Mercersburg Theology

[greenbaggins]

Lane,

I’m trying to interpret your posts in a charitable and sensible way. I’m just struggling with how to make sense of your use of hyper.

Walk with me if you will...

Hyper-preterism does not distinguish between the AD 70 coming of Christ in judgment from the final judgment at the consummation. Their “hyperness” is in shoving all judgment into one judgment.

Hyper-Calvinism does not distinguish the eternal decree from the sinner’s justification in time. In doing so they shove temporal pardon into the eternal decree.

There are also ramifications to such hyper views. No need to anticipate Christ’s future coming and no need to witness to the lost. I think I grasp hyper in that sense. Entailed is a lack of nuance and theological distinction, which allows for shoving square pegs into round holes.

That said, I find no such hyperness in what your theory purports. So, I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt and looked elsewhere. Obviously I’ve failed.

So, what’s the hyper continuity of FV? It’s not obvious to many of us. I’ve also heard FV is mapped to Gaffin, who as you know opposes Theonomy. You even acknowledge that some theonomists oppose FV. Are such theonomists being inconsistent with their presuppositions by not taking the plunge into the FV cesspool? Am I just a happily inconsistent theonomist? I’d think so if there’s a natural relationship between FV and theonomy.

As for FV relating to Theonomy, how does an aberrant view of the sacraments and conflation of salvation and the church get shoved into a particular view of OT civil law and modern day magistrates? I’m sorry but I just don’t see it. Frankly, the only shoving I see going on is I believe a vague defense being shoved into a rather incredible theory that suggests FV relates in any intelligible sense to Theonomy. I think the project is dead on arrival, but I’ll keep trying to understand. Warmly, Ron

I'll try once more. I am using "hyper" in the very simple sense of "extreme." That's all. By extreme continuity, I mean that the FV often doesn't seem to think that Jesus has changed much of anything. In this, they are similar to the Hebrew Roots Movement, and certain aspects of theonomy. Also, most of the FV proponents have been theonomists, or are still theonomists. As to your query about theonomists needing to "take the plunge," I already answered that above in my clarifying post. The way the FV and theonomy treat the connection between NT and OT is similar. That does not mean there is a necessary organic connection between the two. I mentioned before that there is a level of influence that theonomy has had on the FV. Any and all FV proponents have said this.

I have long contemplated why it is that we have a hard time communicating when we are debating something, Ron, and I think I have come on the answer. You are so detail-oriented that I could christen you a hyper-Ramist. I am not a detail-oriented person. So when I use terms, you immediately parse my terms to within an inch of their lives. I am thinking more generally and broader picture. As a result, you tend to think I am shifting in my definitions of terms, and I tend to think you are being a bit nitpicky. You tend to think my general comments don't prove my point, and I tend to think your bar of proof is too high. If we make allowances for each other, maybe we can communicate better. Please do not interpret anything in this paragraph as a denigration of you, of whom I have the highest respect. Merely trying to delineate different characters and different ways of communicating.

 

[User20004000]

I'll try once more. I am using "hyper" in the very simple sense of "extreme." That's all. By extreme continuity, I mean that the FV often doesn't seem to think that Jesus has changed much of anything. In this, they are similar to the Hebrew Roots Movement, and certain aspects of theonomy. Also, most of the FV proponents have been theonomists, or are still theonomists. As to your query about theonomists needing to "take the plunge," I already answered that above in my clarifying post. The way the FV and theonomy treat the connection between NT and OT is similar. That does not mean there is a necessary organic connection between the two. I mentioned before that there is a level of influence that theonomy has had on the FV. Any and all FV proponents have said this.

I have long contemplated why it is that we have a hard time communicating when we are debating something, Ron, and I think I have come on the answer. You are so detail-oriented that I could christen you a hyper-Ramist. I am not a detail-oriented person. So when I use terms, you immediately parse my terms to within an inch of their lives. I am thinking more generally and broader picture. As a result, you tend to think I am shifting in my definitions of terms, and I tend to think you are being a bit nitpicky. You tend to think my general comments don't prove my point, and I tend to think your bar of proof is too high. If we make allowances for each other, maybe we can communicate better. Please do not interpret anything in this paragraph as a denigration of you, of whom I have the highest respect. Merely trying to delineate different characters and different ways of communicating.

Lane, I take no offense. I simply cannot make sense of how you are trying to connect the dots. It seems to me you have a general feeling about how FV relates to theonomy but that you’re unable to articulate what appears to be a vague impression of things. I think that if there were a meaningful connection between the two it would have been clearly stated by now. But it’s not all for naught, at least for me. I’ve enjoyed traipsing through the fog with you. Our walk has also fortified my view that there’s really nothing to this guilt by association.

All the best,

Ron

 

[TylerRay]

As for FV relating to Theonomy, how does an aberrant view of the sacraments and conflation of salvation and the church get shoved into a particular view of OT civil law and modern day magistrates?

What is now FV used to be Tylerite Reconstructionism. It's not that theonomy simpliciter leads to FV; it's that a certain current within the Reconstructionist movement became the FV movement. There's an organic connection.

 

[User20004000]

What is now FV used to be Tylerite Reconstructionism. It's not that theonomy simpliciter leads to FV; it's that a certain current within the Reconstructionist movement became the FV movement. There's an organic connection.

Oh, I see now. It’s a Tylerite current within the broader Reconstructionist movement, which is not part of theonomy simpliciter, that provides the organic connection between FV and something other than theonomy simpliciter. Why didn’t someone say so earlier? Nothing gnostic about it. Most clear. Tyler R became FV.

 

[TylerRay]

Oh, I see now. It’s a Tylerite current within the broader Reconstructionist movement, which is not part of theonomy simpliciter, that provides the organic connection between FV and something other than theonomy simpliciter. Why didn’t someone say so earlier? Nothing gnostic about it. Most clear. Tyler R became FV.

That's right. Same people, same doctrine, same emphases.