Comments on: Federal Vision responds http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/ A forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of Christianity and culture. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:57:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: TJ http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-273311 TJ Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:05:34 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-273311 I like Bill. He's a great guy. The Lord has blessed your church with him! I like Bill. He’s a great guy. The Lord has blessed your church with him!

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Mickey McLean http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-273285 Mickey McLean Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:26:39 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-273285 Yes, TJ, the <a href="http://williamcmarsh.com/" rel="nofollow">Son of Westminster</a> is our pastor, and we're glad to have him and his family at our church after a long search. Yes, TJ, the Son of Westminster is our pastor, and we’re glad to have him and his family at our church after a long search.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: TJ http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-273258 TJ Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:11:09 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-273258 Mickey, isn't Bill Marsh your pastor now? Mickey, isn’t Bill Marsh your pastor now?

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Mickey McLean http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-273216 Mickey McLean Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:24:02 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-273216 Here's a <a href="http://www.wscal.edu/clark/tuning.php" rel="nofollow">good article</a> my pastor shared with me on the FV controversy. Here’s a good article my pastor shared with me on the FV controversy.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Patrick Poole http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-273185 Patrick Poole Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:23:31 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-273185 Leithart is playing the hypocrite. He and his FV buddies had more than ample opportunity to speak at GA in support of their position, but chose not to do so. Kind of hard to have a debate when one side refuses to speak (just where was Leithart, Jeff Myers, Steve Wilkins and Mark Horne during that session?). His characterization of the debate over the committee report is not even remotely accurate. His whining now is nothing but sour grapes at having 98% of the denomination going against them. Then again, Leithart knows who signs his paychecks, so he does his master's bidding (having learned that contradicting the Mendacious Mullah of Moscow is a fatal career move). Kiyoshi is absolutely right. The FV debate in the PCA is about nothing less than whether the remnants of Christian Reconstruction will continue to operate in the background. The GA rightly spoke against theonomy in a position paper a number of years ago, but that wasn't sufficient to put a stake into its heart. Like a pig wearing a dress and lipstick, CR resurfaces as the FV. Steve Wilkins flight into Doug Wilson's CREC cult of personality is a positive sign for the PCA. Good ridance to all of them. Leithart is playing the hypocrite. He and his FV buddies had more than ample opportunity to speak at GA in support of their position, but chose not to do so. Kind of hard to have a debate when one side refuses to speak (just where was Leithart, Jeff Myers, Steve Wilkins and Mark Horne during that session?). His characterization of the debate over the committee report is not even remotely accurate. His whining now is nothing but sour grapes at having 98% of the denomination going against them. Then again, Leithart knows who signs his paychecks, so he does his master’s bidding (having learned that contradicting the Mendacious Mullah of Moscow is a fatal career move).

Kiyoshi is absolutely right. The FV debate in the PCA is about nothing less than whether the remnants of Christian Reconstruction will continue to operate in the background. The GA rightly spoke against theonomy in a position paper a number of years ago, but that wasn’t sufficient to put a stake into its heart. Like a pig wearing a dress and lipstick, CR resurfaces as the FV. Steve Wilkins flight into Doug Wilson’s CREC cult of personality is a positive sign for the PCA. Good ridance to all of them.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Kiyoshi http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-273126 Kiyoshi Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:22:21 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-273126 Leithart's complaints are without any substantial merit. The FV crowd has been provided with ample opportunity to air their views and to have them heard. They publish numerous books, hold numerous conferences, and run numerous blogs. No one can argue that they have somehow been silenced. It is not at all in doubt that the FV folks have a distorted view of covenant theology -- one that stands diametrically opposed to orthodox covenant theology as articulated by the early reformers and more recently by Vos and Kline. I agree that the FV folks' views find some support in the writings of John Murray. Nevertheless, we must agree that Murray's covenant theology suffered from serious error. Of course, the real issue is Christian Reconstruction. FV is little more than theonomy dressed up in the language of post-modern philosophy. These folks want us to believe that they are different from guys like Gary North and Doug Phillips. This summer, though, the GA saw through the charade and recognized the FV for the poison that it is. They should be happy that this isn't the Sixteenth Century. They'd all have been burned at the stake by now. As it stands, they can go practice their graceless, Christless legalism elsewhere. Leithart’s complaints are without any substantial merit. The FV crowd has been provided with ample opportunity to air their views and to have them heard. They publish numerous books, hold numerous conferences, and run numerous blogs. No one can argue that they have somehow been silenced.

