Presbyterians and the New Perspective on Paul

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has released the Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies. The Committee examined whether views on justification, apostasy, the sacraments, etc., of the so-called "Federal Vision" or "Auburn Avenue" proponents within Presbyterian life are within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Committee Report surveys writings of Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart, and others, along with the more foundational work of scholars such as N.T. Wright. The committee concludes that the "Federal Vision" teachings are not consistent with the PCA confessional standards. As the document puts it:

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1.      The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2.      The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3.      The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4.      The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5.      The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6.      The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7.      The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8.      The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9.      The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

The Report offers the following recommendations to the PCA:

1.      That the General Assembly commends to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their  congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.

2.      That the General Assembly reminds the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”

3.      That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

4.      That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

5.      That the Ad Interim Study Committee on NPP, AAT and FV be dismissed with thanks.

There is little doubt that this discussion will be picked up by local presbyteries and by the PCA General Assembly.

Comments

[Rob Grano]

Prof. Webber's book "Worship Old and New" was one of the very first things I read back when I was moving away from Pentecostalism towards a more liturgical/theological approach to worship. It was a very helpful book and I am sorry to hear of his passing.

[Rob Grano]

Obviously the above post s/b linked to the 'Robert Webber, RIP' thread. My apologies.

[David Gray]

The single biggest problem with this report, as with the report prepared by the OPC, is that they do not accurately represent the Federal Vision, at least as it is represented in the writings I've read of Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart. Pastor Leithart wrote a good essay on this on 13 Feb 07 called "Presbyterian Identity Crisis" which presumably is still available on his website.

[David Gray]

It is still available and can be found at:

Presbyterian Identity Crisis

[Russell D. Moore]

Douglas Wilson has posted a preliminary response to the PCA report. It can be accessed at:

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3848

Tim and David Bayly also have a response here: http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/04/now_that_the_pc.html#comments

[James A. Altena]

I would be most interested in more detailed comments from David Gray and our other Reformed participants upon this topic. It is something about which I am completely uninformed. Every denomination has its peculiar intramural disputes; this seems to me (whether rightly or wrongly) to be of a type peculiar to churches with strong detailed confessional profiles, such as the Reformed, Lutheran, and (in a different manner) certain Baptist churches. I would be interested not just in particular details of the opposing sides' positions on particular points, but more importantly why these strike them as being of such significance.

Thanks to David for the link to Prof. Leithart's web site. One passage especailly caught my eye:

"My church history professor at seminary said that Lutheran dogmatics texts had a threefold structure: The Catholic Error, the Reformed Error, and the Lutheran Truth. Reformed theologians followed (and some still follow) a similar method."

I think that such a method of theological apologetics can be predicated of many other denominations. E.g., -

Those RCs who have the Orthodox Error, the Protestant Error, and the RC Truth.

Those Anglicans who have the RC Error, the continental Protestant Error, and the Anglican Truth.

Etc.

I'm sure our Methodist and Baptist participants can do a better than I of thinking of the parallels for their own situations.

In each case, the tactic is to position one's self as somehow being in the center of truth against opposing polarities of error. I would join Leithart in seeing this as an unfortunate procedure that too easily lends itself to reducing perceived opponents to one-dimensional stereotypes, and/or to seeing Christians of other confessions as enemies of the Gospel, rather than as brethren with whom we have substantive disagreements on secondary issues but with whom we are bonded in familial charity on the essentials. (Of course, the problem is when secondary issues are wrongly promoted to the level of essentials.)

[DGP]

>>Those RCs who have the Orthodox Error, the Protestant Error, and the RC Truth.<<

Hmm. One very, very seldomly hears RCs complain about an alleged "Orthodox error." More often it's along the lines of, "The Orthodox are right about everything, except that fact that they think we're wrong."

And, heck, RCs don't think much about Protestants at all these days. What's left of mainline Protestantism worth talking about has long since migrated into the Evangelical and Pentecostal groups. We only mention them now and then in places like MereComments in order not to make them feel bad. :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Those Anglicans who have the RC Error, the continental Protestant Error, and the Anglican Truth.<<<

WHICH Anglican truth, James? So many choices. . .

[Bobby Winters]

Speaking as a Methodist, I'll say that if anyone else makes an error we will copy it as soon as we can...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Speaking as a Methodist, I'll say that if anyone else makes an error we will copy it as soon as we can...<<<

But with "enthusiasm".

