William, would you be patient, and state clearly for all those who read your blog, what the Federal Vision proponents do believe, because a concise statement would clear up a lot of confusion.

Click the URL to see what FV says about itself.

ofs

Bill,

If you think that Duncan's summary is incorrect, would you please offer an exposition of the FV teaching on these things, and show how the summary is rebutted? Each of those items is indeed what Wilkins himself has even taught explicitly. I fear your glasses have become completely clouded over.

Todd

Todd,

Do I really need to offer an "exposition" to such a terrible summary statement? The statment itself is poisoned to use terms in a way that Wilkins and the FV guys do not use them for one.

One, the term "elect" can mean those who are covenantally elect and it can mean those who are decretally elect. Even the PCA Study Committee admitted this. FV proponents have answered this question at length (and I know because I have talked with quite a few of them personally on this issue). Westminster does not have the market cornered on the term.

Second, no FV person that I know of (including Wilkins) has ever said or written that if you are decretally elect you can lose your salvation. In fact, he has said the very opposite in the examination held of him by the LAP. If he has said so please show me where. Provide a title and page(s) number(s).

Third, it is a false statement to say that the leading FV guys hold to baptismal regeneration. Duncan is simply placing that "scare theology" out there because we all know that no good Christian believes in baptismal regenration and so if he says "so and so" believes it he will be automatically correct by default. It is simply outlandish especially when I have asked these various questions to the leading FV men and they have denied believing such a load of bull-honkey. Now, either they are lying or you anti-FV TR types have lost grip of reality. You choose.

Fourth, FV does not teach a salvation by works no matter how many times the ilk of the Warfield list (and others) want to say they do.

I fear you have been dupped by the musings of a few arrogant people on the various email lists and elsewhere. Perhaps it is your eyes that have been clouded over.

Furthermore, Todd, since Wilkins explicitly states these items (as you assert) please provide some clear contextual quotes (or, at the very least, some titles and page numbers since I have all the books on this subject -- and I mean ALL of the books).

I thought you might be upset by what I wrote. You see, I read the statement by Duncan thinking in terms of one set of definitions for those words. Wilkins, when he says "all in the church are elect" and "baptism regenerates" and "salvation can be lost" and "we are justified by our faithful obedience" (all of which he says, but when pressed asserts that he's simply using the terms differently than traditionally understood), teaches a doctrine that is different than that which he has pledged to uphold.

You have ably demonstrated the problem that arises when one person uses one set of definitions for words, and imputes that meaning to the speaker. This is EXACTLY the problem - yet the FV proponents insist on using the words "justification", "election", etc. This is confusing at best, and deceitful (and worse) at worst.

Thanks for making my point even clearer...

I fail to see how I made your point at all. What I did do was simply reiterate what has been said by the proponents of the FV position time and time again. This plain reality has been lost on some (and apparently you) throughout this entire discussion since it broke in 2002. I have read most of the materials (I even have nearly every article written on the subject filling two notebooks). I have listened to nearly every audio address from both sides of the argument. I have disected the issues that deal with use of terms and the like and still the naysayers continue to assert what is simply not there. These main points can be extracted as follows:

1. FV teaches baptismal regeneration.
2. FV teaches that the elect can lose their salvation.
3. FV teaches that the elect, by virtue of their baptism, are united to Christ in a decretally elect sense.
4. FV teaches that one must work to keep what God has decreed as to one's final standing before Him.

All of these have been denied explicitly by the FV proponents time and time again. Yet, the argument continues.

Now, if we were to examine this matter from a Confessional perspective it seems quite clear to me that the language used (and that is, apparently, a part of our argument we are currently having) is very Confessional. For instance, WLC 167 clearly uses language that discusses the very things that the FV proponents teach (and this is only one example).

In the 4th part of the LAP exam of Steve Wilkins even TE Howard Davis admitted that the Confession is not consistent on the matter of baptism and clearly stated that Wilkins's views, while not the mainstream position on baptism, are not out of accord with the Standards. Sure, that is the opinion of one TE but it is also the opinion of a man who brought a complaint before the LAP for exonerating Wilkins. Reason for pause? Yes.

Each of those items is indeed what Wilkins himself has even taught explicitly

Todd,

Please provide contextual quotes or, at the very least, titrles and page numbers so I can review your assertion that explicitly states the things you mentioned.

Let's stop trying to lynch people for recognizing that the biblical meaning --- the biblical usage -- of words can (gasp!) have multiple senses.

Well sure, Chris, that is certainly my argument. However, the TR's have been trapped in the box of Westminster for so many years that they have forgotten how to think. What we have now is a bunch of over educated people running around who rely on the automation of the WCF to tell them how to think.

If the word is not defined as Westminster defines it there must be something suspect about it. Give me a break.

Here is a breakdown of Dunca's comments:

1. the Federal Vision basically teaches that membership in a local church makes one elect

A. TRUE! It does make one covenantally elect and a part of the visible body of Christ, So what is the issue?

2. once one is elect, his salvation may be lost

A. That is a big jump to equate all elect with obtaining salvation. Were all of Israel truly of Israel? Were all who had circumcision truly of the circumcision?

3. baptism results in regeneration

A. Another big jump. But better to ask you, what DOES baptism do?

4. and justification is achieved through both faith and good works

A. Wow, too big of a leap to expound too fully now. There seems to be a big confusion between justification and sanctification, and obedience, etc.