The Federal Visionists want to replace the great sola fide (faith alone) of the Reformation with a doctrine of sola fidelity (justification by faithfulness alone). What’s wrong with a doctrine of sola fidelity? The answer is simple. If we adopt or allow the Federal Visionist sola of sola fidelity, then our justification becomes primarily about what we bring to God and not what we receive from Christ. This eviscerates our doctrine of justification.
Let me illustrate this point. The FV doctrine is that trust is loyalty or faithfulness. It is one thing to say to my wife, “I trust you.” It is something entirely different to say, “I will be loyal to you.” The former is about what I receive from my wife; the latter is what I give. When we turn faith into faithfulness, justification becomes about what we give to God instead of what we receive from Him.
That does not mean that “faithfulness” is unimportant. Faithfulness has its proper place in the Christian life but not in our justification before God. Antifreeze, motor oil, and gasoline are all important to your car’s proper functioning; but you’ve got to make sure you put each one in the right place, or you will have disastrous results.
This is not the first time that the Protestant doctrine of sola fide has been attacked in this way. In the 17th century, the Socinians, an anti-Trinitarian group based in Poland but which later spread throughout Europe, re-defined faith to include works. Here was their definition of faith in their catechism, the Racovian Catechism:
You include then in that faith to which alone and in reality salvation is ascribed, not only trust, but obedience also ? I do so . . . it is necessary that the faith to which alone and in reality salvation is ascribed, or which alone is necessarily followed by salvation, should comprehend [include] obedience.
Now, contrast this with the Westminster Standards:
These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith (WCF, 16.2).
In the Reformed system, obedience is a fruit and evidence of true faith but does not constitute it. This is the difference between justification by faith and justification by works.
Now, are the Federal Visionists really teaching a doctrine of sola fidelity? Let me provide you a few illustrations.
Peter Leithart says:
Faith is allegiance to the Son, taking His side in the great war that is human history. Faith is keeping faith, being loyal to the troth that is plighted in our marriage to the Son. (The Baptized Body, 85)
Norman Shepherd says:
We must not set faith and faithfulness over against each other as antithetical and mutually exclusive principles of gospel and law when it comes to the justification of a sinner before almighty God. (A Faith that Is Never Alone, p. 72).
And:
The faith he [Abraham] had was reckoned to his account as righteousness. Faith and the obedience flowing from faith are of piece with one another and together they constitute the righteousness of Abraham.
Jeffrey Meyers was asked specifically by the Missouri Presbytery investigative committee whether he believed that trust (the principal act of saving faith) includes loyalty, and he affirmed that it did:
To describe saving faith as “personally loyal faith,” as the JFVP does, simply draws out the “volitional element” (fiducia) in classic Reformed definitions of saving faith. Saving faith has three marks in most Reformed theological treatments: 1) knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia).
This is what TE Meyers has taught for years. In a post from the Wrightsaid group, re-posted yesterday at God’s Hammer, TE Meyers wrote:
It seems pretty clear to me that the first word of the decalogue (not commandments) has to do with trusting Yahweh alone. The language of “having” or “possessing” no other god is marriage language. Israel, the bride, is to cling to Yahweh, her Husband and Lord, in faithfulness. What is this but salvation by faith? How is that wrong?
Meyers is right that the bride is to be faithful to the Lord, but he is wrong in saying that this is salvation by faith. This is nothing other than justification by faithfulness. It is a doctrine of sola fidelity.
In conclusion, let me try once more to make these two different systems of justification as clear as I can. Picture a sinner who sees himself condemned by the wrath of God and incapable of delivering himself out of a sinful condition. There is a big difference between saying to such a person, “Simply trust in Jesus,” and “Be loyal to Jesus.” Again, in the first, salvation is about what Jesus does for me. In the second, it is about what I do for Jesus. Clearly, we are dealing with two different doctrines of justification, the one justification sola fide and the other justification sola fidelity.
Tags: faithfulness, Jeffrey Meyers, Joint Federal Vision Profession, Justification, Peter Leithart, Sola Fide
Just a simple question for FVers: how faithful do I have to be in order to be sure I am justified?
I was told by one that it was analogous to my being faithful to my wife. And yet, Jesus tells us, we break that faithfulness by our thoughts (Mt. 5:27-28) and that we must be perfect (or mature, fine), AS OUR HEAVENLY FATHER is perfect/mature (Mt. 5:48). A pretty high standard to meet. In fact, impossible, in my sinful flesh.
