Return to The Bible Lighthouse homepage --- Discuss theology online at The Reformation Superhighway

Within The Bounds of Orthodoxy?

An Examination of Both the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul

by Joseph Minich - April, 2006


Endorsements:
"I have read the article, and my judgment is that it is a wonderful piece. It is by far the best thing I've ever read on the Federal Vision and/or New Perspective. I hope this essay gets the widest possible distribution. People concerned with these issues, whatever their persuasion, need to meditate deeply about it. And it provides a model of careful, thorough, thoughtful theological criticism. Mr. Minich . . . has a great future as a Reformed theologian."

- Dr. John Frame, Reformed Theological Seminary

"One of the disappointing things about the 'Federal Vision' controversy has been the unwillingness of so many to make a serious effort to read FV writers with charity and seek to be sure they understand the position accurately before critiquing it. Joseph Minich has done both and I am indebted to him for the time and effort he has put forth in this excellent essay. He has fairly and accurately presented my position (and the position of others) and has laid the foundation for serious interaction. I pray that Joseph's work will bear much fruit in the months ahead as we continue to discuss these positions."

- Pastor Steve Wilkins, Auburn Avenue PCA

 

OUTLINE:

Foreword

  1. Introduction: Conference to Controversy to Court
  2. The Federal Vision
  3. The New Perspective on Paul
  4. Evaluation
  5. Conclusion: A Proposal for Ecumenical Dogmatics

A Prayer

Appendix: Partial Transcript of Lecture (Delivered on 4/7/2006)

 

Would you like to comment on this article? If so, then feel free to join the discussion here or here.


 

 

      “You say to-mae-to, I say to-mah-to…Let’s call the whole thing off.”

- Louie Armstrong –

 

 

 

Foreword:

 

            This essay is neither a defense nor a sustained critique of either the Federal Vision or the New Perspective on Paul. The exclusive aim of this presentation is to ask the question, “Can advocates of either of these positions be considered as within the bounds of Reformation orthodoxy?” That is, whether or not one agrees with one or the other of these movements, or whether or not one agrees with how they word certain things, can they nevertheless be interpreted in such a way as to be within the broad parameters of the Reformed faith?

            One would think that the relevance of this question is hardly in need of defense. However, it is my contention that this question is tremendously overlooked. Almost all of the tension and polemic over these issues has been to ascertain whether or not these movements are correct. While this is an important question, our present circumstances demand a fresh examination of whether they are acceptable. Heated arguments, call for church disciple or church splits, accusation of gospel denial etc. is often carried out without (seeming) recognition that correctness and acceptability are two separate issues. While we might consider Postmillenial eschatology to be incorrect, for example, few of us would ultimately find it unacceptable, and call for church division over it. I realize that the current topics are, of course, over the “vitals of religion.” But even here there has always been room for at least diverse formulation, though (insistently) not substantial difference. Attempting to help resolve the question as to whether the Federal Vision represents a “different formula/emphasis” or a strike at the “vitals of religion” is the task of this paper. 

            Given my question, I am leaving alone questions of propriety and personality. It my judgment, both sides have their handful of feisty churchmen. This is always the case. However, I feel the need to make one clarification up front. It is often argued that Federal Vision advocates are “confusing” in their language and dangerously ambiguous when speaking. Indeed, it is said that their use of speech is somewhat divisive. But I ask my reader to consider that most of the quotations we read are in the context of the criticism. This is not always bad, but it is to say that our impression of these gentlemen might change if we read their writings in their own context. (As if we had never read the critics first)We might recognize that (often), when speaking to a sympathetic group, there are common assumptions about certain things than outsiders do not share. Taking statements from this context and putting them into ours can indeed be problematic. But, furthermore, one might find that if these statements were examined in their own context, qualifications are immediately made as to exactly how and why certain words are used in untraditional ways. I say this because so much of the critical responses to Federal Vision advocates have come from parishioners who have (almost) only read the critical side, and have consequently filtered all the “nasty quotes” through the lens of traditional categories into which they might not fit. The impression is often that Federal Vision advocates have simply stood on a pedestal and said, “Hey! We believe in baptismal regeneration and judgment by works!” In fact, their statements are often more guarded than this, and usually immediately qualified. As such, the attempt of this paper is to represent Federal Vision theology in its own context and defined its own way.

            Time would fail me to recount the emotional stages I have gone through in the examination of these issues. I have gone from confusion, to (hopefully) understanding, to frustration, to anger, to resentment, to repentance, to struggle, to hope, to despair, to begging. I write this essay because I love the church of Christ, and I believe that within it, dear brothers are being accused of the highest crime in the universe (leading the sheep astray with a false gospel) without warrant. The church is Christ’s own bride. She is beautiful and lovely. We must protect her, even against ourselves. It is my heartfelt plea here that we all try again to understand these men afresh. I have written and re-written, and tried to take away any polemic from my attitude, heart, and language. I do not charge anyone’s motives. Indeed, I laud most of them. We should and must be concerned about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Especially in this age, it is vital that we do not null the power of the gospel with the temptation of compromise. But I do plea with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, let us live the gospel in this controversy. (Emphasized in my conclusion) Let us believe and hope all things. Let us put as charitable a spin on any statement that we possibly can. My argument in this essay is that if we do this, we will find no cause to charge our brothers with heresy.

            Finally, the appendix following this essay is a partial transcript of a lecture I gave on April 7, 2006. It really does belong with the larger paper, because it clarifies and expands certain issues in ways that I think might help others. The references to personal correspondence in this paper do not demonstrate a relationship to the movement, but only reflect research. Though I make this clear to avoid suspicion, I would not be embarrassed to call these men my friends.

