Talk:Federal Vision

message: I removed the following sentence: Some evangelical opponents[who?] argue that the Federal Vision view that the persons of the trinity at a certain point in cosmic history formed a covenant among themselves raises the question of what the intra-trinitarian relationship would have previously been and whether the supposed shift in relationship undermines God's eternal and unchanging nature.[citation needed]
The tags asking "who?" and "citation needed" have been there for over two years. Furthermore, the accusation present in this sentence is baseless and, from a Christian perspective, doesn't even make sense. In Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist eternally in a never beginning and never ending relationship so close that each lives from and knows the others from within themselves, not from without the way human's experience and know one another. Because of the limitations of human language theology uses words that when used in an ordinary context implies the movement of time. For example, Christian Theology says that the Son of God is eternally begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. In ordinary speech, we expect that there was a time before someone or something is begotten, or a time before something begins proceeding. However, this language indicates an eternal relationship, a way of being together, a kind of initiation and response or give and take, which has no beginning. As C.S. Lewis explains it, the Son is dependent on the Father in an analogous way that in a stack of two books, the top book depends on the bottom book. But unlike the books where in a sequence of temporal moments, the bottom book must have been set down first and the top book set down second, the relationship does not exist in a sequence of temporal moments. Thus there was never a moment in time or before the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit loved one another in this covenant like relationship. That means that all of creation, time, space, and life are the over flow of this eternal love, the most fundamental reality. The thought of a time before this relationship was established is by the very definition of Christian faith an absurdity.
--Ryan Close (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinitarian Theology

message: The article needs a stronger opening in keeping with Wikipedia style. Here is my suggested revision:
The Federal Vision is a Reformed Evangelical theological position that focuses on covenant theology, trinitarian thinking, the sacraments of Baptism and Communion, biblical theology and typology, justification, and postmillennialism.
The teaching of a group of Federal Vision proponents sparked a controversy in Calvinist, Reformed, and Presbyterian circles in 2002. The ongoing controversy involves several Reformed denominations including the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS).
I would appreciate feedback from the author (and any others) on whether I have left the content sufficiently intact, as my intent is to beautify the form, not battle with the substance. Kyriosity 05:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And on Wikipedia, it's definitely the former. If you'd go for the latter, you have to overcome the significant obstacle of defining the "reformed/evangelical" doctrinal position, and I can't imagine there's a consensus on the matter. Hence, Wikipedia usually follow a person's self-designation. See, for example, MOS:IDENTITY. StAnselm (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: The Wikipedia article on Federal Vision shows a strong flavor of bias, because it does not clearly describe Federal Vision's distinctive, and often contested, meanings for various Christian theological words and phrases of long standing; and because it omits an adequately clear summary of the most common criticisms of FV.
The neutrality of the article can be strengthened in at least two ways. One way is clarify the new definitions that certain Federal Visionists have created for certain established theological terms and phrases. For example, the Federal Vision's view of "covenant objectivity" results in a category of person some have called the "unbelieving Christian" or "unsaved Christian", which most evangelicals regard as an oxymoronic statement. 
Federal Visionists assert a belief in election, but subdivide the elect between elect who are granted an additional grace of perseverance and thus persevere in their faith unto eternal life, as opposed to a different category of the elect who are not granted a special grace of perseverance by God, and as a result apostasize from the Christian faith and are eternally condemned to hell. 
The phrase "obedient faith" has been adopted from controversial CRC pastor Rev. Norman Shepherd, and is used to signify that one is justified not by faith alone (that is, faith in Jesus Christ and the Gospel, considered apart from its subjective ethical influences), but by the consequent actions of ethical obedience to God's will which result from faith.
This brings us to a second way to make the Wikipedia article neutral, which is to add a clear section on basic criticisms of Federal Vision. 
The link section addresses some of these, but there ought to be material in the body of the article itself that enumerates and clearly describes the most common criticisms of Federal Vision. E.g., Federal Vision has been criticized as not being properly described as "evangelical" (since "evangelical" denotes a Protestant insistence on the necessity of individual conversion), in light of its teaching of presumptive baptismal regeneration, and continual criticism (and sometimes mockery) of American evangelicalism's emphasis on the encessity of conversion. In this sense, it appears to be more akin to high Anglicanism, which is non-evangelical. The claim that it more faithfully represents the thought of John Calvin is disputed by many familiar with Calvin's theology.
(REVJAB 01:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: REVJAB, First, welcome. Second, feel free to jump in and start editing anything you wish. Kyriosity 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Be bold! Trust me: if you swing the balance too far the other way, someone will let you know. --Flex (talk|contribs) 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides a Criticisms section, the In January 2002.. should probably be under origins and/or history.  「ѕʀʟ·✎」 10:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, it's been restructured.. I think History and Controversy may need to be somewhat split.  This article covers:  the FV theology, the history of the FV theology, the controversy over the theology, the history of the controversy over the theology.. needs to flow a bit better.  「ѕʀʟ·✎」 10:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SRL, I'm not sure your new section does the trick. I don't think the purported connection with the New Perspective on Paul is the pith of the criticism. It would be great if someone could contribute a solid overview of critiques of the FV, but I don't think this is the right place to start. Kyriosity 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was meant as a structural change, at this point..  I think some of the PDFs linked discuss some critiques, such as the OPC justification which has about a 12 point list. Didn't find anything citable that mentioned the NPP connection yet, but documents which seem to assume the connection. That content aside, do you think the structural change is an improvement? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  My, you're quick! Yeah...I think it's a good idea in principle. Kyriosity 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Again