[Mark B, Hanson]

I find it intriguing that the committee report seems to purport to be the definitive interpretation of the Westminster Standards. And so instead of infallible interpretations of the Bible, which idea we PCA folks reject, we offer an infallible interpretation of our 17th century confession and catechisms. Or at least this generation's infallible interpretation.

Though there is a fair amount of mis-interpretation and downright heresy among the practitioners of the New Perspective on Paul, it appears to me that many of the Federal Vision folks are simply guilty of understanding the Westminster Standards differently than the PCA arbiters (and basing their interpretation on the fact that certain words like "salvation" and "church" are sometimes used in different senses in Scripture - differences which the FV folks do not want to minimize). To tar both NPP and FV with the same brush is common, but doing this ignores the very detailed statements of most FV people on exactly where they agree and disagree with the NPP.

I commend Doug Wilson's blog for a discussion of where the PCA got him wrong. Also, it would be interesting for Touchstone's own editor Peter Leithart to comment on this whole thing.

[James A. Altena]

"WHICH Anglican truth, James? So many choices. . ."

Touche, Stuart! Though if we eliminate the modern heretics in favor of classical historical strains of Anglicanism, we can narrow the field considerably. (Except, perhaps, on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. So many different theories, so little time. . . .)

At the same time, lacking the formal RC Magisterium to adjudicate matters, I find the Orthodox situation not to be all that different. Visit any Orthodox blog site, talk to any two or three folks at an Orthodox parish, and one will encounter violent insistence by partisans advancing diametrically opposed on point X that their view is Orthodox and true to the Tradition while the other side is not really Orthodox or true to the Tradition.

[labrialumn]

I see that they have set the WC over and above the Bible. In print. Fascinating. Is the PCA now officially a sect?

I don't think that they have at all understood the new perspective on Paul. At all.

You can't lump Sanders, Shepherd, Wilson and Wright together. The only agreement is that general agreement of scholarship on the actual nature of Second Temple Judaism, which is not what the Reformers thought that it was. Which throws out some of the proof-texts chosen in the various confessions, but doesn't disprove any of the five solas.

I don't think that they have begun to understand what the Bishop of Durham and other orthodox scholars who do not reject the historical part of the grammatical-historical method, are saying. Not at all.

By choosing to reject the historical context as having a part to play in the grammatical understanding of Scripture, and instead insisting that it be interpreted in light of a compromise document compiled roughly 16 centuries later, they have become epistemologically and exegetically no better than the Mormons or the followers of Ellen White.

That their recommendation #2 is contrary to everything they said above it?

In #3 they establish themselves as a standard above the standard that the Bible -and history, and archaeology- must be interpreted to fit. No disagreement or discussion allowed.

Now members of the PCA can choose between their own Magisterium, the Roman Magisterium, or the Bible.

[David Gray]

>I don't think that they have begun to understand what the Bishop of Durham and other orthodox scholars

With Wright as an advocate for women's ordination I don't think I'd be too quick to call him orthodox.

[James A. Altena]

"By choosing to reject the historical context as having a part to play in the grammatical understanding of Scripture, and instead insisting that it be interpreted in light of a compromise document compiled roughly 16 centuries later, they have become epistemologically and exegetically no better than the Mormons or the followers of Ellen White."

Whatever one thinks of the WCF, the PCA, or the current controversy, this is not a sustainable statement. The WCF has as its goal (whether it succeeds in that or not) to present a faithful exposition of the theology of the OT and NT. It does not claim to be a new revelation, only the correct exposition of an old revelation. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, claims to present an entirely new revelation that correct or supercedes previous revelations. The two instances are not at all comparable.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Visit any Orthodox blog site, talk to any two or three folks at an Orthodox parish, and one will encounter violent insistence by partisans advancing diametrically opposed on point X that their view is Orthodox and true to the Tradition while the other side is not really Orthodox or true to the Tradition.<<<

That's why when two Orthodox are stranded on a desert island they found three churches.