 

I. Introduction: Conference to Controversy to Court

 

            In January of 2002, the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana hosted a conference entitled “The Federal Vision: An Examination of Reformed Covenantalism.” The speakers at this conference (John Barach, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, and Douglas Wilson) intended to present what they understood to be historically Reformed covenant theology. The apparent motive of this presentation was pastoral, to highlight the benefits of a covenantal perspective for issues such as the assurance of salvation and child-training. Perceiving a lack of their particular emphases in contemporary Reformed theology, they thought their lectures might offer a healthy theological and pastoral corrective.

            It was a great shock to the speakers, then, when public accusations of heresy (either explicit or implicit) were made against them within six months of the 2002 conference. In the Summer of 2002, the Counsel of Chalcedon, a publication of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (Of PCA derivation) published several articles undermining the orthodoxy of the soon-to-be dubbed “Monroe Four.”[1] Chief among the critics was Joseph Morecraft III. However, the PCA’s own Andrew Webb, in a subsequent edition of the The Counsel chimed in with an article by the now infamous title “Foolish Galatianism.”[2] Correspondingly, in June of 2002, the RPCUS issued a “call to repentance” to those involved with the Auburn Avenue conference. The session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church was “dismayed beyond words” by the charges. The Auburn Avenue pastor’s conference would now become the Auburn Avenue controversy.[3]

          The controversy escalated chiefly through the internet, with scores of articles, blog posts, and message boards being used as sounding boards to attack or defend the Monroe Four. Sides were quickly being drawn, and the recent publication of a controversial book by Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace[4], did not help matters. Usually because of critics, many sensed a vague connection between Rev. Shepherd (whose theology had been the subject of a dispute at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1975-82) and the Auburn Avenue pastors.[5] To complicate matters, it was not long before this that the Anglican theologian Nicholas Thomas Wright was being discovered by many within the PCA. The publication of his What Saint Paul Really Said[6] in the late 90’s had opened the eyes of many evangelicals to something called the New Perspective on Paul. A complex theological paradigm, evangelicals at least knew that it had something to do with the doctrine of justification. Though a totally distinct phenomenon, the amalgamation of these theological streams blended in the minds of most pastors and laypeople. The distinction between them increasingly blurred, and where it was maintained, the argument was usually that they fed parasitically off of one another.[7] 2002 through 2004 saw the publication of countless articles by men such as Michael Ericson[8], Matthew McMahon[9], Brian Schwertley[10], John Robbins[11], R. Scott Clark[12], Michael Horton[13], and many others concerning one or another strand of these controversies. Many, such as Robbins and Schwertley, were unmistakable in their condemnation of the “new teaching” as heresy. Others, such as Horton, were far more cautious. The Auburn Avenue session itself published a position paper on the issue to alleviate concern.[14] It did not have its intended effect.

       There were, however, some attempts at mutual understanding and ecumenicity. The 2003 Auburn Avenue pastor’s conference hosted a series of interactions between proponents and critics of Federal Vision theology. While this bore some fruit, E. Calvin Beisner, an attendee at the conference, said “my belief that much of the contention was over misunderstanding was confirmed. But at the same time I began hearing things which I could not dispense so easily. I began to wonder whether some of the accusations might have credibility.”[15] And so, Dr. Beisner invited a group of speakers on both sides of the controversy to engage in further interaction in Ft. Lauderdale Florida in August of 2003. The papers presented at this colloquium were published in 2004 by Knox Theological Seminary under the title The Auburn Avenue Theology. Tragically, the colloquium did not bring about unity. Much the opposite, the sides became further polarized, one pastor subsequently saying he feared the controversy beyond dialogue.[16] The at first sympathetic Beisner himself no longer doubted that the Federal Vision was a deviation from Reformation orthodoxy.[17] And of course, the web-battles were larger than ever. Collisions between Michael Horton, Rich Lusk, Andrew Webb, Mark Horne, etc. lit the e-eky.[18]

        By this time, the controversy had gone from the stage of theological conflict to that of legal action. In 2004 and 2005, the church courts were hard at work. One denomination, the Reformed Church in the United States, anathematized the teaching of Norman Shepherd officially.[19] The same year, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church formed a study committee to study all pertinent issues to the controversies, the results of which should be made available at their General Assembly this year. Frustrated with the OPC’s slow reaction to the controversies (and other issues), several congregations and individuals left the denomination in 2004.[20] Within the PCA, the Mississippi Valley Presbytery formed a study committee and published a forty page document that has at least implicitly charged Federal Vision advocates, Norman Shepherd, and the now-Bishop Wright with heresy.[21] The Mississippi Valley Presbytery tried unsuccessfully at the PCA General Assembly in 2005 to have their document distributed among PCA presbyteries. Without bias to its content, the PCA rejected the overture because it did not want to implicitly endorse a document concerning matters which the larger denomination had not made a judgment.[22] Since then, at least one other congregation within the PCA has adopted an officially critical stance towards the Federal Vision,[23] while another presbytery is planning to request that a denomination wide study committee be formed at this year’s General Assembly.[24] Most importantly, the Louisiana Presbytery, of which the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church is a part, has publicly exonerated Steve Wilkins concerning suspicion of heresy.[25] Many contributors to the Florida colloquium responded in protest.[26] Since then, at least one other presbytery within the PCA has adopted a moderate position.[27] Also worthy of note, the Central Carolina Presbytery has asked the Standing Judicial Committee of the PCA to examine the legality of the Louisiana Presbytery’s exoneration of Rev. Wilkins. Within the PCA, then, only denomination wide action can possibly have any effect in this controversy. Either people from each side of the fence will have to dialogue further, learn to live with disagreement, or they will have to split. The likely formation of a study committee at this year's General Assembly will be the next step to resolving what has become a tedious fight within Christ’s church. 

