It's hard to pin down how we differ from the FV people. I would go so far as to say that, if they were not so visually distinctive, there would not be such an opposition to them, as we might not even identify them as a distinct movement. Things being as they are, there does seem to be a disagreement. And the central issue seems to be confusion over what makes someone a Christian, or what being a Christian makes of someone. I cannot tell for sure whether the disagreement is over theology or merely terminology. They certainly use the terms visible and invisible church to describe things in conflict with the customary definition. But they seem to use the terms historical and eschatological church accurately as substitutes. If however there is a theological disagreement, then they are falling into the sin of Israel, which thought that the grace of God's call gave it a special privilege in his sight.
http://www.federal-vision.com/resources/joint_FV_Statement.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment