Talk:Federal Vision

From Theopedia

As I'm looking around, I'm find that the Federal Vision is basically the same as Auburn Avenue Theology. If this is the case, why two articles? JordanBarrett (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

I believe that the term “Federal Vision” was originally the title for Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church’s annual Pastors Conference in 2002 -- which started the controversy. Therefore I think you are correct in questioning two articles. There is a distinction to be made between Federal Vision and NPP (for example). But it gets confusing because some Auburn men (who are FV) also hold to NPP. However, I think it would be appropriate to have a Federal Vision page (which says also known as AAT) and let the Auburn page be a redirect to FV.  :-) Gomarus 12:20, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

Contradiction?

The first paragraph states that FV "seeks a restatement of traditional Reformed theology" and that its intent is "revising core confessional doctrines." This appears to be contradictory statements to me. How can a movement be a restatement of traditional Reformed theology while it seeks to revise core confessional doctrines? Lbray (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2008 (EST)

I believe the intent was as follows; The first sentence of the intro presents what they "said" they wanted to do. The second sentence staes what they "appear" to be actually doing. That's at least my thought. We can consider re-wording to be more clear and accurate. Thanks. Jim Ellis 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still getting used to the format of contributing. I just don't want folks to get the idea that theopedia considers FV orthodox (although i'm not sure of theopedia's stance). Lbray 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not endorse FV or NPP. We may be be critical but want to represent them fairly. Thanks, Jim Ellis 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)