[James A. Altena]

Only three, Stuart? :-)

Of course, they need the Anglicans to sail by and drop off the fine china, table settings, etiquette books, etc. {No theology, of course -- mustn't disturb the dinner party with controversial subjects. . . .)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Of course, they need the Anglicans to sail by and drop off the fine china, table settings, etiquette books, etc. {No theology, of course -- mustn't disturb the dinner party with controversial subjects. . . .)<<<

Kyr Kallistos tells the story of an Anglican-Orthodox ecumenical meeting, at which a point of doctrine came up, and the Anglicans asked what the Orthodox thought. There followed an extended and heated discussion among the three Orthodox delegates. After some minutes, the Anglican leader cleared his throat and politely inquired, "May we take it then, that you are not of one mind on this point?", to which the Orthodox leader irritably responded, "Not at all. We are in perfect agreement. We simply do not agree on what we agree".

[JeanB]

I belong to a PCA church and have no clue what this is all about. After I read this post, I still have no clue. I checked out the link and still don't understand what the PCA is fussing about. And what new perspective on Paul?

[Ethan Cordray]

JeanB, sounds like it's Wikipedia time for you!

[JeanB]

OK, I read that link and the other link to Covenantal Nomism. Did not Jesus say that the 1st century Jews were trying to gain righteousness by works? And their works were like empty tombs?

But Paul said that Jews have always gained salvation by faith and not by works, including their father Abraham. So what I am trying to say is that Jesus always said the those who tried to gain salvation by works would fail, that it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast and all that.

What I do not understand is what the controversy is between the 2 sides of Presbyterians in this arguement. Is one side trying to say that salvation is by works and the other by grace? I do not get that from writings on either side. So what exactly are they arguing about?

[Ethan Cordray]

JeanB,

From what I have read (not being an expert, nor even particularly interested in the debate), the feeling is that the "New Perspective" leads to a more sacramental/Roman Catholic understanding of salvation, because it sees Paul as not being primarily concerned with repudiating "works righteousness" in the radical way that Reformed theology has traditionally read him. I don't know whether that's a very accurate reading of some NPP theologians, but that seems to be a major part of the controversy.

Anyone who actually knows something about all this is free to correct me. :-)

[GL]

I recently began attending an EPC church after having spent most of my adult life as a SBC member. I must confess to not having been aware of this dispute, but did do some very preliminary reading on this yesterday.

I have real problems with the NPP perspective, largely because I customarily reject the notion that the Church could have be ignorant and misguided for 2000 years on some important matter and that, lo and behold, some 20th or 21st century scholar or theologian has at last properly understood what Paul meant in the 1st century. If that is indeed the NPP proponents' position, I reject it.

As to the FV folks, this seems to me to fall within the pale of orthodoxy, even as more narrowly defined by traditional Reformed theology. Indeed, when deciding to leave the SBC, the other alternative which I seriously considered was the LCMS. The FV folks appear to me to be somewhere between PCA and LCMS understandings, though closer to the former than the latter. From my initial assessment, I would give the FV proponents serious consideration and find nothing, so far and based on my cursory reading, to find fault with. Indeed, as of now, I would say I am closer to them than their PCA opponents. However, I would have to read a lot more, both from the FV proponents and opponents, before committing to that position.

[GL]

I should add, that I also seriously considered AMiA and Reformed Episcopalian, but that is not really relevant to this thread.

[Nick]

I followed every acronym except for EPC.

[GL]

Evangelical Presbyterian Church

Christianity, sadly, has become a lot like the New Deal as regards its alphabet soup.

[Gene Godbold]

Hey GL,
My understanding is that this *isn't* what NT Wright (at least) is arguing. He argues that Luther (among other 16th century theologians) misunderstood the 1st century context and so were arguing, to some extent, against a "Jewish" straw man that was highly flavored by both the Vulgate and Augustine's controversy with Pelagius (which they did have relevant documents about). Wright asserts that our understanding of the 1st century worldviews, including the Jewish one, is far better now on the basis of the all the documents that have been discovered and cataloged. We've got the Essenes (Qumran), we've got Josephus, we've got a lot of apocalyptic literature and understand how the Jewish writers were using it (i.e. Schwietzer was wrong). We understand the phenomena of Zionism and Messiah-ism better. And so we can better situate Jesus and the writings of Paul in that context. And, in Wright's analysis, it solves a lot of previously vexing textual problems (in Romans, for instance) and illuminates the aims of Jesus vis a vis Israel. (His books have convinced me that his views have a lot going for them.)