message: ==== List from page 88 of http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf ====
# Pitting Scripture and Confession against each other. 
# Regarding the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic. 
# A mono-covenantalism that sees one covenant, originating in the intra-trinitarian fellowship, into which man is invited, thus flattening the concept of covenant and denying the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. 
# Election as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant. 
# Seeing covenant as only conditional. 
# A denial of the covenant of works and of the fact that Adam was in a relationship with God that was legal as well as filial. 
# A denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works. 
# A denial that the law given in Eden is the same as that more fully published at Mt. Sinai and that it requires perfect obedience. 
# Viewing righteousness as relational not moral. 
# A failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ’s. 
# A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification. 
# Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins. 
# The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion. 
# Including works (by use of “faithfulness,” “obedience,” etc.) in the very definition of faith. 
# Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace. 
# Teaching baptismal regeneration. 
# Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church. 
# A overly-objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and that tends toward an ex opere operato view of the sacraments. 
# Teaching paedocommunion. 
# Ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology. 
==== REVJAB's comments above ====
# terms
## covenant objectivity
## obedient faith
## evangelical
## baptismal regeneration
# election
#  perseverance of the saints
==== other ====
in both pro and con documents I see the topic of definitions come up. I quibbled with the terminology of the so-called “covenant of works” A first pass at this would probably be to categorize some of these terms and give citations for definitions.  
「ѕʀʟ·✎」 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection and analysis area 

message: in both pro and con documents I see the topic of definitions come up. I quibbled with the terminology of the so-called “covenant of works” A first pass at this would probably be to categorize some of these terms and give citations for definitions.  
「ѕʀʟ·✎」 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  other 

message: I would suggest merging Auburn Avenue Theology with this article, as they are both terms for the same thing. I would keep the term Federal Vision because it is more technical (refers to the substance of the theology) whereas Auburn Avenue is more of a nickname. I tried to put the suggested merge thingummy on the top of the page, but I couldn't figure it out. Kyriosity 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the tags. --Flex (talk|contribs) 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.  Keep Federal Vision, refer to the nickname in a sub heading if need be.    「ѕʀʟ·✎」 09:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there are no objections, I'm going forward with it. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Merge

message: Are all of the resources listed really resources on FV, or are some of them on FV-related or FV-tangential topics by FV authors? ISTM that the resource list would be better suited for its purpose if it were trimmed to include only items that deal with the FV directly and primarily. I don't know enough to make those edits myself, but I toss it out for consideration. Kyriosity 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered the latter also. I think as resources there should be something of what it contributes to the article.  I.e. "This book gives a discussion on X.."  「ѕʀʟ·✎」 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I formatted the list, deleted one, and added two others. Few of those seem to directly deal with the issues addressed by FV, so I think it should be redacted further. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resource List