 

II. The Federal Vision

 

     A. What is the Federal Vision?

 

            The following four-fold scheme is not absolute since the Federal Vision is not a system, but rather an organic series of concerns or dispositions. These emphases could potentially be under less or more headings, and in any particular order. Furthermore, in any schematization, one must keep in mind that there is considerable diversity amongst those labeled as Federal Vision advocates. The procedure here is to give the most controversial statements made by Federal Vision advocates, some sense of their nuance, and a brief indication or their alleged Reformed precedent (Or warrant).

 

            1. The Objectivity of God’s Covenant People

 

            Says Steve Wilkins, “Covenant is a real relationship, consisting of real communion with the triune God through union with Christ. The covenant is not some thing that exists apart from Christ or in addition to Him…rather, the covenant is union with Christ.”[28] Alluding to the way the Apostle Paul addresses the weak Corinthian congregations, (sanctified in Christ, baptized in the name of Christ, brothers, etc) Wilkins continues, “He was not able to speak like this because he had some special insight into the secret decrees of God. He was speaking about what was true of these objectively by virtue of their union with Christ in covenant.”[29] In sum, “All in covenant are given all that is true of Christ.”[30] What does this mean? It means that all who are in the covenant are, according to J. Steven Wilkins and others, “saved” in some sense. They are Christians. Factoring in the doctrine of election, John Barach explains, “God does not make His covenant exclusively with those who have been predestined to eternal salvation. Rather, He establishes His covenant with all who have been baptized, with professing believers and their children. The whole church, head for head, is in covenant with God.”[31] But modifying the way the doctrine of election is traditionally employed, Barach goes on, “But what if we tell the church, ‘God chose you and Jesus died for you’ and then some of those people fall away and end up in Hell? Have we lied to them? No! We have spoken to them in a faithful and trustworthy manner in terms of their true covenantal relationship to God.”[32] In short, God “has decreed that some of those whom He has chosen to bring into a covenant relationship with Him will enjoy that relationship only for a time. God brings those people into His covenant and unites them to Christ for a time…They really experience His love, but they do not respond with repentance and faith and love.”[33] What is this leading to? Federal Vision advocates would have us view church membership/being-a-Christian as something tangible and objective. Those, like Israel, who are visibly in covenant with God, ought to be spoken to as though they possessed all the blessings of salvation and union with Christ. Covenant is not a means to salvation; it is the very objective form that salvation takes.

            Assurance of salvation (being-in-covenant), then, is not based on a subjective search for moral virtues which manifest a hidden regeneration. Rather, all members of the church can trust that, as Paul predicated the blessings of salvation on congregations in general, so we may consider ourselves forgiven, saved, elect, justified, etc. if we are visible members of the church of Christ. Those who fall have fallen from the “blessing of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification,” etc.[34] In sum, Federal Vision pastors highlight the “objectivity of the covenant.”[35] Christians are as identifiable as any other nation; membership is not akin to agreeing with an ideology, wherein apostasy becomes the acid-test which reveals that one “didn’t really” adhere, and thus was never really a member. Make no mistake about it, those who fall, “in some sense…were really joined to the elect people, really sanctified by Christ’s blood, and really recipients of new life given by the Holy Spirit.”[36]

            Likely, these statements make our Reformed ears itch. However, our itches are perhaps scratched if we listen more closely. Douglas Wilson clarifies, “Are we asserting ‘no distinction’ between the apostate and the faithful son in the decrees? Absolute not. But we are saying that when it comes to the covenant, the man who stands and the man who falls are distinguished in the standing and falling.”[37] Still, says Wilson, “When a man falls away from the faith, there is clearly a sense in which he was never truly in the faith. But when a man falls away from the faith, in some sense he has to have been in the faith in order to fall away from it.”[38] In summary, the reprobate falls away “in one sense from what they never had in another sense.”[39] So, when Federal Vision advocates speak about covenantal salvation, there is clearly some qualification regarding the nature of that salvation. They are not speaking of being a “Christian” in the same way we speak of a “born-again Christian.” Nor do they speak of possessing the benefits of union with Christ in the same way we speak of “having a personal relationship with Christ.” Indeed, they strictly maintain the necessity of faith for the enjoyment of these benefits. Says Wilkins, “The gospel is only saving to those who ‘hold fast to the word. (1 Corinthians 15:1-2)’”[40] But, from the perspective of the covenant, no-one can say when/if a man has faith, is regenerated, or truly converted; and so these things cannot be the objective basis upon which we “define the Church or identify God’s people.”[41] These twin truths enables us to assure tender souls of their salvation by speaking to them the way Paul speaks to New Testament churches,[42] but this does not mean that the visible saints may live as they wish. While tender souls may be assured that they are “in” the covenant and possess salvation, presumptuous souls may not rest in that. Those who fail to live in faithfulness to Christ within the covenant are cut off as the branches in John 15 which bear no fruit. So, while the question of whether one is in the covenant ought not to be a struggle for the Christian, Christ’s people cannot remain assured if they do not seek to obey Him. Anyone in covenant is “obligated to walk in faithfulness, loving the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. If he is unfaithful, he is called to repentance. If he refuses to repent, he is to be cut off from the body of Christ and delivered over to Satan.”[43] That is, viewing salvation through the lens of the covenant, according to Federal Vision advocates, helps us locate the path between antinomianism and legalism.