If Wright has a theological axe to grind, it is not at all apparent in his works. At the same time, he has trenchant critiques of the Jesus seminar and JD Crossan (along with Schweitzer and Bultman--but critiquing the latter is like shooting fish in a barrel) that illustrate how their theology (and ideology) predetermines their research.

I can see how he might upset some Lutherans, but I think that the Reformed guys might come to some accomodation with the stuff that Wright proposes. In any case, I'm not going to go to the wall for a 16th century theology, any more than I'd go to the wall for Augustine's theology. Maybe there ought to be some sort of theologuema here. (I don't think I spelled that correctly.)

[Rob Grano]

"I have real problems with the NPP perspective, largely because I customarily reject the notion that the Church could have be ignorant and misguided for 2000 years on some important matter and that, lo and behold, some 20th or 21st century scholar or theologian has at last properly understood what Paul meant in the 1st century. If that is indeed the NPP proponents' position, I reject it."

I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that the "NPP" is really much like the "OPP", that is, the perspective on St. Paul that the RCs and EO have held for centuries. If not exactly the same there certainly are a lot of affinities.

[GL]

Gene and Rob,

Again, I will confess that until yesterday I had never heard of NPP and if what the two of you say is correct, then it might be worth considering. I will have to spend some time reading about this, but I have a long list of backlog reading to do and so it may be awhile.

[Council of Trent]

"[We] customarily reject the notion that the Church could have be ignorant and misguided for [1500] years on some important matter and that, lo and behold, some [16th] century scholar or theologian has at last properly understood what Paul meant in the 1st century."

[David Gray]

>"[We] customarily reject the notion that the Church could have be ignorant and misguided for [1500] years on some important matter and that, lo and behold, some [16th] century scholar or theologian has at last properly understood what Paul meant in the 1st century."

Someone doesn't understand the Reformation.

[Jason in SA]

Of course. There has been quite a bit of joking in this thread and I thought I'd make an easy one.

[David Gray]

>The WCF has as its goal (whether it succeeds in that or not) to present a faithful exposition of the theology of the OT and NT.

Spot on.

>I would be most interested in more detailed comments from David Gray and our other Reformed participants upon this topic. It is something about which I am completely uninformed. Every denomination has its peculiar intramural disputes;

Well one interesting aspect of this is that it really isn't a denominational dispute. The PCA report is the latest skirmish in a struggle that extends across multiple reformed denominations. The OPC issued a similar report not that long ago. And how you characterize the struggle will tend to reflect which side you are on or at least sympathize with.

I suppose to be specific there are two different issues going on here, the "New Perspective on Paul" and the "Federal Vision" theology. Opponents like to link them but they really aren't linked in my view except that certain people really dislike both. I also think the NPP is more problematic, to the degree I've read on it, and so the FV is tarred with an NPP brush to make the task simpler.

>I would be interested not just in particular details of the opposing sides' positions on particular points, but more importantly why these strike them as being of such significance.

Well I'm going to limit my comments to the FV as I've done more reading in that area. There is not an organization per se but rather a number of relatively prolific individuals who share a generally common perspective. I'm most familiar with the work of Doug Wilson and to a lesser extent Peter Leithart. One tactic opponents seem prone to use is to take quotes from what I'd term the "bleeding edge" of the FV and characterize it as the center of gravity. And there are some things on that edge that I'd definitely take issue with. My last caveat would be I'm far from an expert and would be very pleased if Pastor Leithart would write on the subject for Touchstone.

I would tend to characterize the real significance of what is going on as a struggle between people who want to reengage with historic reformed theology, including that of the continental reformed theologians. I think it is fairly clear that there has been a lot of movement away from where men like Bucer and Calvin thought the church should be and where the center of gravity is for the orthodox reformed world today. The reformers held to a strong ecclesiology and a high view of the sacraments. Calvin would write that those who wanted God as their father must have the church as their mother. He also made it clear that those who partake in the Lord's Supper in faith feed on the flesh and blood of our Lord (mind you not carnally but in reality). There are pockets of the reformed world where these truths can be found, and they are growing (which is what drives some of the opposition) but it certainly hasn't been where Presbyterianism has predominantly been for some time.