I will go with Romans 4:5 instead: “But to him who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
Amen, Chris. The best verse for countering the FV: God justifies the ungodly.
Pastor White
Excellent Post!
“There is a big difference between saying to such a person, ‘Simply trust in Jesus,’ and ‘Be loyal to Jesus.’”
To “simply trust in Jesus” provides confidence and assurance because Jesus was perfect. To “be loyal to Jesus” provides no confidence and no assurance unless I objectively know God’s standard for my loyalty to Jesus.
Wes,
I agree completely with your assessment of faith vs. faithfulness. Replacing faith with faithfulness is a sneaky way to slip works into our justification.
How would you interact with the recent Doug Wilson videos posted at http://www.federal-vision.com ? Is Doug Wilson in the same camp as Shepherd and Meyers?
I have in mind the videos where he comments about Norman Shepherd and justification by faith – judgment by works.
P.S. I would love to see a debate between Doug Wilson and R. Scott Clark.
Wes has brought out a very important point in FV theology – the crucial point of the nature of saving faith. FV adherents have been very “slippery” here, and it has been the point where they keep pleading that they are “so misunderstood.” It is now approaching 9 years since the 2002 AAPC conference. Heretics have historically been guilty of assigning new meanings to long established meanings of words, concepts, etc.
I highly recommend everyone to read “Doctrinal Integrity: The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions and Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards” by the great Presbyterian of the 19th Century, Samuel Miller. This is must reading for all of us! You can read the book free online, though I have had a hard copy for years.
This rings so true what Miller wrote nearly 200 years ago. See if this is not what the FV is doing today:
“Besides, all experience admonishes us to be upon our guard against those who, in publishing erroneous opinions, insist upon it that they differ from the old orthodox creed “only in words.” This plan has been often pursued, until the language became familiar, and the opinions which it naturally expressed, current; and then the real existence of something more than a verbal difference was disclosed in all its extent and inveteracy. Such was the course adopted by Arius, in the fourth century. He and his followers strenuously maintained that they differed in no material respect – nay in terms only – from the orthodox Church. But how entirely was their language changed when they had gained a little more power and influence! The same plea precisely was adopted by Pelagius, and his leading adherents in the fifth century, and also by Cassian, and other advocates of the Semi-Pelagian cause, about the same time. ”
Steve Wilkins, Steve Schlissel, and I will put Jeffery Meyers into this group as well, have all sought to redefine historically understood terms in light of their heretical views. Wilkins has done it with his differentiation between “decretal election” and “covenantal election.” Of course, when examined closely, his “covenatal election” is nothing more than Arminian theology to the core.
I will never forget in my radio debate with Steve Schlissel where Steve wanted me to find OT justification for espousing “faith” as not being defined as “the obedience of faith” where covenantal faithfulness is the essence of faith, as Schlissel contended. I mentioned Genesis 15:6, and Schlissel got real excited that I would mention it. We went to a radio commercial and when we came back we never had much time to debate it. The FV men actually believe that Abraham was justified by his “covenantal obedience.” Read Norman Shepherd and his book, “Call of Grace,” and it is clear that he espouses this view.
One of the listeners to that debate was Dr. James R. White, and he told Chris Arnzen, the host of the radio show, off the air that if he didn’t know Steve Schlissel personally (which he does) he would have sworn he was listening to a Roman Catholic priest.
One of the ministers in our denomination, Pastor Henry Johnson, heard Steve Wilkins at the east coast student worldview conference in 2002 just after the RPCUS “Call to Repentance” hit the fan, so to speak. Henry told Wilkins personally and I paraphrase, “Steve, you cannot call faith the ‘obedience of faith’ implying that there is faithfulness as the core meaning of faith.”
The so called “obedience of faith” in the FV is no different than Roman Catholicism’s view of justification by works. Wilkins and company’s exegesis of “obedience of faith” in Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:25 as “covenantal faithfulness” is a thoroughly incompetent exegesis of the passages. The passages clearly refer to the gospel message where those who trust in Jesus demonstrate “the obedience of faith,” meaning that to exercise faith in Christ is obeying the Gospel message. There is a vast difference between obeying the call to repent and believe from “faithfully obeying the law” as the essence of “saving faith.”