            Perhaps, indeed likely, our Reformed ears are still itching. Surprisingly, however, one does not have to look hard to find precedent for this sort of language in the Reformed tradition. It is well known that Calvin distinguished two types of election, a “common” and a “special” within the people of God.[44] This distinction enabled the Reformer to say of God’s people that “it is not enough that God should choose any people for himself, except the people themselves persevere in the obedience of faith.”[45] Indeed, it was the controversy surrounding Norman Shepherd that impelled Dennis Bratcher to write a 1986 Master’s thesis at Westminster Theological Seminary on the subject of Calvin’s doctrine of a conditional covenant.[46] Calvin may speak of apostates as “redeemed” in one place,[47] and in another say “the reprobate are justly said to believe that God is merciful toward them.”[48] In this same place, Calvin speaks of the “temporary faith” of the reprobate. He also warns believers, “holiness is not to be forsaken, for it is the bond of our union with God.”[49] The “keeping” of all the benefits of union with Christ is dependent (in some sense) upon the perseverance of the believer. Yet, like the Federal Vision theologians, Calvin makes some proper distinctions, saying that the elect alone have an “incorruptible seed” in their hearts,[50] and that “strictly speaking,” the forgiveness of sins is “sealed” in the elect alone.[51] As for later Reformed generations, it is well known that John Murray found the distinction between the “visible” and the “invisible” church invalid, arguing that scripture knew nothing of an “invisible" church.[52] The way in which these men are able to speak of a possession of salvation in one sense and the lack of it in another (with respect to the reprobate) will be elucidated below.

            The Federal Vision is not a denial of the Westminster doctrine of election. It is rather an affirmation that scripture speaks of all members of the visible church as “elect” in some sense. It is not a denial of any distinction between believers and unbelievers within the church at any level. All the elect will persevere and all the reprobate will not; they are distinguished in eternity past, present, and future. It is an affirmation that, with respect to the covenant, their standing is the same. Two men might be worlds apart in respect of their personal relationship with Christ, or their destiny within the decrees of God; but visibly they are brothers. They are entitled to the same blessings, which include all the benefits of salvation. Federal Vision advocates often use the analogy of marriage.[53] “Couple A” might have a great marriage while “Couple B” has a terrible marriage, but from the standpoint of the objective relationship of marriage itself, the parties involved are entitled to and in some sense possess the same blessings, even if  “Couple B” does not enjoy them. These are crucial distinctions. And so, we may covenantally (confidently) speak to the people of God the way scripture does.[54] Scripture both speaks of the saint’s perseverance and yet warns them of apostasy (Even as Calvin in his sermons on Ephesians 5).[55] It speaks of both special and general election. So must we. The theological posture of Federal Vision advocates is summarized by John Barach, “even if we don’t understand how all these things fit together, even if we don’t all agree with each other about how these things fit together, let us agree on this - we must speak the language of Scripture to our people. We may not do otherwise.”[56]

           

            2. The Effectiveness of God’s Sacraments

 

            If faith is invisible, yet God’s people can and should be objectively identified, what is the ecclesiastical thumbprint? Steve Wilkins leaves no doubt, “The Bible teaches that baptism unites us to Christ and His body by the power of the Holy Spirit…Baptism is an act of God…which signifies and seals our initiation into the Triune communion.”[57] Once again, this begs for elaboration. When Federal Vision advocates say that baptism “unites us to Christ” and makes us part of God’s “covenant people,” they do not mean that all who are baptized are inevitably saved. They do, however, mean to say that all the baptized are “saved” in a sense. In common Presbyterian terminology, infants are said to be “in the covenant community,” existing in a (this is key) conditional relationship to God. They are called by their baptism to faith and obedience toward Christ. Federal Vision advocates are saying more than this, but not much more. They are willing to (with qualification) call this conditional relationship “salvation.” Salvation is relational, and to exist in a covenant relationship with God is to exist in a saving relationship. Even mature believers exist in this relationship. They stand in “conditional” relation to God through Christ. If they fall away in unbelief, (hypothetically) they will perish. Notionally, this is admitted by all. Thus, salvation must not be reduced to “going to heaven when you die,” but must incorporate notions of “inheritance.” That is, all (non-apostate) who are baptized are on their “way” to heaven, and this “way” is a salvific relation to God. Something like a son who possesses an “inheritance” that he does not yet enjoy, but may forfeit it through unfaithfulness, so baptism gives one a “right” to such an inheritance, but does not guarantee its fulfillment. 

            And so, when doubting whether or not you are a Christian, you may simply look to your baptism. Douglas Wilson explains, “I cannot have faith in the contents of the secret decree because I cannot know it. My faith must be exercised in response to those ways in which the promises of God come to me in this world - primarily in Jesus, who meets me through Word and sacrament.”[58] Notice the particular emphasis here and in Wilkins statement above. Baptism is not a “work” performed, after which one can have full assurance. It is not another “instrument” of justification alongside faith. Rather, it is a visible act of God (especially apparent in the case of infants) which is to be seen as the locus of Christian certainty. It is the place where God promises to meet His own. To look to baptism for assurance is not to look for salvation in “water,” but to cling to the place where God promises to meet His people and bless them. That, after all, is faith!

            But not all church members have faith. Were they “saved” at baptism? Yes and no. On the one hand, we may say that (with respect to the covenant) both the elect and reprobate receive from the fount of baptism. But, as we have just distinguished between a relationship in which one has the “right” to a blessing, and a relationship in which such a blessing is actually enjoyed, we can see that the effects of baptism differ in the recipients. But that is just the key. It is in the recipients that the effects differ, not in the liturgical act itself. Another way of saying this is that baptism secures “conditional” salvation for all who receive it. All are offered redemption in baptism and given a visible place among the redeemed, but only some receive it inwardly.