If you would like a really good look at a subset of this I would refer you to Keith Mathison's "Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper" which examines how we got from where the Reformed world was to where we find ourselves now. Excellent book. He thinks that Calvin was trying to bridge the Lutheran view and the Zwinglian view but wound up fairly close to the Lutheran view, to the extent that Melancthon said he had no differences on the issue with Calvin. He traces how over centuries the Zwinglian memorial view began to take hold whereas it was not widely held in the early days of the reformed church. Even by the time of the Westminster Confession there was such movement, although minimal compared to later events. Consider the following items from the WCF:

"The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

"The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."

Or how about this item from Bucer's Church Order of Cassell:

"Q: Are you a Christian?

A: Yes.

Q: How do you know?

A: Because I have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

A nearly identical item was used at Calvin's church in Strasbourg. Or this from the Strasbourg baptismal rite:

“Almighty God, Heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through your holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved Son, our only Savior, and is now your child and heir.”

Now how often are these things proclaimed from reformed pulpits? Some places yes. And in some while these would be affirmed their practice doesn't fulfill their affirmations. The WCF tells us there are three ordinary means of grace; word, sacrament and prayer. Why do we so often settle for two of three? I think the FV tends to think that it might be well if we remembered these things and had orthopraxy as well as orthodoxy.

So my characterization of the FV would be a restoration of a higher view of the church, a more objective understanding of the sacraments and a returned to a more reformed theology whereas much of the reformed world has been inordinately influenced by baptistic, revivalistic, subjectivist developments. Critical to this is their understanding of how God works via covenants. Opponents say the FV is abandoning the reformation emphasis on justification by faith, a wrong understanding of covenants, and a tendency to sacramentalism (by which many I think mean sacerdotalism). Behind this in the shadows (sometimes not in the shadows with a few) is the idea that the FV is Romeward bound. (apologies to our EO brethren but nobody seems to be worried about being Constantinople bound.) Both sides say they affirm the Westminster Standards.

In some ways the discussion reminds me in certain respects of discussions I had with people who are very dear to me and for whom I have great respect when I became Presbyterian. Calvin was a good man but he was too close to Roman Catholicism and hadn't finished reforming sufficiently. In a way it was more important to avoid the appearance of Roman Catholicism than to examine what the reformation actually advocated where it actually differed with Rome. The irony is that in some ways the folks who think this way have reembraced things that the Reformation viewed as being errors by Rome. In a way they are in danger of winding up with the errors of Rome without its strengths. After all the reformers didn't argue about everything with Rome, just certain issues where they understood Rome to have deviated from both scripture and the historic church. Those disagreements were very strong but they didn't do things simply to be different.

I see some of the same dynamics at work in this discussion. Originally Protestants were not primarily focused on what they were against but what they were for.

I think it would be helpful if the FV writers who are near the center of gravity for the movement were quicker to call out of bounds when some folks get carried away. But I think a good deal of what they have done has really encouraged positive trends in the Reformed world. This has gotten a bit meandering and I'm not by any means the best informed individual on the subject but maybe it helps a bit with your question. I would really recommend the Mathison book though, I think you'd find it interesting and in some ways enlightening.

[GL]

I would really recommend the Mathison book though, I think you'd find it interesting and in some ways enlightening.

David,

Thanks for the recommendation. If you have other suggested readings on this, I would appreciate it.

GL

[luthien (the adverb addict)]

>>>(apologies to our EO brethren but nobody seems to be worried about being Constantinople bound.) <<<
Of course not. As long as they hang onto that pernicious habit of actually being organized and starting things on time, a habit which is not entirely contrary to Roman practice, no one could reasonably accuse them of drifting towards Orthodoxy.

[Ethan Cordray]

Thanks for the sketch, David.

Just one other question: Why is it called the Federal Vision?

[James A. Altena]

Dear David,

Many thanks for the overview. My good Reformed friend whom I have previously mentioned on occasion (also named David), while not particularly familiar with the "Federal Vision" (I sent him this post), is very much committed to the recovery of the views of Calvin, et al., that you state here.

By "denonmination" I meant that in a generic sense of "Reformed/Presbyterian" as opposed to PCA, PCUSA, OPC, EPC, etc.

I hope Mathieson's book on this subject is better than his (in my estimation) weak and and poorly reasoned work on sola Scriptura. (Not that he isn't right about the corruption of the origianl concept of sola scriptura in much of Protestantism, which would benefit great from a return to the original form. I refer rather to his obviously flawed efforts to assert that this concept was also that of the patrisic fathers. One should turn to e.g. Robert Louis Wilken for a much more accurate picture on that point.)

