Thread by @RScottClark

Thread: “I just don’t understand what all the fuss was about regarding the Federal Vision.” Ok, fair enough. Here you go:

heidelblog.net/2018/08/resour…

“But that’s a lot of reading. I can’t do all that.” Ok, I understand. It’s only the gospel (the article of the standing or falling of the church) but okay, here are the essential things you should read:

1. “For Those Just Tuning In” —this will get you oriented to the basic issues. It’s quite brief and gets you started.

2. Read one of the ecclesiastical (church) reports at the top of the page. I didn’t write any of them. I didn’t even participate in any of the committees. These are not my personal opinions. They are the considered judgments of church committees.

3. There is audio. You can listen to a series of nine 30-minute talks that I gave some years ago. There are podcasts.

4. Two of the ecclesiastical statements are just 9 points. They were Reformed Twitter before Twitter (or maybe early Twitter, I don’t know). If you can read Twitter (you’re reading this) read 9 points.

5. “But it’s so complicated.” Well, it is and it isn’t. In essence it isn’t. In essence it’s a system of “in by baptism, stay in by works.” That’s pretty straightforward, pretty simple.

It only becomes complex in trying to sort through the various pro-FV explanations and defenses and then only because the FVists are so theologically inept.

6. “But that’s not my field.” This is a response I get from scholars within NAPARC sometimes. My response: I don’t care. Get over it. I get correspondence from laity who understand the FV thoroughly. If they can do it so can you. C’mon. Get your head in the game.

It was a lay couple who brought the FV to the URCNA synod and forced Synod finally to deal with it. How did they do that you say? The compared what their preacher was saying on Sunday with the Heidelberg Catechism and they saw great discrepancies and they didn’t give up.

7. “But the FV is so 2007.” Again, yes and no. Formally, the PCA GA spoke against the FV in 2007 but the URCs didn’t finish their work until later. The Synod of Dort didn’t make Arminianism magically go away. That was just the beginning.

An ecclesiastical decision is not like Raid, where you spray it and all the bugs die. It’s more like a restraining order. It’s only as effective as its enforcement and that has been spotty.

In truth, church courts have been reluctant actually to prosecute particular Federal Visionists, even when they were openly FV. Since then it’s become fashionable for FVists to give off that they aren’t really FV.

Sometimes it’s done with sleight of hand, e.g., “Federal Vision No Mas” from which many apparently inferred that the author was abandoning the FV but in which essay he explicitly affirmed all that he had said (and signed) on the FV. The sleight of hand worked.

People read the headline but not the actual article.

So, we still have FVists lurking around both within and without NAPARC (the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council). They may not call themselves FV but they are FV. Some call themselves “Ex-FV” but where’s the evidence?

There are FVists who are still “out there” and “in here.” They hold bible studies.They show up to unprepared congregations, express interest, get involved, form relationships and then hive off a group to start a new congregation.

Confusion remains. There are people (some elders and ministers) who are still not quite sure whether, e.g., paedocommunion (one of the practical effects of FV) is a big deal. Yes, it’s a big deal.

Yes, it’s been a long time. Yes, there are other issues. Yes, they may be “cultural allies,” (or maybe not—how are you with man-stealing, slavery, and plagiariarized defenses of the latter?) but we’re talking about the gospel and the church here.

7. “I just don’t get why you’re still wound up about this.” Well, I just don’t get why you aren’t. What is it about conditional election, resistible grace, and conditional election that doesn’t animate you? Was the Synod of Dort an over-reaction? Asking for a friend.