            Here, however, the work of Peter Leithart is particularly significant. Instead of trying to delineate various senses in which one may be considered saved or not saved, Leithart brings up the subject of how Western persons conceive of personal identity at all. In his own words, “It is not the case that I have an existence and an identity that can be distilled and isolated from my multiple relationships with my wife, my children, my students, my friends, my Presbytery, and so on. These relationships are not detachable pins stuck in the pincushion of the ‘real me.’ These relationships constitute the real me.”[59] In other words, to speak of who does and does not have the identity “Christian” (or any identity) is not about acid-testing their invisible esse. Rather, to be a part of any particular structure of people is to be one of those people. To identify one’s self with Christ, whether elect or reprobate, in the initiatory sign of baptism, is to become a Christian. Put simply, “entry into the church is always a soteriological fact for the person who enters.”[60] Peter Leithart and Rich Lusk have written extensively on this social understanding of the human person, as grounded in the Holy Trinity.[61] They speak of human identity as a social narrative. Within the “story” of one’s life, Christianity might be enjoyed. Indeed, one might enjoy elect status, the forgiveness of sins, etc, and then lose them through apostasy. That is, one might exist in a relationship where these things are possessed conditionally, and forsake this relationship through unbelief. Now, obviously nothing changed in God’s decrees. Rather, one interprets Christian experience as real, even if only enjoyed in a visible way. Rich Lusk further suggests that a fresh evaluation of the “incarnational” language of scripture and the multifaceted way in which scripture speaks of God’s relationship to “time” and “space” might aid us in wrapping our minds and hearts around these issues.[62] Before we make charges against Federal Vision orthodoxy in this regard, we must understand that, without denying the old categories, new ones are being employed which are not subject to the strictures of the old. It is, they suspect, simply Platonic philosophy which demands that we speak of “Christian” and “saved person” as reflecting an inner reality that is undefined by social roles and identities. Rather, the “real” is just as much social as it is hidden.

            This has particular significance for the way covenant children are viewed. Indeed, most of us would accept as “Christian” any adult receiving baptism. But do we call our children “Christians?” Are they simply brought “near the covenant,” or are they actually placed in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ and given a place at His table? Obviously the benefits of the sacrament are not tied to the moment of administration, as the confession teaches. But, in a covenantal sense, do we automatically consider our children members of the people of God, and entitled to all His benefits? It is here that the Federal Vision claims the Reformed tradition with a vengeance. Calvin, for instance, is able to say in his 1538 Instruction for Children in Christian Doctrine, “Teacher: How do you come into the communion of the church? Child: Through baptism; Teacher: What is this baptism? Child: It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin…Teacher: What fruit do you receive from this? Child: Very great fruit, because it is no small thing if I obtain remission of my sins.”[63] Further, says Calvin, “there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life.”[64] And furthermore, “when we have baptism and the Lord’s holy supper ministered incorruptly - we may say it is an election of God.”[65] Even further, says Calvin, “We are not disputing whether it is necessary to baptize infants, nor calling in question whether by Baptism they are ingrafted into the body of Christ, nor whether it is to them a laver of regeneration, nor whether it seals the pardon of their sins.”[66] As for the issue of assurance, Calvin does not disappoint. He states, “as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins.”[67] Calvin is not alone in the Reformed tradition. There was Luther[68] and Bucer before him[69] and Heidelberg Catechism authors Olevian[70] and Ursinus after him. The latter was able to say, “Those are not to be excluded from baptism, to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church’ for redemption from sin…is promised to them no less than to the adult.”[71] He could say further, “to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith.”[72] Francis Turretin, as well, states, “God does not trifle by instituting bare and empty signs; but as by the vocal word he really performs what he promises, so in the sacrament…he gives by the thing itself that which the signs represent.”[73] He further spoke of remission of sins being received “conditionally and sacramentally” in baptism, but “absolutely” only in those with internal belief.[74] This is precisely the distinction that Federal Vision theologians are attempting to make! These types of statements could go on and on. Puritan historian E. Brooks Hollifield has demonstrated a tremendously high view of baptismal efficacy in early Puritanism as well.[75] And this does not even touch upon the argument made, by historians such as David F. Wright, that some form of baptismal regeneration was taught by many delegates at the Westminster Assembly, and that their theology was influential in the drafting of their chapter on baptism.[76] The sacramental basis of assurance can also be argued as having been a concern to the Westminster divines.[77] Even as recent as Herman Ridderbos, one can find statements such as “because baptism is incorporation into Christ, God’s promises that are yes in Christ are likewise yes in baptism, God establishes us in Christ by baptism, and baptism, in that it makes us participate in the sealing with the Spirit, itself has sealing power.”[78]Now, of course, none of these gentlemen believe that baptism automatically saves anyone, or that the benefits of baptism can be enjoyed apart from faith.[79] But all of them seem to be able to speak of baptism as effectively marking entrance into the people of God, and validly being seen as the place of redemption for the church.

            The sacraments do seem to be the “center point” from which all of this controversy has taken place. Given the emphasis on the effectiveness of baptism that so obviously permeates the Reformed tradition, how do we reconcile that our Westminster doctrine of election and perseverance? Calvin could clearly speak of the effectiveness of the sacraments, but agree with Augustine that “if you receive carnally, it does not cease to be spiritual, but it is not so for you.”[80] The difficultly of relating the effectiveness of baptism with the reality of apostasy has plagued the entire Reformed tradition.[81] The variety of attempts is indicated by the attempt of some to distinguish external and internal membership in the covenant,[82] juxtaposed to the way the Presbyterian James Bannerman was able to make a distinction between the “right of property” and the “right of possession” with respect to covenant children.[83] That is, while all children have a “right” to the blessings of the covenant, only the effectually called and elect among them actually choose to possess those blessings.

            As Federal Vision advocates see it, the advantage of their particular formulations is that they can speak of baptismal standing in the church as salvation, conceive of human identity along narrative lines, and thus account for passages in the New Testament such as Matthew 18, the story of the unforgiving servant. In the story, we see what seems to be forgiveness of a legal debt from a king who is analogously the Father. In the parable, there is a subsequent revoking of the servant’s forgiveness, and a reinstatement of his debt. Also accounting for passages which speak of the “irrevocability” of God’s forgiveness and its eternality, Federal Vision advocates find distinctions such as “conditional” and “absolute,” (Turretin) “top-down” and “bottom-up,” (Serariah)[84] “general election” and “special election,” (Calvin) etc. helpful in resolving these biblical tensions. And once again, baptism in this view is seen as an act of God, not an act of the believer. As such (Like the Westminster Confession), no-one would deny that God might save without the performance of baptism. The claim is that God has bound Himself to the sacraments, not that He Himself is bound by them. 

 

            3. The Unity of the God’s Gracious Covenant

           

            It is generally agreed upon by historical theologians that Heinrich Bullinger was the first theologian to propose the covenant motif as an organizing principle for Christian theology.[85] It is also well agreed upon that this theological development arose out of a dispute concerning the sacraments. It was Bullinger’s argument for the unity of God’s covenant from Abraham to Christ that enabled him to exegetically defend the Reformer’s practice of infant baptism. Though covenant theology developed along several lines subsequent to Bullinger, Federal Vision theologians have a few particular emphases with respect to covenant unity.

            First, God’s covenant is personal, not just legal. It is filial, not just juridical. Drawing upon the personalism of Cornelius Van Til, Ralph Smith has argued that God’s covenant is a reflection of His own inter-personal communion.[86] That is, in line with Meredith Kline, we must not view God’s covenant with humanity as an “additive” to an otherwise non-covenantal human situation; rather, covenant is inherent in the created order, itself reflecting God’s own inter-personal relationship. Modifying a statement by Karl Rahner, the economic Trinity reveals the ontological Trinity.[87] And if God deals with humanity in covenant, then covenant must be reflective of something located ontologically in the Godhead Himself. But if the covenant is inherently Trinitarian, then it cannot ultimately be reduced to or even primarily explained by contractual or treaty metaphors. One does not imagine a “contract” between the Trinity extending into the eternal past as much as a familial bond of unity and communion. Of course, some Reformed theologians have proposed a “covenant of redemption” (Rejected by O. Palmer Robertson)[88] between the members of the Trinity, but this covenant is not inherent to the very life of the Trinity itself. Federal Vision advocates argue that a covenantal creation reveals an inherently and essentially covenantal God. In short, covenant relationship is but a copy of Trinitarian relationship. This is not to say that the covenant has no legal elements, but that the covenant cannot be exhausted with reference to legal or contractual metaphors. What this says further is that certain interpretations of the doctrine of “the covenant of works” are out of place in Federal Vision theology. As Rich Lusk protests, if the covenant of works with Adam or Christ is regarded as an offer of eternal life based on obedience to contractual terms, “the Trinity is grafted on to the covenant as an afterthought.”[89]

            Though the covenant has legal elements, the covenant is not meritorious. In Calvin’s terminology, it is God’s “binding” Himself. And in the language of the Westminster standards, God’s covenant with humanity is His gracious condescension to enter into union and communion with creatures made in His image. In the garden, God did not have to offer Adam life, or give him commands. He could have demanded more or less of Adam. Furthermore, in strict justice, God would never have owed anything to Adam, because a creature can never have a claim to the Creator. Here Van Til’s ghost is apparent. No matter what resources Adam used to obey God or receive eternal life, he received these resources only through God’s unmerited favor, not because of anything in himself. The claim of Michael Horton and others that God’s initial “blessing” of Adam is Gen. 1:28 was a result of Adam being made inherently “good” just moves the issue one step back.[90] Adam did not “attain” his inherent “goodness.” He was given it freely by God as a result of His voluntary and gracious condescension.

            Since the covenant is a relational pact of union between creature and Creator, it cannot contain merit in any sense whatsoever. And since the covenant of works and grace are not as dichotomized in this model, Federal Vision theologians suggest that all covenants in scripture operate according to a blessing/curse model.[91] Adam would come under a curse for violating the covenant. Abraham’s family would be “cut off” if circumcision was avoided. The nation of Israel would receive “curses” for lack of faithfulness to the law of God. And in the new covenant, those who are receive its sign (as in the old) but fall away in rampant disobedience come under the same curses. Faithfulness is as much a condition for eternal life in the new covenant as it was in the old, and faith was as much a condition for eternal life before the fall as it was after.[92]

            Once again, our Reformed ears might be twitching, but do not the statements of our forefathers give the same ring? According to ecumenical historian Anthony Lane, Calvin never joined Trent in speaking of the “meritorious cause” of our salvation. This does not mean he altogether avoided the term merit, but it does mean that his commitment to it was “tenuous at best.”[93] He openly complained about the word, “I wish that Christian writers had always exercised such restraint as not to take it into their heads needlessly to use such terms foreign to Scripture that would produce great offense and very little fruit.”[94] Regarding Christ he writes, “It is absurd to set Christ’s merit against God’s mercy…Apart from God’s good pleasure Christ could not merit anything.”[95] And of Adam’s position in the garden of Eden, Turretin wrote, “Adam…would not have merited life in strict justice, although (through a certain condescension) God promised him by a covenant life under the condition of perfect obedience.”[96] Anthony Burgess (A Westminster delegate) could say of the pre-fall situation, “though it were a Covenant of Works, it cannot be said to be a covenant of merit.”[97] Theologian without number could be multiplied that made these same reservations. It is significant that Rowland Ward, who has probably amassed a greater amount of resources than any other recent historian regarding the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works, has argued that its administration was almost always seen as gracious, and its rewards as unmerited.[98]

            As for conditionality within the covenant of grace, the Reformed tradition is not silent. It is interesting that even Michael Horton, in a recent essay, (And in clear distinction from some Reformed theologians such as David Engelsma and John Robbins) could speak of the new covenant as a conditional covenant,[99] yet somehow find Lusk’s formulations tending towards error. (Analyzed more fully below) Once again, Calvin is the most clear; “Although God will have us impute all the good which he does for us to his free mercy, yet he adds this condition: he will have us serve him.”[100] And again, “Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it…by means of good works.”[101] Illustrative of Turretin’s view is his statement, “the questions concerns the necessity of means, of presence and of connection or order…Are they (good works) required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold.”[102] Significant is the fact that Turretin interpreted Christ’s commandment to the rich young ruler as an offer of the gospel, not just an administration of the law.[103] Furthermore, Ursinus may be found saying, “Good works are necessary to salvation…That without which no one can be saved is necessary to salvation…as a part of salvation, or as a certain antecedent necessary to salvation.”[104] Even Jonathan Edwards made similar statements, saying, “Perseverance in faith is, in one sense, the condition of justification; that is, the promise of acceptance is made only to a persevering sort of faith; and the proper evidence of its being that sort is actual perseverance.”[105] Finally, concerning the last judgment, R.L. Dabney argued, “This last declarative justification will be grounded on believer’s works…and not on their faith, necessarily.”[106]

            Contrary to some critics, this does not mean that Federal Vision theologians bring works-righteousness in through the back door of the covenant. Rather, it means that they extend traditional Reformed positions about the covenant of grace and the conditions within it into the covenant with Adam. The elimination of certain covenant of works formulations is not an expansion of works after all, but of grace! Furthermore, the rejection of merit from their system means, at least in principle, that there is no “gaining favor” with respect to the conditions for salvation. Nor does it mean that conditions for salvation are conditions for justification! Salvation is here spoken of in much broader terms. Lusk, therefore, speaks of faith as the “mother condition” of the covenant.[107] Objections arising from the distinction between the Adamic administration, Christ’s righteousness, the believer’s faithfulness, and the law/gospel distinction will be dealt with below.

            Finally, the personal element of the covenant motif in Federal Vision theology has Reformed precedent, but mostly in recent Dutch theologians since Kuyper. However, it is significant that many historians argue that early covenant theology conceived of the entirety of covenant history as gracious. At this stage of doctrinal development, the covenant was a post-fall arrangement of God which dealt strictly with redemption. Despite Lillback’s recent attempt to argue for something similar to the “covenant of works” in Calvin’s theology, it cannot be denied that Calvin never used covenant terminology for this Adamic arrangement.[108] As a relevant aside, the sonship (not employee) motif for covenant theology is a recent exploration in Reformed theology, and its implications have yet to be worked out fully.[109] But it provides a parameter within which Federal Vision theologians might tie together the relational and legal elements of the creation covenant.[110]

           

            4. The Christ-centeredness of God’s Gospel

           

            To speak of the gospel as “Christ-centered” seems rather trite. We all know that the gospel is Christ-centered. Or do we? In common evangelical speech, the gospel and the experience of the gospel is often framed in terms of events within the life of the believer. Justification, faith, sanctification, salvation, forgiveness, etc. are all things that happen to believers. To be sure, Christ is seen as necessary to these ends, but with respect to gospel experience, His work becomes but a precondition to events experienced by individuals in themselves. But for Federal Vision theologians, the gospel has primarily to do with events in the life of Jesus Christ. As Steve Wilkins notes, “He was baptized and lived His life faithfully according to that baptism, keeping covenant as the second Adam, doing all that the first Adam failed to do…He is the justified One. At His resurrection He was vindicated by the Father, publicly declared to be the righteous One. We might say that by His resurrection He was the first One to be born again.”[111] Developing the Reformed notion that Adam was to receive eschatological life in the garden, Federal Vision theologians (along with many Reformed theologians) teach that Jesus attainment of glory for us constitutes justification.[112] Justification is not, then, a “declaration” abstracted from the very person of Christ. It is not so much the transfer of some pronouncement upon an attribute of His (his righteousness) which is subsequently inserted into a cosmic legal book with our name in it; rather, justification is the gift we attain by virtue of union with Christ. Lusk employs the analogy of a person with great wealth giving riches to a beggar. One might simply give the beggar wealth and make them rich. Or a rich person might marry a beggar and make the person rich by virtue of the union in marriage.[113]

            Once again, there is enormous precedent for this in Reformed theology. I wrote my bachelor’s thesis on this theme in Luther.[114] The marriage analogy employed by Lusk is used by Luther himself in his Freedom of a Christian. (1520) Of course, marriage is legal, but it is also relational, and within it, we do not receive benefits extracted from persons. We receive benefits in the other. As Calvin elaborates, “We do not…contemplate him (Christ) outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body…in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.”[115] Recent dissertations have been written at Westminster Theological Seminary on the importance of this doctrine for understanding how Herman Bavinck and Jonathan Edwards understood justification.