You wrote: "The irony is that in some ways the folks who think this way have re-embraced things that the Reformation viewed as being errors by Rome. In a way they are in danger of winding up with the errors of Rome without its strengths."

You'd have to flesh this out for me with particular instances of what those errors are. Otherwise I don't see it.

From what little I have sense of polemics between different factions within the Reformed Church, it seems to be a standard tactic there to accuse anyone on the other side of being either a crypto-Romanist or an Arminian. Comment?

[Rob Grano]

"As long as they hang onto that pernicious habit of actually being organized and starting things on time, a habit which is not entirely contrary to Roman practice, no one could reasonably accuse them of drifting towards Orthodoxy."

True, Luthien. Orthodoxy is perfect for those who dislike "the organized church."

[David Gray]

I should have included this link early on, a much better summary of the matter:

Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy? An Examination of the Federal Vision Controversy

>Why is it called the Federal Vision?

I believe this relates back to the system of covenants with Christ as our federal, or representative/legal head as Adam was at the first.

>I hope Mathieson's book on this subject is better than his (in my estimation) weak and and poorly reasoned work on sola Scriptura. (Not that he isn't right about the corruption of the origianl concept of sola scriptura in much of Protestantism, which would benefit great from a return to the original form. I refer rather to his obviously flawed efforts to assert that this concept was also that of the patrisic fathers. One should turn to e.g. Robert Louis Wilken for a much more accurate picture on that point.)

I've not read his book on that, I did read his excellent article in Modern Reformation on the subject but the parts I most remember from that were looking at how the reformers used scripture vs modern evangelicals and protestants. Sola scriptura vs Solo scriptura he termed it. I would not be shocked to learn that his views on the fathers might differ from yours.

>You wrote: "The irony is that in some ways the folks who think this way have re-embraced things that the Reformation viewed as being errors by Rome. In a way they are in danger of winding up with the errors of Rome without its strengths."

>You'd have to flesh this out for me with particular instances of what those errors are. Otherwise I don't see it.

Well obvious things would be a return to use of drama that the reformers spurned but mega-churches adore. At the same time they are deathly afraid of high view of the church which in many respects the reformers shared with Rome. Or a high view of the sacraments (even with their differences the reformers, Zwingli and company excepted, didn't downplay the sacraments like modern evangelicals). There is a more basic conceptual way which my pastor shared with me which would be more satisfactory but I can't bring it to mind at present. All of this of course comes from judging whether a practice is proper not by scripture, informed by the church, but by a fear of resembling Rome. When Rome is right I want to resemble it. I wish it was right more often that it is.

>From what little I have sense of polemics between different factions within the Reformed Church, it seems to be a standard tactic there to accuse anyone on the other side of being either a crypto-Romanist or an Arminian. Comment?

I think that partly depends on who is doing the criticizing. Certainly some opponents of the FV accuse them of tending Romanist (which is, to be fair, much easier to type than Constantinopolist). The FV can be critical but I've not seen them criticizing their opponents as being either Romanist or Arminian. If you look back at someone like Nevin it was much the same. Nevin was accused of being Romanistic but didn't accuse them of being that or Arminian. He did suggest at times that they might have Finneyite tendencies. So as a blanket statement I'd say you are wrong. However if you want to take a stand for a high ecclesiology and a high view of the sacraments, like Calvin, then you should be prepared to have someone suggest you are Romanistic. It does tend to be the charge of choice for those opposed to such things.

[William Tighe]

David Gray and GL,

I've heard of Mathieson, but have not read his books. One little item that I have found (as a Reformation historian, tho' not a Protestant) interesting, cogent and largely convincing is *Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord's Supper* by Paul Rorem. It was originally published in two successive issues of *Lutheran Quarterly* in 1988 (Vol. 2, Nos. 2 & 3) and then as a booklet in 1989 by Grove Books, UK (ISBN: 1-85174-133-X). Its basic thesis is that Calvin's eucharistic views were closer to those of Luther than to those of Zwingli (but all Lutherans, with the possible exception of Melanchthon, towards the very end of his life, regarded them as inadequate), but that in the discussions leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549 Calvin made all the concessions to Bullinger and Bullinger made either none at all or only a very tiny one. There is also some discussion of Bullinger and whether his views on the subject were identical to those of his predecessor in Zurich, Zwingli (but expressed in very different terms), or just a tad higher. Rorem (a doctrinally conservative ELCA Church Historian now at Princeton Seminary) thinks that Calvin after 1549 tried to regain ground that he had conceded then, but thinks that in the long run he was unsuccessful and that his view of the Lord's Supper has always been a minority view in most Reformed churches in most times and places, with the Zwingli/Bullinger "line" being dominant.

