Excellent Federal Vision Summary
2008 January 3
I saw this over on the Heidelblog awhile ago, but forgot to link to it. Saw it again today on the Puritan Board and didn’t want to forget. Dr. Clark’s summary is very, very helpful.
6 Responses
leave one →
Thanks for the links. The problem is, most FV proponents (that I know, at least) regard Dr. Clark’s understanding/interpretation of FV as missing the mark, and misrepresenting a view that he (they say) doesn’t understand.
This doesn’t mean that Dr. Clark has nothing to say; far from it. Nor does it mean that we must accept only the definitions of FV stipulated by FV proponents. But when multiple people (who themselves both understand and sympathize with FV) assert that someone is presenting a straw man argument against something like FV, it bears taking caution.
At very least, we owe that to them for the sake of dealing with FV proponents charitably, and in the study of both purity AND peace in the PCA and the church at large.
The Remonstrants complained bitterly that the orthodox misrepresented them, right up to the point that they were expelled from the Synod of Dort and the delegates adopted the Five Points. Thank God the delegates believed their own eyes rather than the complaints of the Federal Visionists of their day.
rsc
Wow! Thanks for the response, Dr. Clark (and a quick one, at that!). I don’t dispute that history, nor do I believe all of the PCA (and the rest of the church) should simply let it lie. I hope I didn’t suggest that; I want to see continued study done, and thought given.
I do think, though, that we all must be careful when dealing with those with whom we disagree; I know that I’m certainly prone to straw men, ad hominems, and other fallacious arguments. I fear that some in the PCA have treated FV proponents as if they have already been tried and convicted of heresy, although at best such trials are only just beginning. Do you agree?
Also, I’m curious: do you (Martin and/or Dr. Clark) agree with my assessment of a significant part of the FV argument that many seem to have missed? I’d love some thoughtful interaction about this. Thanks in advance.
Hi Ed,
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
With the caveat that I’m not a language theorist, I’m very leery of an approach to the FV debate that focuses on possible misunderstandings over the meaning of terms or words. I realize your thoughts on stipulated definitions & etc. are deeper than this, but it seems we still come to the place, in the end, where the claim is made that “we’re just talking past each other.” I just don’t think that’s true, given the reading and study I’ve done.
The Reformers and the Catholic Church had different definitions of justification, too, but that doesn’t mean they were talking past each other, or (I don’t think) arguing over stipulated definitions. From the historical record that I’ve read it seems pretty clear that the Catholic Church knew exactly what the Reformers were teaching and rejected it, and vice versa.
I know the FV proponents would disagree, but I do believe that their critics do understand what the FV is attempting to teach, and have rejected it for what it is.
As with Dr. Clark’s example of the Remonstrants, others in church history have complained of not being understood: Pelagius, Arius, Marcion, etc. And these controversies also were often about the definition of terms or words: trinity, nature vs. person, original sin, etc.
Rather than proposing new definitions of already widely accepting theological terms, I’d rather see the FV (assuming the standards are wrong or incomplete) propose better or more complete doctrines. This will sound harsher than I intend it to, but I can’t right now think of another way to put it: couching new doctrine in old, familiar terms/words feels a little like theological trickery. To be charitable (or at least try to be) I don’t think that is the FV proponents’ intent. It just feels that way. And because it feels that way may be why some critics are less than charitable in their criticisms.
Martin, I agree that it’s not a matter of simply talking past each other. And I agree that couching new doctrine in familiar terms is theological trickery. I also agree that, while this is not what the FV proponents intend, it does feel that way.
What they are saying, it seems, is that it’s not new doctrine, but established biblical usage of familiar terms. Whether that is true is in question– and that’s what needs to be focused on.
But even if it was theological trickery– as Christians, are we off the hook in dealing charitably with others just because they are tricksters? Somehow, that doesn’t strike me as gospel-consistent.
Hi Ed,
Busy weekend – sorry for the delay in responding.
We have been given a new command: to love one another. This is a given. Our model is how Christ loved His disciples (and loves us). Sometimes He dealt with them so gently He called them little children. At other times their actions earned a comparison to Satan.
So how does that help us? We need to be wise. Slow to anger. If we use strong language we need to be very, very sure it is appropriate. Discernment is essential.
On one side there are those who are too quick too assume they are wise enough to use strong language. On the other side are those who seem to equate love, or charity, with niceness. Both are wrong.
I’ve seen some uncharitable language used, especially in the comments on various blogs and other web sites.
I’ve been following this FV discussion since 2002-3, and at this point believe I’ve read and studied enough to conclude that the critics are not misinterpreting the FV teachings or erecting straw men.
In the case of Dr. Clark’s summary linked to above, I don’t think his language is too strong, nor uncharitable.