Talk:Federal Vision

The majority of this article is clearly written by someone heavily in favor of Federal Vision, and appears to be essentially an apologetic for it. This should be corrected.

--

As the author of the majority of this page, I would be interested in what areas are thought to be an "apologetic" for it. That was not my intention. I recognize that as someone who has studied quite a lot of FV material, what I write may sound like it is "heavily in favor" of the movement.

However, I think we should draw a distinction between being in favor of the movement, and presenting their claims and intentions. In this sense, presentation does not imply support. Thus, we can say that they do indeed see themselves as the heirs of the Reformation without this implying that this is, in fact, true. Nevertheless, I recognize that there may be areas where my sentences might be phrased or structured better.

ChosenOne66 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

ChosenOne66, I'm not sure whether or not your article has significant POV issues, but it does tend toward the overly dramatic in many places, which can give the impression of a non-neutral POV. I have taken the liberty of editing the "Origins" and "Controversy" sections quite a bit in an attempt to tone down the drama and let the facts speak for themselves. Would you be so kind as to review my edits (I left a few hidden comments/and questions, too) and discuss them with me here before making any desired reversions? I have also recommended changes to the lead secion (see below). Though I do have some interest in the subject, my main concern here is to craft a well-written, professional-sounding encyclopedia article. I look forward to working further with you and others to that end. Regards, Kyriosity 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

AS someone who is currently looking at understanding precisely what Federal Vision and the New Perspective mean, I'll throw in my $.02 that this article appears, on balance, to be a relatively fair portrayal of the Federal Vision position. I don't agree with the FV folks on everything, but it's very important to present their views fairly an impartially. Given my somewhat limited understanding, this appears to be a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.210.48 (talk • contribs)

I have to agree that this is a heavily biased article. Many of the assumptions made by the author are stated as fact, and these are precisely the points at which the Federal Vision has been criticized. Take, for instance, the author's claim that the Federal Vision calls for a return to the sacramental theology of Calvin and the early Church. This is entirely unfootnoted in the article, and virtually nothing has been written on this subject by the proponents of Federal Vision. In the article, it is merely assumed. Also, the fact that only three sentences are devoted to the criticism of Federal Vision theology, and at that, only the association with the NPP is mentioned, is clearly disingenuous. Another example are the resources listed at the bottom of the page. Only one minor critic is cited (John Otis) and all others are the chief architects of the Federal Vision project; and yet several major scholarly studies in print (Guy Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology; R. Scott Clark (ed.), Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry; Jeong Koo Jeon, Covenant Theology and Justification by Faith; et al.) that are highly critical of the Federal Vision are never mentioned. Perhaps the most egregious demonstration of the author's assumed bias is their claim that the Federal Vision has a "highly developed view of the Trinity", when in fact the Federal Vision view of "One Person, Three Persons" is considered heretical by virtually every branch of the Nicean Church, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant alike.Rv1115 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)rv1115Reply

All articles should be properly sourced (WP:V, WP:RS) and should present all significant points of view (WP:NPOV). I haven't actually looked at this article in depth, so I don't know how it stands now in light of Wikipolicies. But please refrain from calling other authors' (n.b. the plural) work disingenuous, which does not assume good faith. As for a citation on sacramental theology, see [1], which I just happened upon yesterday while working on something else. HTH. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right. Original author of the page here. I've gone ahead and expanded a number of things in the article to 1) soften POV criticisms, 2) expand and clarify language in what is already there, 3) add more citations and primary documentation, and 4) add new sections of Federal Vision positions which are not already covered. In the coming days, I will be adding a section on objections and criticism. I welcome all suggestions to relieve criticism of bias. ChosenOne66 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I'm going to go ahead and make this change, as no one seems to have an opinion to the contrary. Bleh...I think I messed up some references when making other tweaks. Kyriosity 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The list of denominations leaves out the Reformed Church in the United States, which is mentioned, with errors, later on.

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))Reply

REVJAB, First, welcome. Second, feel free to jump in and start editing anything you wish. Kyriosity 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

1. Pitting Scripture and Confession against each other.
2. Regarding the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic.
3. 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.
4. Election as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant.
5. Seeing covenant as only conditional.
6. 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.
7. A denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works.
8. 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.
9. Viewing righteousness as relational not moral.
10. A failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ’s.
11. A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification.
12. Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins.
13. The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion.
14. Including works (by use of “faithfulness,” “obedience,” etc.) in the very definition of faith.
15. Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace.
16. Teaching baptismal regeneration.
17. Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church.
18. A overly-objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and that tends toward an ex opere operato view of the sacraments.
19. Teaching paedocommunion.
20. Ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.

