Thursday, February 17, 2005


Andrew Sandlin has posted his thoughts on the Mississippi Valley Presbytery report. He believes it to be a sectarian document, which of course goes against Christian catholicism, and unity in general. He makes the statement that :

The real enemies populate abortion clinics, Hollywood, Ivy League universities, seats in the U. S Senate, and Islamic terrorist training camps. We do well to note this crucial distinction.

While he has a point that we, the Church, should never get so inward focused as to overlook evangelism and interaction with pagans outside the church, I disagree that this means we ought to be seeking peace and acceptance of such divergent views from Christians. Sandlin assumes that both views of the gospel (the Federal Vision view and the Old Reformed View) are the same, or at least both acceptable. Yet, it seems to me that is precisely what is in debate. Is the Federal Vision, or Shepherdism, or whatever name you want to insert, a different gospel?

Sandlin is right that we should always remember those without Christ and war with them in the arena of culture, but if we can’t get the gospel right, then we really don’t have anything to say to people outside the church?


Anonymous said...

Sandlin and his confederates play this angle all the time. I.e. 'don't attack us when we engage in our campaign to defile apostolic Biblical doctrine while calling ourselves Reformed when you can see just how truly different those who make themselves the enemies of God are! Perspective!'

But your point is exactly on target: if you allow your base to be weakened you can't engage the outer forces with anything that is practical and useful for the Kingdom of God to begin with. Sandlin knows this; his fellow comrades know this; he and they are in very dark territory. I personally have spent many, many hours with them, and my experience, similar to others, is they are far gone and no longer reachable. They currently exist to dupe the innocent and the confused and to attempt to whatever degree they can get away with it to defile Reformed theology at its most foundational points. Apostacy, pure and simple.

Anonymous said...


You wrote: "Federal Vision view and the Old Reformed View."

However, those writing from this so-called Federal Vision view are claiming that their view *is* the _Old_ Reformed View -- that of the magisterial reformers.

Having read many of the quotes that they have supplied, they seem to be correct.

Lee said...

First, I used the ‘Old Reformed’ title because when this controversy erupted in the RCUS in the 1800’s it was the ‘Mercersburg Men’ vs. the ‘Old Reformed’ party, so I just used that title again.
Second, I would be curious what quotes have convinced you that the Old Reformed View is the Federal Vision view. Perhaps a post on this is worth while. But, for now, I would simply ask, which views do you think go back to the Magisterial Reformers? Surely it is not Infant communion, Calvin clearly denounces that as does Ursinus, and every other Reformer. Could it be the Sacraments contain grace in themselves? No, Calvin seems to be against that, and Zwingli, Bullinger and others are clearly against it. Is it justification? I can’t seem to find those type of quotes in the Reformers. I would love to know what quotes or positions you are referring to. This has great potential for a good discussion.