Brothers, assurance of salvation comes only through the Word of Him who did it completely for us. (Faith) FV was way over 1000 years away, and before then the Bible was written on scrolls, and later in books. (Was printed finally by presses in books) Do not complicate the good news. It is very simple!
"Oh, Hi" Joel, "didnt see Ya there"! Hello there Bud! Ya suprised me!-) When i hear, "wait wait, wait, ..." i definitely don't. Just tryin ta help, thinkin' that most don't, after the first month.. year.. lol-) ~ sDg Bro
The Presbyterian Church of America 🇺🇸 did find something wrong with it and declared it as the heresy that it is. and able to divorce it from post-millinialists which they allow for. Divorce it from its eschatology. Systematic theology and proper digmatocs require identifying it as harmful to the body of Christ.
Crazy how many ppl don't know they follow pastors who sign confessions that have been found in error and there's documentation for it and no one talks about it.
The Federal Vision directly attacked the doctrine of assurance as taught in Reformed theology. As justification depends of covenant keeping that perseveres to the end, and as being in the covenant depends on institutional church actions (baptism to get in, excommunication to get out), in practical terms assurance depends on submission to the clergy. The Federal Vision is about putting the clergy at the center. It also depends on the theosophical worldview drawing from neo-calvinism and from Meridith Kline.
Situations like the donatist controversy had nothing to do with a "lack of assurance". That's an anachronism. No one said "I just don't feel, deep in my soul assured of my salvation." The question was whether it was valid or not. The same applies to the reformers concerns about rebaptism. But none of those have anything to do with the FV attempt to make everyone baptized a Christian. Even those with no faith, even those in apostate denominations. And then call all of those unbelieving people to start living like the Christians they really are. Faith and works gets thrown into a blender and what comes out is "faithfulness.". That's why is connected to monocovanentalism. Because at it core FV says do this and you will live. And then they call that 'grace alone through faith alone'. But the gospel, in absolute contrast says believe on Christ and you will live.
@@sovereigngrace9723 are you a defender of FV? It may have a certain connection to Lutheranism in it's sacramental concern. But Lutheranism is dogmatic in it's law/ gospel distinction. FV by contrast explicitly DENIES any sort of a law gospel hermeneutic. Thus, they are really on opposite sides on the fundamental issue.
Its focus its attention is eyesight not set on this world it's set on taking over the existing body of the church and telling the existing body of the church that it's in error and that their way is the right way. It's not just after the church but the Institutions and not individual salvation it says they're even willing to take all the existing Believers and bash them saying that they're not walking out their faith the way that they need to, to retain salvation. They're literally telling every single believer that they are in error that they are wrong but they are not saved, that they do not love God and that they do not love their neighbor. Very dangerous to redefine faith and that is exactly what they've done and to redefine Faith affects the church more than it will ever affect the world. They think that the body of the church it's the problem that all the believers are not doing their works and they demand we do works specifically the federal vision works or we can't obtain or maintain our salvation and not just unfaithful but claim its denying God himself. They preach this from their pulpits just covered in word salad
@@sovereigngrace9723 great question. my understanding is that there are different denominations within Lutheranism where some do believe/teach this and some do not.
@@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS that is incorrect. The official teaching of the Lutheran church is regenerative baptism. FV denies regenerative baptism. For the FV, baptism is a covenantal sign where one becomes a Christian via identity, but is not necessarily regenerate until they have faith.
You are really missing the point when you do not understand the accuracy amd efficacy of this Evangelism. Billy Graham was saved on rhe inside amd out amd encourages others to do the same.
@@dbruh936 Here is what John Calvin says of Baptism. Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 15 For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament.
Amazing how no one can explain what Federal Vision is. The supporters or the critics. No one. It’s the similar to when liberals cry racist. A Reformed guy cries “Heretic!” and no one wants to be the heretic so they all go along with it.
@innovation HQ go read his exegesis on Ephesians 5:2, Romans 6:3-4, Titus 3:5 etc. It is clear when reading these commentaries that Calvin's rejection of "water" is a rejection of a certain metaphysics of baptismal efficacy. He is not saying the *baptism* does nothing and is only a symbol. He is saying that *water* can't do anything as water, but that the Holy Spirit can and does work in the very act and "at the same time" (from the Ephesians commentary) as baptism.
@@dbruh936there's original definition of faith. These new guys redefined it and when they have conversations and it's confusing to ppl tgat what tgey say as faith is not the same as the original standard of faith. So use same word means something different and when you read it seems like it's all ok except it's not saying the same thing but the opposite. Works instead of faith. Continue to work ir lose your salvation or your not really Christian. They redefine faith, works, justification and even fruit.
For me the sacraments are a means of grace, not hoops we have to jump through.
Blessed assurance Jesis is mine oh what a foretaste of mercy divine.. . .this is my story this is my song. Praising NY savior all the day long!
Ive seen pasters get more flack for far less in the reformed circles .
Brothers, assurance of salvation comes only through the Word of Him who did it completely for us. (Faith) FV was way over 1000 years away, and before then the Bible was written on scrolls, and later in books. (Was printed finally by presses in books) Do not complicate the good news. It is very simple!
"Oh, Hi" Joel, "didnt see Ya there"! Hello there Bud! Ya suprised me!-)
When i hear, "wait wait, wait, ..." i definitely don't. Just tryin ta help, thinkin' that most don't, after the first month.. year.. lol-) ~ sDg Bro
"The Federal Vision | James White and Doug Wilson". It is indeed theological rarified air, this federal vision. They explain it...somewhat...