As I recall, Bruce Gerrish has an earlier essay that comes to similar conclusions, later republished in his collection *The Old Protestantism and the New,* but Rorem's is deeper and more developed. Diarmaid MacCulloch, in his biography of Cranmer (1995), comes to the conclusion that Cranmer's views on the Sacrament were identical with those of Bullinger.

[David Gray]

>Its basic thesis is that Calvin's eucharistic views were closer to those of Luther than to those of Zwingli (but all Lutherans, with the possible exception of Melanchthon, towards the very end of his life, regarded them as inadequate), but that in the discussions leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549 Calvin made all the concessions to Bullinger and Bullinger made either none at all or only a very tiny one.

If memory serves Mathison argues that the Consensus Tigurinus has been misread, frequently by people who wanted to do so and that viewed in context it moves Bullinger closer to Calvin than the reverse. He does agree that Calvin was much closer to the Lutheran view than than Zwingli's. I should probably go back and reread that section.

[luthien]

Ethan,
I thought I had an intelligent answer for you despite not being Reformed. Then I realized I had mixed up Douglas Wilson and Douglas Phillips and was thinking of the Vision Forum, which I could've explained, not Federal Vision, which I know more or less nothing about. *sigh* So much for that. For what it's worth though, here's Rev. Wilson's blog, which does seem to have some sermons and theological stuff, which might help with understanding FV.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?CategoryID=3
These are the other gentleman's websites.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/
http://www.visionforum.com/
Yeah. Not the same man at all.

[Ethan Cordray]

Luthien, he he! :-)

I've done that before! Way to catch it before posting, instead of after!

And thanks for the links!

[Ethan Cordray]

BTW, those Vision Forum folks have some beautifully bound childrens' books. Their history might be a bit tendentious, though...

[David Gray]

>BTW, those Vision Forum folks have some beautifully bound childrens' books.

They have some great stuff for kids. Some stuff goes a bit OTT I think but one isn't required to buy everything, just those things you find useful.

[luthien]

>>> Some stuff goes a bit OTT<<<
I think a lot of it does, actually. They have some nice things (especially the Henty books! and I suppose a Geneva Bible might be useful for Reformed Christians), but generally speaking I'm more comfortable finding their good books, second-hand or through other catalogs rather than supporting VF.

>>>They have some great stuff for kids.<<<
Bethlehem books is a better resource for childrens' books, particularly historical fiction, unless you object to the Catholicness of some of their books.

[Judy Warner]

All of the Henty books are available here in print and on CD. Some years ago Arthur Robinson, scientist and home schooling father, and all-round interesting guy, found the out-of-print Henty books at various libraries, scanned them, and now sells them singly or as sets in print, or on 6 CDs.

[David Gray]

>generally speaking I'm more comfortable finding their good books, second-hand or through other catalogs rather than supporting VF

Why? I buy books new from Orthodox publishers...

[David Gray]

>Bethlehem books is a better resource for childrens' books, particularly historical fiction, unless you object to the Catholicness of some of their books.

Neither my wife nor I had heard of them but just had a look. If they are RC in orientation they certainly don't advertise it. However they are just books. VF carries other things as well, we got some nice wood tops for my cousin's boys a year or two ago.

[luthien]

>>Why? I buy books new from Orthodox publishers...<<
I really don't know if I could put my finger on what it is about VF that rubs me the wrong way; my dislike for the company is probably more or less irrational. I have absolutely no problem with buying new books from RC or most Protestant publishers, and have Orthodox friends who buy from VF, but something about VF just bothers me-it's partly the sort of odd view of history and maybe partly the sex-segregation of their children's books? It just seems sort of...pointless; I can't think of any other publishers who do that, and really books which aren't exceeding gory/about dinosaurs, or very girly indeed (Elsie Dinsmore, anyone?) are pretty gender-neutral and don't *need* to be separated like that. I think in their attempt to avoid any sort of feminism, VF has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.