The Incarnation of the Son of God
-
"Q. 22: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man? A. Christ, the
Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable
soul, ...
5 days ago
12 comments:
I am very interested in this and to your conclusions as well.
It is tragic to call Federal Vision people "heretics." They are gracious Christians who do not condemn their brothers on the opposite side of the isle. ~Esther
I listened to quite a few of Steve Wilkins' sermons in 2007 after we visited them. They were excellent (especially his marriage series), but emphasized baptism and communion more than I had heard. Because of Steve's teaching, Lance wanted to get baptized as well as Victor, Melody and Jd. ~Regina
I have many godly friends on that side of the issue. I do not believe for a moment that they are God's enemies, although most Reformed consider FV to be heretical.
BTW, I am very surprised that Lance was not yet baptized in 2007! :)
So where do you all stand on this issue. And in particular who does the better job in this debate.
We are not to give exceptions to those whom we love and feel especially close to. I don't know why Dr. Morecraft and others all across the spectrum would be against FV if it was so innocent as some claim.
Personally, I think they're splitting hairs. The scripture is the standard. As John Dwyer told us, I look at one side and nod my head, They're right, then at the other and I agree.
RJ Rushdoony went through a long battle as many of his teachings were under fire. He too went through the fire of examination, was vindicated, then left the denomination. Federal Vision did the same as Rushdoony.
Spoken like a TR Dewy.
Sadly, that's what heresies lead to: splitting hair. For instance, long ago it was debated if Jesus was fully God or fully man or if he was a man with divine knowledge and so forth and so on. Try today to separate the two and you're considered a heretic by orthodox Christianity. So, probably, is the fate of FV. Only time will tell.
I am leery of FV, simply because of the respectable men against it, but I was in a church that was FV, and I never heard anything heretical or unorthodox from the pulpit.
For a very excellent and extensive discussion of matters Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue Controversy, might I recommend heading over to Douglas Wilson's blog (dougwils dot com) (and no, your computer won't explode on contact if you go there and are leery or opposed to these things) and, in the area where you can explore by topics, select Auburn Avenue stuff (or something very like that) and/or Federal Vision. It will bring you to ALL of his blog posts that deal with these topics. In those posts, Doug does not promote one side or the other, but calmly, accurately, lays out the specifics of those perspectives, who has said what in regard to them, and pretty well exegetes the specifics or distinctives from scripture, giving the background and basis for the "points" contained in them. There is also a fair bit of factual reporting concerning the "trouble" many of the men who adhere to this thinking or have even expressed interest in them... being shut out or defrocked by various denominations, railed against and criticised... and very often misquoted.
No, I am not a Wilsonite, nor to I adhere to the Federal Vision, Auburn Avenue doctrines, or even the New Perspective on Paul. But I AM a strong proponent of allowing the Scriptures to speak to us today, carefully examining them and considering their contents. The powerful regard for the "traditions of men" in leading this discussion is rather alarming.....
Post a Comment