message: I'm finally actually going to tackle the substantive parts of this article. My plan is threefold:
* Take out lots of the quotes, as per the "too many quotes" template. As appropriate, I will paraphrase or reference, and I may leave some quotes, but in general, whack, whack, whack will be the order of the day. (Let them have their serrated edges...I'll stick to my machete!)
* Shorten the "General beliefs" section considerably, mostly by deleting quotes, but also by tightening the rest of the copy. I want this to be the "Stuff FV Proponents Say About FV" subsection, describing their actual beliefs. 
* Move criticisms from the "General beliefs" section down to the "Criticisms" section. Here I want "Stuff FV Critics Say About FV," and I will add several new sub-headings parallel to the controversial subsections under "General beliefs." 
I think that will help address some criticisms of the article and will give a tidier framework for everybody having his say. I'm finding the Joint FV Statement a helpful one-stop-shopping primary document expressing the pro-FV side. Any suggestions for a similarly succinct critical document? I don't have the time or the intellectual fortitude to read really long stuff from either side. Of course I will try to reincorporate the main points from both sides that are already in the article.
I welcome comments on this approach, and of course if anybody else wants to jump in and help, please edit boldly, but believe and rejoice more boldly still! Or...um...something like that. ;-) Kyriosity (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good approach. The PCA document cited herein has a number of criticisms of FV and may be a good overview or starting point for the opposing side. It is rather long, but it has a summary at the end. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhauling, December 2007

message: Trenchhall doesn't have a user page, so I'll put my comments here.
I undid (rather, am attempting to undo...the "Save Page" button is being uncooperative in another window) your revision because it was largely redundant with the "Ecclesiastical reports" section. I would suggest incorporating this info there, perhaps adding some details to explain the various rejections. If need be, the section could be renamed "Ecclesiastical responses."
In short, useful info, but in the wrong place, so please give it another shot. Kyriosity (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyriosity, if this were an article on Arianism and there was a section on "History and Controversy", you would probably want to mention that it was condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325.  Likewise, the fact that the FV was ruled erroneous by the General Assemblies of the OPC and PCA is about as relevant an item as there could possibly be for this section.  You include a line on the RCPUS' 2002 ruling, a denomination that is indeed "small."  Why is the fact that the largest member of NAPARC (the PCA) did the very same thing a few years later not included in this section rather than hidden somewhere else?  This is precisely why the article is considered to be biased.  You can present the FV as positively as you want, but your readers ought to at least know the basic fact that it has now been officially rejected by most NAPARC member denominations.  If you want to have something close to a neutral article, put it back up in that section where it belongs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trenchhall (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Trenchall, by all means, add this information...I'm just trying to keep the overall article tidy and unredundant. Moving the ecclesiastical reports info to the history section actually makes a lot of sense. The criticism section should be about specific points of disagreement, whereas the overview of the ecclesiastical reports is more historical. Tellya what...I'll go ahead and move that subheading, and I'll let you go to town from there, incorporating more details about the reports to your heart's content. 'K? Pax! Kyriosity (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trenchhall's edits

message: The article has been substantially changed since 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use  or better yet  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 18:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed 

message: The section entitled "General Beliefs" seems to try to generalize about federal vision proponents, by saying most believe this or that.  That is stereotyping.
An encyclopaedic article should list the beliefs that are concretely part of the Federal Vision doctrine from the "Join Federal Vision Profession" rather than engaging in general anecdotal speculation about the general beliefs of followers of FV doctrine. Cadwallader (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can work on this. Srm038 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a Survey or a Scholarly Article? 

message: Substituted at 15:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Federal Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928130145/http://rpcus.com/content/Resolutions.pdf to http://rpcus.com/content/Resolutions.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106121926/http://auburnavenue.org:80/documents/wilkins_presbytery_response.htm to http://auburnavenue.org/documents/wilkins_presbytery_response.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified