Many FV proponents argue, correctly, I believe, that they are only saying what has been said before, time and again by the Reformers themselves, and others throughout the history of Reformed Theology. Steve Wilkins, at the 2003 AAPC, gave a whirlwind of quotes at one point that stands out in my mind as one of the strongest proofs for this FV position. Mark Horne more recently demonstrated that Calvin spoke in a way that, I’m confident, many FV opponents would not be comfortable speaking (to put it lightly).
Many FV proponents also argue that we should not feel constrained by 17th century language and formulations (and I assume they would feel the same about the 16th century). We should speak to the needs of our day, to our people, in ways that are relevant in our time. I also agree with them on this point.
However, I wonder if FV guys are failing to apply the second point to the first? All the controversy surrounding this FV stuff certainly applies as the needs of our day, doesn’t it? Why do FV guys argue so strongly for using language that rubs against the Reformed culture as it has changed over the past 400 years or so? Would it be so difficult to use the language common and accepted by most in our day to work out these doctrines? Is it impossible to do so, or is it that there’s a little flame inside of us that likes the rebellion, and likes the fight, especially when we honestly can defend ourselves with accepted, even honored, historical positions? We are Machen’s Warrior Children, afterall, right?
Maybe we FV folks should take our own advice and take a step towards those that are throwing accusations against us? Speak to them with language that they understand?
![[caedmonscall.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/ccneticon.jpg "The official unofficial fan site of Caedmon’s Call.")
![[derekwebb.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/dwneticon.jpg "The official fansite of Derek Webb.")
![[rmfo-blogs.com]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/rmfoblog.png "About the [rmfo-blogs.com] service.")