In Mark 1:15 Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” There you have it! We are commanded to obey the command to “repent and believe.” But this is NOT practicing “covenantal faithfulness” as the nature of our justification. We see the command to do the same in I John 3:23, “And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded.” Loving one another is not the essence of the principal act of saving faith. Yes, it is inescapably joined to it as James 2 brings out, but this union is as Wes White states in mentioning the Westminster Confession – our “works” are the evidence of a true faith. “Evidence of” and “essence of” are two entirely different concepts.
The greatest refutation of the FV’s view on the essence of faith is John 3:14-16 where Jesus alludes to his impending death with the incident in the OT where sinning Israelites had been bitten by poisonous serpents. Moses did not tell people to “practice the law” in order to be healed. All he said was, “look to the bronze serpent held up by Moses and you will be healed.” That is saving faith! The looking is NOT covenantal faithfulness but trusting in Christ alone for salvation.
Keep it going Wes! Very fine post!
Great post. Sola fidelity (I’m going to start using that phrase) is the centerpiece of both Wright’s theology and the FV. While the FV men and others like to focus on the differences between the NPP and the FV, they do have this in common. It is this redefinition of faith as faithfulness that places all these men, not simply outside of the Reformed faith, but out of the Christian faith in general. What is alarming is not that the FV men believe that faith is faithfulness (after all Doug Wilson has said for years that believing is doing), it’s that the MOP agrees and, as someone pointed out on this blog some posts ago, the MOP is made up of a significant number of current and former Covenant Seminary professors. I would call that a crisis.
Also, and just so folks here know, it was Chris Hutchinson above who was able to draw out Meyers by stating: “Jim Jordan was simply wrong when he stated that justification by faith is clear in the Ten Commandments. No one answered back, so I assume that I win that exegetical debate.”
Thankfully Meyers took the bait and there is no question that Hutchinson won the exegetical debate. The problem is it looks like Meyers, Leithart and the rest of the FV men have won the ecclesiastical debate. I would like to think Wes’ post above might be used by God to strip the blinders off of TEs and REs in the PCA who ought to know better, but I just don’t see that happening. IMO that most are so hopefully confused about the nature of faith and saving faith that it is for this reason they willingly accept the FV understanding as being within the bounds of orthodoxy. After all, no presbytery to date has said otherwise.
Q. 32. Hath God from eternity loved some even before they did any good, and elected them to life and salvation, to be obtained by Jesus Christ?
A. No, but he loved all His baptized children alike.
Q. 33. Did God in the sending of Christ aim at the salvation of a certain number, or his elect?
A. No, but at the salvation of baptized children in general, whether ever any be saved or no.
Q. 34. Are all those saved for whom Christ died?
A. Yes, all baptized children are saved until they become unfaithful.
Q. 35. Is faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, or are we converted by the efficacy of his grace?
A. Yes, the grace of baptism joins us to Him, and the faith wrought in us by this grace reaches its full efficacy in our faithfulness.
Q. 36. Are all true believers preserved by the power of God unto salvation?
A. No, after their baptism many true believers fall away and perish.
Q. 37. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for our justification?
A. Yes. Christ’s righteousness is not transferred to us, but the grace of faith and our faithfulness, which Christ’ righteousness procured for us, is needed for our final justification.
Q. 38. Are we to receive or apprehend Christ and his righteousness by faith, that we may be justified through him?
A. Yes, we were united with Him in baptism and apprehend Christ by faithfulness.
Q. 39. Are we able to keep all God’s commandments?
A. Yes, the ability is conferred to us in our baptism.
Q. 40. Perhaps in our sincere endeavors, but can we do it absolutely and perfectly?
A. No… Actually in some sense yes.
Q. 41. What need a man then to apprehend Christ’s righteousness and apply it to himself by faith?
A. Christ’s righteousness is really apprehended when we improve our baptism by faithfulness.
[Owen please accept my apology for having modified your original gem.]
Logan, I will repeat concerning Wilson what I have said many times. One orthodox statement does not negate previous heretical statements. Wilson helped write a statement that denies that the law/gospel distinction is in Scripture. That is fundamentally what Shepherd said here. In addition, he continues to support these men and works closely with Peter Leithart. Lane Keister’s post on Wilson is very helpful, IMHO.
