Biblical Studies and Doctrinal Studies, including a perfect score on the Greek comprehensive exam.
    Following his seminary studies, Tim was examined for candidacy by Classis Western Canada at Lynden, Washington (June 2000). Just prior to this examination, Mr. Gallant had been studying the issue of paedocommunion (children's participation in the Lord's Supper), at the request of members of a church which was interested in calling him.
    By the time of the classis meeting, Tim had studied enough to be unsure of his position on the issue, and wished to ensure that he would not fall outside the bounds of the confessions to which he needed to subscribe, should he come to embrace paedocommunion. Consequently, he requested that his pastor, William Pols, bring up the matter before classis, to determine whether such a view was allowed by the confessions recognized by the URC (i.e. the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort). The body ruled that these confessions required a profession of faith prior to participation in the Lord's Supper. Mr. Gallant's response was to decline to sign the Form of Subscription, which allows for no exceptions. As a result, the classis was unable to declare him eligible for call. (Tim subsequently appealed this decision in June 2002 at Classis Ponoka. The earlier decision was upheld. For Tim's reasoning that these Reformed confessions do not forbid paedocommunion, see his article "Paedocommunion and the Three Forms of Unity.")
    Now, had Gallant just signed the Formula of Subscription and not said anything this would not even be an issue. I think there are probably a handful of ministers who hold to paedcommunion in the URC but have just kept their mouths shut about it. What Synod declared was that by signing the Formula of Subscription a person is stating not only that they do not believe in paedocommunion but that paedocommunion is outside of the bounds of the confessions. I think decision and all its implications are still working its way through the denomination and I don't know what all the results will be. I do not know the particular situation of Barach enough to comment on it.

    The WCF is very clearly opposed to paedocommunion, there is no doubt about that. But I'm not so sure the Three Forms of Unity are explicit on the issue. You can say that because of x, y, and z they are wrong but I think it is rather foolish to say that it is unreformed. I think you could on the same basis of the WCF and various decisions made by reformed church bodies conclude that the position of the PRC on divorce and remarriage is unreformed. Going the other way we end up sounding like those Calvinist baptists who say that the Arminian baptists aren't real baptists and the Arminain baptists who say that the Calvinistic Baptists aren't real baptists and the Landmarkers who say only those who can trace their lineage back are real baptists. We have a very good framework laid out for us in the Three Forms of Unity on determining who is really reformed.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: FEDERAL VISION BABBLE

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    In his Triple Knowledge. I was pretty surprised when I read it. Unfortunately I read it awhile ago and don't have a page reference to give you but believe it was included somewhere in the section on the sacraments. Neither the church order nor the Three Forms of Unity give an age at which communion can take place and neither say that it must occur after catechism has been completed. In Presbyterian churches it has been at a much younger age than in the Dutch-Reformed tradition. It is true that the Reformed churches following in the footsteps of the Western church which they came out of forbade for the most part paedocommunion, but there were exceptions.
    Thanks , I will check that out. The issue of age is and will be in conjunction with the amount of catechism training the child receives in a given reformed church.




    I am unaware of Barach making any statement saying that he supports paedocommunion.
    There are many . Being a member of the Co-URC forum enter "paedo commuinion Barach" He is not at a loss for words.

    There is a larger issue due to the issue that came up with Gallant. Here's a short explanation of what happened with Gallant from his own web page:


    Now, had Gallant just signed the Formula of Subscription and not said anything this would not even be an issue.
    I beg to differ. Though Gallants actions were admirable in the fact that he dealt with his concern front and center. Needless to say, upon his examination the question would have been brought forth. It was not a quiet advocacy on the part of Mr. Gallant.

    I think there are probably a handful of ministers who hold to paedcommunion in the URC but have just kept their mouths shut about it. What Synod declared was that by signing the Formula of Subscription a person is stating not only that they do not believe in paedocommunion but that paedocommunion is outside of the bounds of the confessions. I think decision and all its implications are still working its way through the denomination and I don't know what all the results will be. I do not know the particular situation of Barach enough to comment on it.
    True , Barach is not the only one that would advocate paedo communion in the URC. It is allowing for "disunity" within a "united reformed church" if the actions of synod are now questioned after a decision which is meant to be settled and binding is put forth in the URC.

    The WCF is very clearly opposed to paedocommunion, there is no doubt about that. But I'm not so sure the Three Forms of Unity are explicit on the issue. You can say that because of x, y, and z they are wrong but I think it is rather foolish to say that it is unreformed.
    When a synodical decision of a reformed, among reformed churches refutes it, that is pretty clear. Synods do take into effect previous reformed synodical dealings on the issue. There is a reason, not foolish speculation, why this is deemed "decent and in good order" in reformed churches.

    I think you could on the same basis of the WCF and various decisions made by reformed church bodies conclude that the position of the PRC on divorce and remarriage is unreformed. Going the other way we end up sounding like those Calvinist baptists who say that the Arminian baptists aren't real baptists and the Arminain baptists who say that the Calvinistic Baptists aren't real baptists and the Landmarkers who say only those who can trace their lineage back are real baptists. We have a very good framework laid out for us in the Three Forms of Unity on determining who is really reformed.
    Too bad sadly it has become a dead letter to some who call themselves "reformed" but instead will endure the curse of upholding arminian doctrine.
    Greetings and salutations, el rana

    21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    Proverbs chapter 19

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Amyrauldianism
    By EnglishRose in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-24-06, 03:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •