One of the debates in the response to FV/NPP/AAT is whether critics are ‘interacting’ with the original authors, and whether they are doing so in a Christian-ly way.*
I think the root of the debate is over the definition of ‘interact’. The anti-FV guys, and their writings, claim to ‘interact’ with the FV. Yet, the FV guys will describe how they tried to contact the author, how they were never contacted or allowed to defend themselves, etc…
After seeing being defenders and detractors pollute the blogosphere with comments, it seems apparent that to the FV/pro-FV side, “interact” means “calls, emails, visits, or otherwise contacts the individual/writing being discussed”. To the anti-FV side, it appears that “interact” is limited to mean “properly footnote my claims.”
Understanding this, perhaps FV/pro-FV will have more patience with the anti-FV side when they claim to have ‘interacted’. Perhaps also, it will help the anti-FV crowd understand how they might modify their methods to be more persuasive.
*If you really need sources, google: “Federal Vision” OR FV.
True confession: Whenever I see FV mentioned my eyes glaze over. This whole kerfuffle really picked up steam when we were in Ukraine, and I was so thankful to be an ocean away from it. I still like to pretend we’re still an ocean away, and have decidedly avoided learning anything about it.
Greetings in the Lord!
I like your blog. If you want to see a really good (though rare) case of FV people actually *agreeing* that someone has understood them correctly, then take a look at this excellent article:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/within_the_bounds_of_orthodoxy.htm
I also want to invite you to join The Reformation Superhighway internet forum. We celebrate confessional Reformation theology (including Presbyterian, Anglican, and Lutheran).
You can find us here:
http://www.reformationsuperhighway.com
Welcome! I hope to have some good discussions with you there!
Your brother in Christ,
Joseph Gleason