It is not at all in doubt that the FV folks have a distorted view of covenant theology — one that stands diametrically opposed to orthodox covenant theology as articulated by the early reformers and more recently by Vos and Kline. I agree that the FV folks’ views find some support in the writings of John Murray. Nevertheless, we must agree that Murray’s covenant theology suffered from serious error.

Of course, the real issue is Christian Reconstruction. FV is little more than theonomy dressed up in the language of post-modern philosophy. These folks want us to believe that they are different from guys like Gary North and Doug Phillips. This summer, though, the GA saw through the charade and recognized the FV for the poison that it is.

They should be happy that this isn’t the Sixteenth Century. They’d all have been burned at the stake by now. As it stands, they can go practice their graceless, Christless legalism elsewhere.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: TJ http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-272846 TJ Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:54:09 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-272846 <i>The Assembly quickly determined that justification by faith was the issue, on the assumption that some in the PCA are denying it (which is not true).</i> I'm willing to give Leithart the benefit of the doubt, but considering the man is a theologian, he needs to be more careful with his language. No one denies that FV adherents believe in justification by faith; the issue is whether they believe in justification by faith <i>alone</i>. In some ways this is similar to the Reformation debates on salvation by grace; Roman Catholics did not deny that salvation was by God's grace -- the issue was whether it was God's grace alone or if human beings somehow contributed through such means as the use of the sacraments. That one word "alone" is an important one. And considering that some within the movement appear to adhere to a form of covenantal nomism, it is very difficult to believe, even given the grayness of the language sometimes used by the FV folks. The Assembly quickly determined that justification by faith was the issue, on the assumption that some in the PCA are denying it (which is not true).

I’m willing to give Leithart the benefit of the doubt, but considering the man is a theologian, he needs to be more careful with his language. No one denies that FV adherents believe in justification by faith; the issue is whether they believe in justification by faith alone. In some ways this is similar to the Reformation debates on salvation by grace; Roman Catholics did not deny that salvation was by God’s grace — the issue was whether it was God’s grace alone or if human beings somehow contributed through such means as the use of the sacraments. That one word “alone” is an important one. And considering that some within the movement appear to adhere to a form of covenantal nomism, it is very difficult to believe, even given the grayness of the language sometimes used by the FV folks.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Reg http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-272832 Reg Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:17:12 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-272832 4- I am not saying that debate is never justified. I am weary of it, however. I am reading Pagan Christianity right now, which is on hold because my son took it to public high school and a classmate nabbed it. I will have more to say when I get that book back... AND, THANKS to the guy who introduced that book on WQW!! 4-
I am not saying that debate is never justified. I am weary of it, however. I am reading Pagan Christianity right now, which is on hold because my son took it to public high school and a classmate nabbed it. I will have more to say when I get that book back… AND, THANKS to the guy who introduced that book on WQW!!

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Harrison Scott Key http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-272829 Harrison Scott Key Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:13:44 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-272829 Debate is healthy, necessary, and dangerous in a fallen world. Debate is healthy, necessary, and dangerous in a fallen world.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Rostin http://online.worldmag.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-272828 Rostin Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:11:35 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/02/12/federal-vision-responds/#comment-272828 Reg, Do you think that debate is ever justified? As you ponder that question, consider that the book of Galatians is mostly an argument against a particular heresy. Don't get me wrong. I agree that theological arguments *can* and often *do* degenerate into posturing. But as I see it, evangelicals in the US are currently far more likely to make the opposite error, which ultimately boils down to not caring enough about the truth to contend for it. Reg,

Do you think that debate is ever justified? As you ponder that question, consider that the book of Galatians is mostly an argument against a particular heresy.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree that theological arguments *can* and often *do* degenerate into posturing. But as I see it, evangelicals in the US are currently far more likely to make the opposite error, which ultimately boils down to not caring enough about the truth to contend for it.

Report comment to moderator

]]>