Heidelcast 131: The Heidelcast Is Back And So Is The Federal Vision

by Heidelcast on November 15, 2019 | 11 Comments

You asked for it, you got it. The Heidelcast is back after an 11-month hiatus. Did you miss me? Episode 130 was part of the series on the doctrine of God. If the Lord permits, we will get back to that series next time but for this episode you and I need to discuss some things that have transpired since we last talked. Reformed and evangelical Christians have been discussing intersectionality, social justice, whether a same-sex attraction is inherently sinful (it is), the apostasy of Josh Harris, the apparent collapse of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement and, in that connection, the return of discredited and de-frocked pastors like Tullian Tchvidjian, Mark Driscoll, and most recently James MacDonald. One of the issues that people seem want to wish away but which doesn’t seem to be going away is the Federal Vision. It is back on our screens because of an apparent alliance that seems be developing between conservative evangelicals and the proponents of the Federal Vision. When Christine Pack pointed out that alliance on Twitter, well you should have seen the dust fly. But she’s not wrong.

Here are all the episodes of the Heidelcast.

Subscribe in Apple Podcasts.

Subscribe directly via RSS

Call the Heidelphone anytime at (760) 618-1563. Leave a message and we may use it in a future broadcast.

If you benefit from the Heidelcast please leave a five-star review on iTunes so that others can find it.

Don’t forget to make the coffer clink.

Thanks for listening!

RESOURCES

  1. Resources On The Federal Vision Theology
  2. Resources on the Law/Gospel Distinction (Updated)
  3. Resources for Reformed Approaches to Natural Law
  4. Redeemed From Every People, Tribe, Tongue, And Nation: A Commentary On The Canons Of Dort

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


11 comments

    • Thanks for the new show. While I know Lutherans are not FV, there are similarities. Though the Lutherans adhere to a law gospel hermeneutic, unconditional election and profess sola fide, because they agree with FV that non elect (decreetally, that is) are given all the benefits of Christ at baptism, except perseverance. This strikes to the core of unconditional election and sola fide. Would you agree? While Lutherans will deny they retain those benefits by faithfulness like the FV, in a sense it’s unavoidable to deny it if we can lose the benefits. If we have anything to do with salvation, and faith is a gift, then somehow we must cooperate with grace to not lose the benefits. WCF 10 says only the elect are called and only they are given faith. The Westminster Divines seem to imply faith is some of many fruits of sovereign election. The Lutherans claim Gal 5:4 and the parable of the sower leave room for non elect having saving faith that is lost. I think there must be other options at understanding those texts. So I don’t want to lump Lutherans in with the FV, but I am having a hard time not. I think saying non elect are given all the benefits but perseverance at baptism puts the onus of salvation on the sinner not the Savior. It’s all or nothing, whether grace or law. Thankfully all of both are found in our surety Christ.

      • Michial,

        There are similarities between the FV and the confessional (Book of Concord) Lutheranism. Both confuse the sign of baptism for the thing signified. Both deny the perseverance of the saints. Those are serious errors.

        Your concession “[t]hough the Lutherans adhere to a law gospel hermeneutic…”. It too important to be dismissed. The FV rejects this basic Reformation distinction. It’s this adherence, in part, that keeps Lutheranism from going where it otherwise might.

        Further, in contrast to the FV, the Lutherans do not teach two stages of justification, namely a final justification through works, which the FV teaches. This is a great difference. The Lutheran affirmation of salvation sola gratia, sola fide is a great difference with the FV.

        Baptismal election may be an implication of the Lutheran view of baptism but they don’t affirm it explicitly. Formally they teach unconditional election. Like the Remonstrants, the FV explicitly teaches two kinds of baptism.

  4. Yes, I agree the Lutherans teach all of that. Their insistence non elect are only temporarily regenerate and given the benefits of Christ seems like not a full salvation and one we can lose. If we can lose it doesn’t it imply we contribute?

    • Michial,

      I agree that the Book of Concord (Lutheran) doctrine of apostasy is a serious error. I don’t think that we should easily equate the Lutherans with the FV for the reasons I indicated.

Comments are closed.