Comments for The Federal Vision

Comment on Ask Doug: The Federal Vision by Tony Zekveld

Tony Zekveld — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:47:32 +0000

I appreciate your thoughts on ‘why the controversy.’ However, your examples of Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau are not good illustrations of your point in the sense that, though brothers, one was ‘of the seed of the woman’ and the other was not. Joseph and his brothers is a better illustration.

Regards,

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by Peter Anselmo

Peter Anselmo — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:56:26 +0000

I perceive that the main reason TR guys don’t have these conversations is because they really don’t want clarification… that might mean they have to change their mind (repent) about what they have already misrepresented.

Hands down: Steve Wilkins once again made an example of the falacious reasoning given by the TRers.

Here was a chance for Wes White to expose error- he didn’t!

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by Vicky Silvers

Vicky Silvers — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:17:09 +0000

I am an editor for Christian.com which is a social network dedicated to the christian community. As I look through your web site I feel a collaboration is at hand. I would be inclined to acknowledge your website offering it to our users as I’m sure our Christian reformed audience would benefit from what your site has to offer. I look forward to your thoughts or questions regarding the matter.

Vicky Silvers
vicky.silvers@gmail.com

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by uilleannman

uilleannman — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:42:53 +0000

Richard,

Just to clarify, Pastor Wes had previously published an imaginary conversation between a curious non-Christian and a FV pastor, a conversation which we do not believe accurately represents the teaching or the emphasis of the Federal Vision pastors. We challenged Wes to actually interview a real FV pastor, and he agreed to do so, but asked for free rein as to the questions he would ask.

This conversation is meant to clarify what Pastor Steve teaches, not for Wes to challenge him on those teachings. Pastor Wes says he has already done so on his blog. Just to put everything in context here… Wes White isn’t shooting quick responses at Pastor Wilkins simply because that wasn’t his point in agreeing to the conversation.

Blessings,

Luke Nieuwsma

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by Richard Gall

Richard Gall — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:16:35 +0000

Sorry – was editing and bumped my thumbpad which was over the “submit” button.

Is Wes just asking random questions about everything that he thinks might be wrong with Wilkins’ theology? He seems to have no evidence and seems out of his depth. He came to the discussion as the inquisitor and came off as the gnome at the bridge in Monty Python.

Wilkins: “Baptism saves you because the Bible states that Baptism saves you. We’re trying to speak Biblically within the bounds of the Confession. What do you think baptism does?”

Wes, “I don’t know! Aaaauugh!”

As for Leithart v. Stellman, I suspect that Stellman would be waxed since he is just another young pastor held out as a front by WSC. Put the bald guys together: Clark v. Leithart.

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by C. Frank Bernard

C. Frank Bernard — Mon, 31 May 2010 04:46:03 +0000

I’d like to hear a discussion between Jason J. Stellman and Peter Leithart hosted by Rob Rayburn.

Comment on Conversation with a (Real) Federal Vision Pastor by Patrick T. McWilliams

Patrick T. McWilliams — Mon, 31 May 2010 03:05:21 +0000

Ironically, the full quote is “A text without context is a pretext *for a prooftext.*”

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by Chris Griffith

Chris Griffith — Sun, 30 May 2010 02:02:29 +0000

Charlie, you said,

“Therefore baptism is simply a sign and seal. It does not make anyone a member of the covenant of grace. It is simply an outward sign of membership in the visible congregation. Having the outward sign and outward membership in Israel is no indication of membership in true Israel, the communion of saints/election.”

Your emphasis is on the “sign” of baptism. You said its also a seal, but what does baptism seal? Does apostasy happen? If so, what are people apostatizing from? Does the visible church mean anything? A big part of what the FV is doing is bringing attention to the objective view of the covenant. They are NOT denying the individual aspect; people either go to heaven or hell as a sheep or a goat, but they are simply saying there is this entity on earth which can be legitimately called the body of Christ, aka, the “visible” church, and it means something to be a part of it.

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by David Cronkhite

David Cronkhite — Sat, 29 May 2010 14:14:57 +0000

Mike,
How is scholasticism a ‘dangerous form of gnosticism’? We all know what the Bible says, but what does it mean? Are the Reformed confessions a dangerous form of restraint in knowing what the Bible means? (I remember somewhere it being said, the unbeliever eats bread but does not eat Christ.)

Comment on Conversation between Wes White and Steve Wilkins on the Federal Vision by Mike Shover

Mike Shover — Sat, 29 May 2010 04:23:54 +0000

“The FV commits the other extreme of saying all baptized are in union of Christ.” Yeah, the extreme of saying what the Bible says. This is the problem of anti-FVers, they are “reformed scholastics”, which is actually a very dangerous form of gnosticism.