About Me Contact Me Subscribe RTRC Covenant Radio Podcasts Photo Gallery Parchment Home

Ummm...No!

Ummm...No!

06:26:54 pm on June 11th, 2007, by William Hill Email (179 views )
Filed under: Federal Vision

According to Sam Duncan, vice-moderator of the session of First Presbyterian Church in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and former moderator of the PCA, speaking on the Federal Vision and the work of the GA at this weeks Assembly:

For the layman, who is not familiar with this topic, the Federal Vision basically teaches that membership in a local church makes one elect; once one is elect, his salvation may be lost; baptism results in regeneration; and justification is achieved through both faith and good works.

The Federal Vision, many believe, takes election out of the hands of the Lord and places it on man’s shoulders. (emphasis added)

Ummm...No. Wrong. Completely incorrect. Utterly ridiculous. (Feel free to throw in your own descriptions of this paragraph). Also, please note that this comment about the views of the Federal Vision are for the "layman". Since Sam Duncan is a Ruling Elder and since his observation is so badly WRONG what does this make him? I can say this, if you believe this nonsense spewed out from Mr. Duncan's pen than you are completely clueless on the issue. There is not one ounce of truth associated with this comment. Every FV proponent are hard-core Calvinists and when they speak about election from a decretal perspective, they agree 100 percent with the Westminster Confession of Faith. After all, and this really cannot be disputed, the Confession only speaks in terms of decretal election. However, that is simply not everything they Bible says about election now is it?

C'mon! This is either a statment born from a totally ignorant person on the issue or from one who is bent (in an insanely wild way) of violating the 9th commandment. :crazy:

For more interesting comments on this issue head over to Doug Wilsons' blog. He is even more direct than I am on this comment.


Permalink8 comments
Rate this article:

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Jeff McCormack [Member] Email · http://www.apologiabooks.com
What a utter ignorant statement. Wake up, get your head out of the sand, and stop with such obnoxious statements.

It will never cease to amaze me just how warped some people's thinking is.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/07 @ 18:45
Comment from: Barry Hofstetter [Visitor] Email · http://mysite.earthlink.net
Bill, why do you suppose that this elder made this statement in the way that he did? He is deriving his understanding from somewhere. Whence? Also, did you attempt to email Mr. Duncan and suggest respectfully (as Scripture informs us we should do for an elder) that he is in error? BTW, this does not mean that I agree with his characterization, but I doubt that he is either ignorant or lying. I would assume that he is sincere, but sincerely misinformed.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/07 @ 20:18
Comment from: William Hill [Member] Email · http://www.rtrc.net
Oh I am sure he is geting his information from somewhere...or apparently nowhere, Barry. C'mon, this is a published article in the public view which certainly gives anyone the right to respond to it. I did. Others have as well. His view is that bad...

Maybe he thinks he is being accurate but spare me the "he is sincere" bit. I am sure he is. But he is sincerely wrong.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/07 @ 20:32
Comment from: Christopher Witmer [Visitor] Email
He is sincerely irresponsible. I'll cut the kind of slack that Barry mentions for a layman -- for some laymen. But for a person in Sam Duncan's position? The best spin you can put on it is that is gross professional negligence. It is inexcusable. It is forgivable, but not excusable. It should not have happened and for it to be happening at this late stage of the game is just . . . well, I'd better shut up before I say something I regret later, but I'm extremely disappointed that this is the level that people in positions of leadership have fallen to. Pretty pathetic.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/07 @ 20:38
Comment from: William Hill [Member] Email · http://www.rtrc.net
Agreed Christopher...

Former PCA moderator as well as a RE in the PCA. C'mon...one should be very careful what he writes before he hits the "submit button".

This is very irresponsible to say the least. Anyone with a scantily understanding of the FV will now be more confused or, worse, totally misdirected.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/07 @ 20:42
Comment from: Frank Meints [Visitor] Email
Bill,

Haven't you on numerous lists confronted individuals on their lack of contacting people privately regarding their public statements? I may be wrong, but I am almost certain that I have seen this on the various blogs or yahoo lists that we both view.

Your answer to Barry, stating that it is a public document and open to public response is appropriate, I just didn't expect to see that response from you.

PermalinkPermalink 06/13/07 @ 17:27
Comment from: M. R. Miller [Visitor] Email
Ummm...Yes, is the answer according to the GA today!
PermalinkPermalink 06/13/07 @ 22:10
Comment from: William Hill [Member] Email · http://www.rtrc.net
If you buy that this lame comment from Duncan is descriptive of the REAL understanding of the FV issue then you don't know what the issue is...

And apparently you don't...
PermalinkPermalink 06/13/07 @ 23:27

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)