I generally only look at these blogs for stories (and this will be that tomorrow morning on Aquila). But I also look for the bigger story. As I see the larger picture, it has always been my advice that opponents of FV should be more narrow in their approach. Instead of 14 trout, throw a 3,000 pound marlin (to use the Sean Parker Social Network illustration). Perhaps this is that marlin. In order to have a successful SJC case (and unltimately, this is where this will have to end up), you need one that clearly shows how a held view ‘strikes at the vitals of religion’. Certainly Sola Fides is vital. And the key to this approach will have to be to so carefully and completely define Fides to exclude loyalty and obedience that there can be only one conclusion. If enough guys agree this marlin is the one to throw, then the problem will be to find those who are strong enough to pick up the marlin and hit their target.
Pastor White,
Your post is clear and concise, and your conclusion, as far as I can see, is inescapable. A monergistic soteriology (reformed soteriology) is incompatible with any degree of synergy, no matter how discreet and discrete.
One system is based on a Grantor who irrevocably grants both His own faithfulness via imputation to the (elect) grantee as well as the faith which responds to the effectual call from the Grantor to the grantee. The Grantor is also the Guarantor of the grant, apart from any action by the grantee.
The other system is based on one covenant party offering some indeterminate degree or amount of faithfulness (merit) to the other covenant party which may or may not be sufficient to secure ultimate justification.
These systems are fundamentally irreconcilable, no matter how one tortures either the text or theological language. One is the true Christian gospel. The other is natural religion which comes in seemingly infinite variations.
Chris H.,
Precisely and well-stated. I have asked that question many times of my FV family members (at least the ones who acknowledge being in an FV church.) I have never received a comprehensible answer. The real answer is that one can never know, although that is not an acceptable answer under reformed soteriology, so the question is evaded.
Following on your point, IMO, that is why the “faithfulness” view inevitably must involve sacramentalism and even sacerdotalism because there must always be a remedy for the deficiency of faithfulness. You must show up frequentsly (weekly? daily?) for a “covenant renewal” ritual and receive the “means of grace” to aid in your covenant faithfulness. You have a priesthood, appropriately attired and adorned, who administers the “means of grace” which help you to restore and maintain your covenant faithfulness. It is important to note that, in the FV, “means of grace” has subtly morphed into something more like “infusion of grace” which is not a reformed concept, as far as I know.
Further, I think that it must be recognized that this type of sacramental sacerdotalism is very compatible with sacralism. I don’t think that it is any coincidence that FV types are universally(?) Constantinian. Their soteriology is modified to fit their underlying ecclesiology/eschatology. And, I think this may be why the Postmillennial transformationalists are so favorably disposed to (or at the very least not vigorously opposed to) the FV adherents.
The Romanists have this quite well-systematized, including provisions for earning covenant faithfulness after death. For those of us with Romanism in our backgrounds, the true nature of FV is quite recognizable and equally repugnant.
And, FWIW, consider how this template works for other natural religions such as radical environmentalism (Gaia worship) which has its own rituals (compulsive recycling) and indulgences (carbon offsets) along with a priesthood and Pope Gore.
Dean B.,
Very well done. I would be smiling at your clever new catechism if it were not so tragically accurate…
Very helpful Wes. Please let folks at GB know you’ve posted this here.
[...] February 22, 2011 at 8:03 pm (Uncategorized) If you’ve read Green Baggins for a while you may remember posts dealing with the FV issues of faithfulness. Wanted to draw your attention to a good summary of this issue Wes White has posted at his blog, Sola Fide or Sola Fidelity? [...]
My Homiletics professor at GPTS said virtually the same thing in my first year of seminary when he was asked to sum up the FV. He said that they “confuse faith and faithfulness”. Well written Wes.
Eileen:
Could you further explain to this pew-sitter why “postmillenniel transformationalists are so favorably disposed to…..the FV adherents.” I asked this question on another thread but didn’t get an answer. If you wish to email me, Pastor White has my email.
Thanks for replying. “Inquiring minds want to know….”
Montani- I can’t speak for Eileen, but I can give you my take on it. From what I can tell, many transformationalists have an affinity for the NPP (New Perspective on Paul). NPP and FV are closely related (although both sides will squeal loudly if you say so) and share a love for all things N.T. Wright. They tend to share the “righteousness=covenant faithfulness” approach to the justification debate. Basically, it’s get in by faith, stay in by faithfulness. Where they disagree is what works are required for one to be covenantly faithful.