1. terms
   1. covenant objectivity
   2. obedient faith
   3. evangelical
   4. baptismal regeneration
2. election
3. perseverance of the saints

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”[2] 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) I moved Andrew Sandlin's name in the History in Controversy section to be along side of Frame. Sandlin is a strong critic of several main Federal Vision ideas, and has publicly protested several times against being identified with the movement. He says: "I am not FV and never have been. I don't think these men are heretics, but often their ecclesiology seems virtually Anglo-Catholic. Mine most certainly is not. Actually, their ecclesiology is closer to Westminster West's than to mine. I deplore formalism, sacerdotalism, ritualism, baptismal regeneration, etc. These men from the FV and WW would all consider me a deplorably low-churchman." "I am not an advocate of the NPP and never have been, but I am open to any argument based in a careful historical reading of the text. The NPP has not convinced me. "Reply

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)Reply

I added the tags. --Flex (talk|contribs) 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

danke Kyriosity 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Support. Keep Federal Vision, refer to the nickname in a sub heading if need be. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 09:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

A useful distinction could be made between Auburn Avenue Theology and Federal Vision inasmuch as some Auburn Avenue conference speakers were not Federal Vision, and yet their writings were highly controverted.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I changed numerous examples of positive assertions about FV teachers (e.g., "Federal Vision recaptures the richness of the original Reformed faith") to "claims to", or words to that effect, as per my earlier complaint about NPOV.

This reflects the article's continuing lack of a NPOV. I continue to hold the opinion that the primary writer of this page is using it as a platform for promoting Federal Vision. There continues to be no "criticisms of Federal Vision" section at all, though I can acknowledge that a thorough article for that will need its own separate page.

In any event, the main article still omits coverage of the now-established theological criticism of FV, nor the recent study-committee judgments against it by the PCA and OPC, nor the repudiation of it by Westminster Theological Seminary West (R. Scott Clark in particular), and R.C. Sproul Sr. at the 2007 PCA General Assembly.

The writer's use of the Louis Berkhof citation is improper. Berkhof was a classical, traditional covenant theologian whose ideas contradict the core points of Federal Vision. The author should remove the citation.

The independent citation from John Calvin similarly uses Calvin to promote Federal Vision. An legitimate use of Calvin for a NPOV encyclopedia should be a citation from a pro-FV writer where Calvin was cited. Then the reader could decide whether or not the pro-FV writer cited Calvin correctly. The quotation was also non sequitur, in that it did not support the primary claim made for it.

The article is also too long, with an excessive number of literary citations, all taken from pro-FV sources.

Even though the article is heavily footnoted, it is still, over-all, an advocacy piece, not an encyclopedia entry, and as advocacy literature does not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Jack Brooks 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jack, you wrote in your edit summary for your comment, "This article continues to function as 'soapbox' for the primary writer's ('Valerie') private enthusiasm for this movement, and violates Wikipedia's NPOV philosophy. Examples of this are given." Where in heaven's name did you get the idea that I was the "primary writer" for this article? Look at the history: I've contributed nothing of substance here because I have nothing of substance to contribute. Why the uncharitable and unsubstantiated claims about me and my contributions to this article? And why the scare quotes around my name? What gives, bro? This is quite hurtful, and I would not have expected it from you. :-(

Perhaps I should have contacted you in private about this, but as your comments were public, I feel the need to protect my reputation by publicly responding. Kyriosity 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you are not the primary writer, Valerie, then I do apologize; I was under a misapprehension. I do believe the article shows a strong bias, and is not adhering to a NPOV.

64.183.164.137 13:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I want to point out that your citation is something that I removed, a short time after I originally wrote it, prior to our current exchange.

Jack Brooks 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted and forgiveness gladly granted! :-) Unfortunately, the comment I quoted cannot be removed, as it is from your edit summary. You might want to familiarize yourself a little more with Wikipedia's history pages. Each article has a history page, and each discussion page has a history page. If you're in the article page, click on the history tab to see a record of all the edits made to the article. If you're in the discussion page, the history tab gives you a record of all the edits made to the discussion page. As for NPOV issues, I repeat my suggestion to you from February (see above): jump in and take a stab at improving it. Here are some other pages you may find helpful as you edit:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

________________

Thank you for your graciousness. I ought to have gone back to the top and read it all again. I let too much time pass (since February). Your name lodged in my mind because you were the first respondant back to ChosenOne's defending him/herself against the first NPOV related criticism. I gather, now having checked again, that ChosenOne was the primary author. This was my own foolish error.

Jack Brooks 14:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pax! Kyriosity 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply