For critics of this video, Douglas Wilson no longer identifies himself with "The Federal Vision," such as it is. Read why here: dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
He answered the question clearly. The reason he didn't answer it directly and simply is because the question was nonsensical: it is like asking: "what is the difference between Horses and Animals?" Federal vision is a KIND of covenant theology (just as a horse is a kind of animal). The question was posed in a problematic way, but he answered the question quite well: federal vision "is one historic stream within the Reformation tradition" of covenant theology.
That might be so, however, then one should at the very least define what a "horse" is. I like Wilson but he didn't answer the question well. I was really looking for some clarity on this and little was given.
@@SimplyReformed im with you. Not criticizing Wilson, no one is perfect and he's done alot more for the Church thani ever have! But like you, I'd still like a definition of Horse and Animal to try to understand what the issue is.
Because those reports were slipshod work. No "Federal Vision" pastor has ever been brought to trial and condemned. On the contrary, several have been brought to trial SEVERAL times, and found not guilty of error in theology every time. Peter Leithart most recently was cleared of all charges 3 times. The point: when actually studied, there is nothing to condemn. As a FVer, I agree with most of those shoddy reports from URCNA - but they don't reflect FV.
I waited...and waited...and waited...and waited...and no answer came. Doug answered this question: Can you give me a brief defense on why federal vision isn't a new position in the reformed camp, albeit, very brief.
He literally did not spend one second of this 4 minute video answering the question posed at the start “what are the differences between federal vision and traditional covenant theology?”
Not sure I agree, but you may be interested to read this article - Doug Wilson no longer identifies with the federal vision. dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
He certainly didn't answer what seems to have been the intended point of the question based on a clear reading of it. I think he was answering a different question based on the larger theological controversy he was in at the time. Unfortunately, I am coming from a completely different tradition, am unaware of the contoversy or the key term involved (ie Federal Vision) and just wanted to know "What's the difference." So no, he didn't answer the person's question, nor gave useful information for those coming to the video based on the question. So now I will have to go elsewhere to answer a question brought up but not answered here.
The question "What are the primary differences between the Federal Vision and traditional Covenant theology?" was completely avoided by Wilson. That says a lot of about what his motives are here.
And yet, ten years later, in an interview with James White, Mr. Wilson seems to have repudiated Federal Vision, calling it a "dead movement" and that he is a fully confessional Presbyterian. He even goes so far as to distance himself from the "sacradotalist" wing of Federal Vision. So what happened? Did he not really believe in Federal Vision? Was he just misunderstood? Did he change his position?
None of the above. FV has become a catch-all term for denying justification by faith alone and sacerdotalism, hence his repudiation of the label. His theology is the same as it has been for quite some time.
Let me answer it for you, PCA,ARP and PRC are all leaning to the works base system, "well johnny needs to know this, do this and be able explain this before he can be a full member of the church and partake in the Lord's Table.
I appreciate the need for establishing a broad background before answering a question, but this seems to be all background and no answer. "What is the difference..." "They are different views within the same, very old tradition." Okay, so what's the difference? Mr. Wilson seems to assume that everyone watching the video already knows the answer and is therefore answering a different question. As a Baptist outside the Reformed Theology sphere, I am largely un-familiar with the concept of "Federated Vision" and actually wanted to know the answer.
Love you brother, but that didn't really answer the question... is there some where I can go to find a good concise definition of "the federal vision" and perhaps critiques of it ?
Wow, I agree that Doug danced all around this question...what's really interesting is how at 3:48 of this video he even makes it about his position and himself. Pride Doug Wilson. Repent!
Hi Hustler, Douglas Wilson no longer identifies himself with "The Federal Vision," such as it is. Read why here: dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
from the PCA report of ad interim study committee on federal vision, NPP, and auburn ave theology: 1 FV who rejects bi-covenantal is contrary to WCF 2 Any who view elect by virtue of membership in visible church; could lose election is contrary to WCF 3 Christ not impute obedience contrary to WCF 6 baptism effects a "covenantal union" with Christ contrary to WCF Some can receive saving benefits of Christ and not persevere is contrary to WCF Do you reject these?
### That's a pretty bold claim. I'm not sure you understand what the word "heresy" means. ### Heresy is anything contrary to what the Scriptures teach. Nowhere in Scripture is there taught a "conditional" covenant. :) ### There is room for disagreement with regards to particulars of Scripture ### All things must be grounded in truth. Federal Visionism is grounded in anything "but" truth, and there is certainly no "room" for the teaching of "salvation by works".
### There are conditional covenants, any biblical scholar will tell you that. ### Not in Scripture there aren't :) And I follow Christ, not men. God's Covenant is "unconditional", its NOT an agreement/contract, and its NOT a means to an end, but is the actual END/GOAL itself. Also, God's Covenant is "eternal" and "everlasting" - therefore it CAN'T be a temporary agreement/contract with conditions, stipulations, requirements and demands - but rather a "perfect BOND OF FRIENDSHIP".
What? The law of Moses which if you do them you shall live. Blessings conditional on obedience curses conditional on disobedience. Then a long history of the fruit of disobedience leading to the exile and enslavement of both Israel and Judah. Mosaic covenant + obedience = blessing. Mosaic covenant + disobedience = curses.
Trying to sound Confessional here, the real differences are deeper than these desired and confusing semantical differences Twenty errors that are held by one or more advocates of the Federal Vision are listed in the conclusion of the report of the OPC's Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification: to see the list go to reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2009/06/disappointed-in-john-piper.html
### I think the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the information on why virtually every scholar is wrong on the conditionality of covenants, ### Virtually every scholar? I can't say I agree with that :) I can name you quite a few that disagree with the "conditional" covenant teaching..... Herman Hoeksema, David J.Engelsma, Herman Hanko, Ronald Hanko, Ronald Cammenga,... and also all of the "Protestant Reformed" denomination. Never side naturally, by default, with the "majority"
### Church history does not back up your claims ### Again, I follow Jesus Christ, not Church history. SOLA SCRIPTURA :) ### You need to believe the Gospel and stop talking about what you don't know ### The gospel preached by the "Federal Visionists" is one of WORKS-SALVATION. So I will never believe that so-called "gospel" - and anyone who DOES believe in it will earn themselves a one-way ticket to hell - for whosoever will put himself under the Law for salvation is "bound to keep ALL of it"
And this is a typical expression of hostility from someone who doesn't have confidence in what they say. I do not agree with many things Doug Wilson adheres to, namely federal vision, but I hope that you are not the type of christian who neglects church history and it's great councils and creeds, while promoting anti-intellectualism.
For critics of this video, Douglas Wilson no longer identifies himself with "The Federal Vision," such as it is. Read why here: dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
Love this video of him circumventing the question asked and not answering it
He answered the question clearly. The reason he didn't answer it directly and simply is because the question was nonsensical: it is like asking: "what is the difference between Horses and Animals?" Federal vision is a KIND of covenant theology (just as a horse is a kind of animal). The question was posed in a problematic way, but he answered the question quite well: federal vision "is one historic stream within the Reformation tradition" of covenant theology.
That might be so, however, then one should at the very least define what a "horse" is. I like Wilson but he didn't answer the question well. I was really looking for some clarity on this and little was given.
@@SimplyReformed im with you. Not criticizing Wilson, no one is perfect and he's done alot more for the Church thani ever have! But like you, I'd still like a definition of Horse and Animal to try to understand what the issue is.
Because those reports were slipshod work. No "Federal Vision" pastor has ever been brought to trial and condemned. On the contrary, several have been brought to trial SEVERAL times, and found not guilty of error in theology every time. Peter Leithart most recently was cleared of all charges 3 times. The point: when actually studied, there is nothing to condemn. As a FVer, I agree with most of those shoddy reports from URCNA - but they don't reflect FV.
This guy is a master of not answering questions. How has he got away with this for so long?
I waited...and waited...and waited...and waited...and no answer came. Doug answered this question: Can you give me a brief defense on why federal vision isn't a new position in the reformed camp, albeit, very brief.
You're kidding me! I just want to know what FV is!
He literally did not spend one second of this 4 minute video answering the question posed at the start “what are the differences between federal vision and traditional covenant theology?”
Not sure I agree, but you may be interested to read this article - Doug Wilson no longer identifies with the federal vision. dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
He certainly didn't answer what seems to have been the intended point of the question based on a clear reading of it. I think he was answering a different question based on the larger theological controversy he was in at the time. Unfortunately, I am coming from a completely different tradition, am unaware of the contoversy or the key term involved (ie Federal Vision) and just wanted to know "What's the difference."
So no, he didn't answer the person's question, nor gave useful information for those coming to the video based on the question. So now I will have to go elsewhere to answer a question brought up but not answered here.
I didn't hear an answer to the question.
The question "What are the primary differences between the Federal Vision and traditional Covenant theology?" was completely avoided by Wilson. That says a lot of about what his motives are here.
Clear as mud.
And yet, ten years later, in an interview with James White, Mr. Wilson seems to have repudiated Federal Vision, calling it a "dead movement" and that he is a fully confessional Presbyterian. He even goes so far as to distance himself from the "sacradotalist" wing of Federal Vision. So what happened? Did he not really believe in Federal Vision? Was he just misunderstood? Did he change his position?
None of the above. FV has become a catch-all term for denying justification by faith alone and sacerdotalism, hence his repudiation of the label. His theology is the same as it has been for quite some time.
Total non answer.
Let me answer it for you, PCA,ARP and PRC are all leaning to the works base system, "well johnny needs to know this, do this and be able explain this before he can be a full member of the church and partake in the Lord's Table.
I appreciate the need for establishing a broad background before answering a question, but this seems to be all background and no answer.
"What is the difference..."
"They are different views within the same, very old tradition."
Okay, so what's the difference? Mr. Wilson seems to assume that everyone watching the video already knows the answer and is therefore answering a different question. As a Baptist outside the Reformed Theology sphere, I am largely un-familiar with the concept of "Federated Vision" and actually wanted to know the answer.
Love you brother, but that didn't really answer the question... is there some where I can go to find a good concise definition of "the federal vision" and perhaps critiques of it ?
Probably not since it really doesn't appear to be a single definable position.
Why is it he didn't answer the question ?
Wow, I agree that Doug danced all around this question...what's really interesting is how at 3:48 of this video he even makes it about his position and himself. Pride Doug Wilson. Repent!
Hi Hustler, Douglas Wilson no longer identifies himself with "The Federal Vision," such as it is. Read why here: dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
from the PCA report of ad interim study committee on federal vision, NPP, and auburn ave theology:
1 FV who rejects bi-covenantal is contrary to WCF
2 Any who view elect by virtue of membership in visible church; could lose election is contrary to WCF
3 Christ not impute obedience contrary to WCF
6 baptism effects a "covenantal union" with Christ contrary to WCF
Some can receive saving benefits of Christ and not persevere is contrary to WCF
Do you reject these?
He never really answers the question
No answer…lots of words though.
### That's a pretty bold claim. I'm not sure you understand what the word "heresy" means. ###
Heresy is anything contrary to what the Scriptures teach. Nowhere in Scripture is there taught a "conditional" covenant. :)
### There is room for disagreement with regards to particulars of Scripture ###
All things must be grounded in truth. Federal Visionism is grounded in anything "but" truth, and there is certainly no "room" for the teaching of "salvation by works".
if all the denominations in the URCNA have said Federal Vision are in error why is this up for debate?
So the difference is...
Waste of time... He does not answer the question. Nothing but idle babble about the reformed conference.
thisdude didnt say anything
Chairs are WAY too close together.
smh speak for yourself Craig
@@CanonPress well, each to their own I guess haha.
ha ha anyone noticed beer bottles?
your point
Old Rasputin. A very good microbrew stout. It’s as dark as motor oil. If, like me you like stout, this will be very pleasing.
Of course I noticed the beer bottles. So what?
@@lionelscout nothing. Just relax dude. I thought it was funny. I drink a lot of beer.
He doesn't even answer the question!! He just says tries to defend that he isn't out of the Reformed community
4 minutes of nothing except talking how other people have written different things.
### There are conditional covenants, any biblical scholar will tell you that. ###
Not in Scripture there aren't :)
And I follow Christ, not men.
God's Covenant is "unconditional", its NOT an agreement/contract, and its NOT a means to an end, but is the actual END/GOAL itself.
Also, God's Covenant is "eternal" and "everlasting" - therefore it CAN'T be a temporary agreement/contract with conditions, stipulations, requirements and demands - but rather a "perfect BOND OF FRIENDSHIP".
What? The law of Moses which if you do them you shall live. Blessings conditional on obedience curses conditional on disobedience.
Then a long history of the fruit of disobedience leading to the exile and enslavement of both Israel and Judah.
Mosaic covenant + obedience = blessing.
Mosaic covenant + disobedience = curses.
Word salad. The primary tool of heretics
Trying to sound Confessional here, the real differences are deeper than these desired and confusing semantical differences
Twenty errors that are held by one or more advocates of the Federal Vision are listed in the conclusion of the report of the OPC's Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification: to see the list go to
reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2009/06/disappointed-in-john-piper.html
what is this prattle? do we believe that GOD IS GOD and HE sent HIS SON JESUS to fulfill all prophecy and to die that we might live? enough said !!
### I think the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the information on why virtually every scholar is wrong on the conditionality of covenants, ###
Virtually every scholar? I can't say I agree with that :) I can name you quite a few that disagree with the "conditional" covenant teaching..... Herman Hoeksema, David J.Engelsma, Herman Hanko, Ronald Hanko, Ronald Cammenga,... and also all of the "Protestant Reformed" denomination.
Never side naturally, by default, with the "majority"
### Church history does not back up your claims ###
Again, I follow Jesus Christ, not Church history. SOLA SCRIPTURA :)
### You need to believe the Gospel and stop talking about what you don't know ###
The gospel preached by the "Federal Visionists" is one of WORKS-SALVATION. So I will never believe that so-called "gospel" - and anyone who DOES believe in it will earn themselves a one-way ticket to hell - for whosoever will put himself under the Law for salvation is "bound to keep ALL of it"
And this is a typical expression of hostility from someone who doesn't have confidence in what they say. I do not agree with many things Doug Wilson adheres to, namely federal vision, but I hope that you are not the type of christian who neglects church history and it's great councils and creeds, while promoting anti-intellectualism.
if you are suggesting that christians should not seek knowledge, and be intellectual, then you need to re-read your pauline epistles.