That’s a brief summary, but I hope it helps answer your question.
To MM’s point, some of the transfos love NTW’s left-wing politics and glom on to the rest. The Auburnites and Muscovites hate his politics but love his doctrine.
Brad- true. Sorry for the generalization.
Montani,
One of my quirks is trying to figure out why people who have diverse views on one issue might form alliances with others around an issue which, in my mind is of much lesser importance. So, in the case of FV and Postmillennial Transformationalists, they have different soteriological views, as Pastor White has highlighted here, which eviscerate the gospel while they unite around a view of eschatology and a view of the mission of the church–to transform/redeem the world.
I cannot understand why a man, particularly an elder, who claims to be non-FV refuses to be a watchman on the walls around the true gospel by turning a blind eye to the FV perversion of it. The only explanation I have for myself is that they are, in practice, more concerned with a particular view of ecclesiology and eschatology than the reformed view of soteriology; and that seems to me to be an inversion of priority, to say the least.
I suspect, along with with Rachel and Brad, that NTW’s eschatology and, to a lesser extent, his ecclesiology are behind some rather curious theological alliances and forbearance. I’m just a pew-sitter, too, to take this FWIW. That’s the reason why I like to read the theologians here and elsewhere who have spent a lot of time studying issues from various perspectives.
Montani,
I am close to agreeing with the comments above with respect to your question, but I have a slightly different take on it.
When I was an assistant pastor at a PCA church in Cincinnati I was trying to plant a church in the northeast suburbs. There was another group from another PCA church that was also trying to plant in that area. There was some pressure brought to bear to combine the two groups, so we entered into discussions along those lines.
I did not understand the FV issues at that time, but I did realize that this group was different somehow. A number of this group were highly involved in the classical school movement and were friends with Doug Wilson. I am also a fan of classical education, so I became friends with one or two families in particular.
The husband in one family explained their desires for their church in this way, “We want to create something so obviously true and good and beautiful that the non Christians will have to admit that it is good and will be drawn towards the gospel because of it.” The classical school was part of the vision. They even talked about building the church on an old reclaimed brownfield industrial site and reworking it into something beautiful.
Both the FV and the Transformationalist crowd are extremely interesting in reshaping the world according to the vision they find compelling. The FV, with their theonomic roots, tends to look towards Christian Europe, and especially the Middle Ages, as the model for what a Christian kingdom would look like. The transformationalist crowd is looking more and more to the vision of the political left and the heritage of the Social Gospel Movement for their meme.
The great nexus between the two is, of course, art. The FV guys look to the great Medieval masters as expressions of Christendom. The transformationalists look more towards modern art as abstract expressions of their values.
Both would accuse people like me of pietism, a pessimistic eschatology, and a lack of love for the world because I am not so optimistic about what can be done in the culture as they are.
They would also accuse me of pentecostalism and revivalism because I believe if there is going to be any true and lasting transformation of the culture, it will only come after many individuals are personally transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit (and not in baptism.) This will only happen because God chooses to attend the faithful preaching of his Word with extraordinary power.
In other words, there must be true revival. It is my opinion that all of these activities are fundamentally substitutes for true revival, and have come about because they prescribe something that we can do. In contrast we must simply wait and pray for revival, and keep on making use of the ordinary means of grace. God may send it, or he may not. The incentive is all on God’s side and there’s nothing we can do about that. The average American hates that feeling of helplessness and absolute dependency. He wants something to do, and “wait and pray” is not good enough.
Kindest Regards,
Brian
Montani,
I should have mentioned the Bayly Brothers as another example. According to Zrim on another thread, their point of unity is their particular anthropology. Rachel and Lauren and I have wondered about that. As for NTW, Rachel is an expert, although what others like Matthias Martinius on this thread and elsewhere have said is true. In the JW thread about the new GA proposed theme a few days ago, I linked to an article by Matthias a few days ago in which he wrote about this very topic.
Sorry about the confusion about the systematics categories and players, because sometimes I get lost in all of the pertinent threads on multiple sites and who says what about what. Well, that, and it was a really late night last night after all the pizza and All Souls ale.
Hope this does not become a 2k threadapalooza…
Brian- that is very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Eileen~ a threadapalooza sounds fun!