The Presbyterian Church of America 🇺🇸 did find something wrong with it and declared it as the heresy that it is. and able to divorce it from post-millinialists which they allow for. Divorce it from its eschatology. Systematic theology and proper digmatocs require identifying it as harmful to the body of Christ.
Crazy how many ppl don't know they follow pastors who sign confessions that have been found in error and there's documentation for it and no one talks about it.
So did the OPC.
The Federal Vision directly attacked the doctrine of assurance as taught in Reformed theology. As justification depends of covenant keeping that perseveres to the end, and as being in the covenant depends on institutional church actions (baptism to get in, excommunication to get out), in practical terms assurance depends on submission to the clergy. The Federal Vision is about putting the clergy at the center. It also depends on the theosophical worldview drawing from neo-calvinism and from Meridith Kline.
Federal Vision boils down to grace plus works which is heresy. Infused grace is the opposite of imputed grace! Read Galatians.
Situations like the donatist controversy had nothing to do with a "lack of assurance". That's an anachronism. No one said "I just don't feel, deep in my soul assured of my salvation." The question was whether it was valid or not.
The same applies to the reformers concerns about rebaptism. But none of those have anything to do with the FV attempt to make everyone baptized a Christian. Even those with no faith, even those in apostate denominations. And then call all of those unbelieving people to start living like the Christians they really are. Faith and works gets thrown into a blender and what comes out is "faithfulness.". That's why is connected to monocovanentalism. Because at it core FV says do this and you will live. And then they call that 'grace alone through faith alone'.
But the gospel, in absolute contrast says believe on Christ and you will live.
So it's pretty much lutheranism? Are we to call them heretics as well?
@@sovereigngrace9723 are you a defender of FV? It may have a certain connection to Lutheranism in it's sacramental concern.
But Lutheranism is dogmatic in it's law/ gospel distinction.
FV by contrast explicitly DENIES any sort of a law gospel hermeneutic.
Thus, they are really on opposite sides on the fundamental issue.
Its focus its attention is eyesight not set on this world it's set on taking over the existing body of the church and telling the existing body of the church that it's in error and that their way is the right way. It's not just after the church but the Institutions and not individual salvation it says they're even willing to take all the existing Believers and bash them saying that they're not walking out their faith the way that they need to, to retain salvation. They're literally telling every single believer that they are in error that they are wrong but they are not saved, that they do not love God and that they do not love their neighbor. Very dangerous to redefine faith and that is exactly what they've done and to redefine Faith affects the church more than it will ever affect the world. They think that the body of the church it's the problem that all the believers are not doing their works and they demand we do works specifically the federal vision works or we can't obtain or maintain our salvation and not just unfaithful but claim its denying God himself. They preach this from their pulpits just covered in word salad
@@sovereigngrace9723 great question. my understanding is that there are different denominations within Lutheranism where some do believe/teach this and some do not.
@@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS that is incorrect. The official teaching of the Lutheran church is regenerative baptism. FV denies regenerative baptism. For the FV, baptism is a covenantal sign where one becomes a Christian via identity, but is not necessarily regenerate until they have faith.
Yes, this was the intent. It was about the millions of false converts out there due to the easy beliveism that took hold at the Billy Graham crusades.
You are really missing the point when you do not understand the accuracy amd efficacy of this Evangelism. Billy Graham was saved on rhe inside amd out amd encourages others to do the same.
@@johntobey1558the same Billy Graham that denied Jesus being the only way? Hmmmm
There should be a Baptist, theonomic version of Federal Vision that corrects its doctrinal faults.
I'm confused why Baptists haven't jumped on the FV train yet. Seems to me that some of the early Baptists could be considered as holding similar views
That's like saying their should be a Baptist version of Roman Catholicism.
@@innovationhq8230 That would be the Lutherans, haha
Amazing how someone can cover up and makes excuses for the FV heresy which is sacramentalist and Romanizing.
Were John Knox, Calvin, Bucer and literally every reformed father Romanizing when they said baptism justifies and cleanses from sin?
@@dbruh936 Here is what John Calvin says of Baptism.
Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 15
For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament.
Amazing how no one can explain what Federal Vision is. The supporters or the critics. No one. It’s the similar to when liberals cry racist. A Reformed guy cries “Heretic!” and no one wants to be the heretic so they all go along with it.
@innovation HQ go read his exegesis on Ephesians 5:2, Romans 6:3-4, Titus 3:5 etc. It is clear when reading these commentaries that Calvin's rejection of "water" is a rejection of a certain metaphysics of baptismal efficacy. He is not saying the *baptism* does nothing and is only a symbol. He is saying that *water* can't do anything as water, but that the Holy Spirit can and does work in the very act and "at the same time" (from the Ephesians commentary) as baptism.
@@dbruh936there's original definition of faith. These new guys redefined it and when they have conversations and it's confusing to ppl tgat what tgey say as faith is not the same as the original standard of faith. So use same word means something different and when you read it seems like it's all ok except it's not saying the same thing but the opposite. Works instead of faith. Continue to work ir lose your salvation or your not really Christian. They redefine faith, works, justification and even fruit.
Really beginning to despise calvin at present and the confusion hes brought lol