We reject the FV use of a separate theological language concurrent with, but separate from traditional systematic theology. Whether the FV supporters realize it or not, this dual language methodology is inherently deceptive. When the FV proponents speak, in what they call, their “decretal” language, they speak in the realm of the confession. When they speak, in what they call, their “covenantal” language, they communicate in their own created alternate theological sphere or paradigm. As will be seen in the following points, this alternate theological sphere allows them to affirm the words of the Westminster Standards when speaking “decretally,” all the while rendering its content meaningless when speaking “covenantally,” especially as it relates to everyday life.
Such teaching creates confusion in the flock. Words given opposing meanings in parallel spheres cannot but do otherwise. God is not the author of confusion. It is detrimental to the Truth and contrary to God’s Word. Thus confusion creates division. And we deplore what this teaching has done to the flock by setting brother against brother, producing division where there was once peace (1 Co 14.33).
God:
What more was there to do for my vineyard,
that I have not done in it?
When I looked for it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?
Note: I am only dealing with the rejection (and perjorative characterization of) the distinction between covenantal and decreetal language (a distinction that has been with us long before anyone heard of FV). The accusation of setting brother against brother is outside the scope of my comment.
Y’know, that “god is not the author of confusion” is really misapplied.
Its said in the context of the corinthian’s extatic and confusingly disordered worship practice. It says nothing about the need to not formulate doctrines in a manner that uses paradox which unstable men will twist to their own destruction.