Montani S.L.~ I have had the misfortune to have read extensively the writings of N Tom Wrong. If you would like more on the topic, as I would love to spare you the pain of reading it yourself, I would be happy to share what I have gleaned.
Pastor Carpenter,
Exactly. Thanks for pointing out The Arts as another point of unity. I’m a pietistic conversionistic revivalistic and gnostic morbidly introspective Finneyite, too, according to FV.
Doug Wilson’s family-centered writing is the hook for a lot of people who get drawn into the FV orbit who are not even in Reformed denominations and who could not articulate a comprehensible covenantal theology. In my experience, many of these folks have no idea of the weirdness of his other stuff, including but not limited to RINE, but they are inclined to dismiss the danger because his family and homeschooling writing is so appealing.
Brain: my own experience affirms your insights. I too have a strong affinity for classical education. I too had some pastoral involvement with some “disciples of Doug” for whom classical education is nothing more than a means to the transformationalist end. I too get discounted for supposed revivalist tendencies because of my insistence on the actual work of the Spirit in conversion via the ordinary means of grace.
Interestingly, such folks are not always FV, or Doug disciples. Some as well are found in the patriarch end of things (e.g., Phillips, Vision Forum). Still others are theonomic.
The label transformationalist is bigger than FV (or NPP). Not disagreeing with the insights here. Just making sure we’re not too flattening/narrowing in our observations.
Eileen
“In my experience, many of these folks have no idea of the weirdness of his other stuff, including but not limited to RINE, but they are inclined to dismiss the danger because his family and homeschooling writing is so appealing.”
Good point!
Wilson’s homeschooling and marriage ideas gave him instant credibility in the Reformed community. I attended a Doug Wilson conference on the topic of marriage hosted by a local United Reformed church in 2003. I appreciated his views on marriage as well as classical education.
A friend of mine recently observed, “Wilson is like a gateway drug that may lead to other stronger narcotic like Jordan”. Wilson had been successful in hiding his drug in homeschooling and family, but few realized why they craved his special brownies until it was too late.
Through this experience I have learned that simply because I agree with someone on a certain topic does not make them infallible on all subjects. Conversely, because I disagree with someone on a topic does not make them worthless on all subjects. [The second scenario is much harder for me to practice at this point in my sanctification.]
Rachel do you have a blog or something where your gleanings on N.T. Wrong can be found? If, no, maybe you should consider doing something along those lines?
Sean- I would be happy to pass along what I have. Mainly I have quotes from some of his works by topic. I do not have them on a blog.
Reed (Pastor DePace),
Your point is the reason I discriminated between FV and PostMill Transformationalists. The latter is much broader and includes people who, in my understanding, hold to sola fide but who diminish the danger of FV, primarily by passively accepting their presence in ostensibly reformed churches.
Transformationalists are not all PostMill and not all theonomists are FV. One of the FV churches with which I am most familiar morphed from theonomy, but the other one, as far as I can tell, is more generically transformational but its theology is heavily influenced by the bizarro hermeneutic of Chief Musician James B. Jordan and Peter Leithart, the ecclesiology of Ray Sutton, and the general outlook of Bishop Nicky Tommy.
Someone needs to Venn these categories for us.
I appreciate you pointing out Vision Forum and Doug Phillips whose protestant sharia has infected churches far afield from anything which could reasonably be considered Reformed. I have found this heuristic valuable: Anything with “Doug” or “Vision” automatically comes with a high index of suspicion ;o)
Oops. Make that “high index of suspicion of theology pathology.”
Eileen is still my hero!
Dr. Clark, don’t you mean “heroine”?
Thank you all so much for your kind and patient answers to my question. I have read over these comments several times trying to sort through the information. Yes, a Venn Diagram WOULD be helpful!
Thus, our big category might be labeled “transformationalism.” FV would be one of the smaller circles within this category. And perhaps the circles could intersect depending on each transformationalist’s views on ecclesiology, eschatology, and soteriology.
Pastor DePace, I am really familiar with Leadership Network but have never heard of “Vision Forum” or Phillips. What does the patriarch end of things mean?
I left my church of 20 years because I became suspicious when I heard that “it is just so much MORE than JUST Christ dying for your sins,” that we were to “redeem” this and “renew” that for the kingdom of God on Earth. ( Biblically, Christ redeems US and all else follows. ) Pastor Carpenter, I guess that makes me pietistic, eschatologically pessimistic, and revivalistic as well and certainly at odds with all the frightfully “busy with kingdom-work” members around me.
Again, thanks to you all for your help. All of this is really complicated and nearly hopelessly interconnected.
Montani,
Doug Phillips is the head of Vision Forum, the ironically named organization which lacks vision and which is hardly a forum. He promotes something called “Biblical Patriarchy” which includes a number of practices and viewpoints that many (most?) stable adults find troublesome. It is actually an extreme over-reaction to the equally unbiblical feminism, and it’s another example of right diagnosis followed by wrong treatment. He’s another manifestation of the Ezzo phenomenon of an attractive but disastrous idea not grounded in Scripture drawing many away into weird extremism.
Because even thinking about some of the stuff coming out of VF and some of Phillips’ own story makes me queasy, I’m not going into the details here. Bing could be very helpful if you want to learn more. I personally don’t recommend Google because it has 6 letters and because I’m not very emergy and kewl.
Glad you got out of that church!
Eileen:
OK That didn’t take long! I’ve seen enough. As the old folks in WV used to say, “Great Day in the Mornin’!!”
I don’t think there IS a place on my Venn Diagram for THAT!!
Eileen and Montani- I am a home schooler, and I steer clear of Vision Forum. It’s just very odd.
Another interesting web search is Doug Phillips and Doug Wilson.
Montani and Rachel,
I was a home-schooler nearly 30 years ago when it was barely legal in my state. My children subsequently were admitted to and graduated from the best prep school in the South and were literally trailblazers for other home-schooled kids in that regard. It is not necessary to be extreme and weird to be effective, although some apparently think so. It’s very effective marketing, though, which I suspect is the real point of it. Color me either cynical or experienced…
I home-schooled my middle child as well, though I never heard of Vision Forum until yesterday. She is 21 now and an accomplished musician and horse woman. We are very close to this day.
Back on topic, has anyone discovered anywhere in the teaching of the FV luminaries and admirers the precise magic formula of how much covenantal faithfulness is enough or to what degree one must be convenantally faithful in order to be assured of ultimate salvation? What are the metrics? At least the Romanists give us a good idea of what one needs to do to be good-to-go. Are there any ex-cathedra pronouncements from either Moscow or Vatican-on-the-Bayou that would provide any guidelines?
Norman Shepherd is quoted above as saying:>>>The faith he [Abraham] had was reckoned to his account as righteousness. Faith and the obedience flowing from faith are of piece with one another and together they constitute the righteousness of Abraham.
Does Shepherd offer any textual evidence for this pretty bold assertion that faith and faithfulness are welded together in justification?
Eileen,
You asked: “Back on topic, has anyone discovered anywhere in the teaching of the FV luminaries and admirers the precise magic formula of how much covenantal faithfulness is enough or to what degree one must be convenantally faithful in order to be assured of ultimate salvation? What are the metrics?”
Well, that’s the feed into FV sacerdotalism, isn’t it? There’s no classic assurance in FV because they don’t condone “mobid introspection” (another FV catch phrase) such as stated in WCF Chapter 18.
According to FV, you won’t find out how much covenantal faithfulness is enough until the “final judgment”. I quoted and refuted Leithart on that specific subject here, here, and here with some handy citations from Dr. R. Scott Clark and a number of early Reformers. I wrote those posts almost three years ago. Nothing has changed, except that Wilkins left for the CREC.
Wes – Excellent essay!
Chris & John – Well said!
Don – Interesting point. In my professional parlance, better one nuke than thousands of 500 pounders! I think that we proved that at least once in history…
Musings,
True, and for that, here’s a little Federal Vision haiku just for you:
Purgatory, si!
Thee, me, and ev’rybody.
We can’t know. We’ll see!
For all the confessional Truly Poetic (TP), I will entertain no objections because this is haiku “in some sense.”
[...] Greenbaggins blog. I had commented on a repost of Wes White’s insightful piece, “Sola Fide or Sola Fidelity?,” and made the following comment which didn’t sit well with Dr. Strange: …Peter [...]
[...] now turn to a discussion of the idea of faith and works (what Wes White calls the FV doctrine of “sola fidelity” ) under the rubric of coveantal nomism. Notice carefully how Meyers explains 2 Timothy 1:8-9 [...]