            Following Richard Gaffin, Anthony Hoekema, and John Murray, this enables Federal Vision theologians to speak dynamically of justification and sanctification. Though distinct in certain senses, there is a definitional dependence between the two. While Christian growth is never the grounds for justification, God’s declaration that one is just in union with Christ can never leave the human person unaltered. This does not mean that the ground of justification is in the alteration of the person, but it does mean that justification entails freedom from the mastery of sin in its very declaration and as a consequent effect of God’s powerful word.[116] (More on this below) The most important thing to realize here is that Federal Vision theologians unanimously consider faith as the sole instrument (on the human side) of union with Christ. While the works of faith are necessary in the way that “breath” is a concomitant necessity of lungs,[117] even Norman Shepherd (a hero of Federal Vision theologians) could elaborate, “if Paul says that the faith which avails for justification is faith working through love, does he mean that faith derives its power to justify from love so that it is after all love or works that justify and not faith? Not at all.”[118] He elsewhere approvingly quotes Calvin, “it (faith) does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.”[119] This should protect Federal Vision theologians from the accusation that their view of salvation merely places Christians back into the position of pre-fallen Adam. Lusk is able to say that “faith and faith-wrought good works are necessary in every era…with the important caveat that faith alone is the instrument of justification for fallen sinners.”[120] He says further, “Any and all covenant conditions must be understood within this wider framework of union with Christ, the One who has already kept the covenant in full on our behalf, and who shares that covenant keeping (as both status and life) with us. All covenant conditions are intrinsic to our union with Christ, not extrinsic (as though they had to be met from outside of union with Christ). The conditions are not… ‘Do this and live.’”[121] That last quote is particularly relevant. Our union with Christ has both an effect on our status and our life. We are viewed as righteous legally because Christ Himself is righteous. And it has an effect on our life, because Christ Himself, as the apostle says, “lives in us.” The righteousness by which we are righteous legally breathes. And so we can see that while works are a “condition” for salvation in a larger covenantal framework, the ground of our acceptance with God ever is and remains, as Shepherd says, “in no sense to be found in themselves (sinners) or what they do, but is to be found wholly and exclusively in Jesus Christ and in his mediatorial accomplishment on their behalf.”[122]

            The motif of union with Christ is important in several regards. First, it helps us steer between legalism and antinomianism. While the ground of our salvation remains always in the person of Christ, union with Christ cannot co-exist without its effects. Yet still, one can be “cut off” in some sense from this union, as both John 15 and Romans 11 indicate. This is particularly difficult for Reformed Christians in our day. But the distinctions employed above are valid here as well. Union with Christ may be said to exist visibly and covenantally for all the baptized, but vital experiential union is enjoyed by the elect alone. John 15 and Romans 11 speak of union with the tree of God’s people as having two levels. While Federal Vision advocates rightly argue that “union with the tree is union with the tree,” it is nevertheless true that one union is characterized by “abiding” and “faith,” and the other by “fruitlessness” and “unbelief.” Clearly, only those who “abide” enjoy complete union (some call it vital union) with a tree. From the perspective of the covenant, the distinction is entirely in the branches who do not abide and who do not believe. Once again, the marriage analogy helps. One might have covenantal union with a marriage partner, but this can only be enjoyed by the entrusting of one’s self to a spouse. While the covenant enactment (marriage ceremony/baptism) assumes that such entrustment is occurring, very often, it does not occur at the subjective level. True marital union might never be fully achieved, even though liturgically enacted. These distinctions may be vague, but they are clearly present in Federal Vision writings. As Lusk states, “perseverance is not…the caboose at the end of the salvation train…its presence or absence qualifies one’s participation in the ordo salutis.”[123]

    

     B. Why the Federal Vision?

 

            This question needs a little clarity. The question is not about the advantages of the Federal Vision. (This is reserved for the next section) This question concerns why Federal Vision advocates make the above claims despite the benefits. This is important, because many critics of the Federal Vision reduce it to a mere reaction to rampant individualism and subjectivism.[124] That is, they do not allow that it might result from real exegesis and critical analysis.

 

            1. Speaking God’s Words to God’s People

           

            This is an incredibly important point. In the words of Barach, “We are bound to what Scripture says about election, but we are also bound to the way Scripture speaks about election.”[125] Again, “We have no other choice but to let God teach us how to address His people, even if we don’t have it all worked out in our minds.”[126] That is, we must submit our theological categories to the refinement of the biblical narrative. If Paul can speak to congregation after congregation with the word “elect,” then so can we. Absent from scripture are the all-too-common qualifications, “if you really believe,” “if you have really been regenerated.” Rather, according to Federal Vision theologians, Paul always assumes the election and salvation of entire congregations, and simply encourages them not to fall away, instructing them how to live a life of faith.

            This does not mean that Federal Vision theologians get rid of systematic theology. Wilson, for instance, is clear that systematic theology is a great concern to Federal Vision advocates. The plea is that pastors and theologians would recognize that the Scriptures do not always employ categories (such as election) in precisely the same way our systematics do.[127] The exegetical motivation behind these issues is demonstrated by the fact that this controversy is over many things (sacraments, conditionality, justification, etc). Were it motivated by something else, the focus of controversy would be far narrower. The problem here is that scriptural categories are far more expansive than culture-bound systematic categories. This is precisely because systematic are framed in a dogmatic context, and usually develop in response to error. But beyond this, systematic theology reflects entire worldview concepts that are not easily transported back onto scripture. The West, for instance, is obsessed with questions of “substance” and “definition” and “identity.” We do theology with tools of geometry and the approach of a scientist. We have dictionaries of theological terms, so we can speak with increased clarity and precision. The Hebrew world, however, is less scientific and more artistic. It does not typically orate in the language of abstractions, but it paints in the world of phenomenology. Much like we speak of the “sun rising” from the perspective of our human perceptions and experience, so Scripture often speaks of things from the angle of our senses. The Theological dictionary of the Bible is the poetic literature. Theology and morality are taught predominantly with stories and images, rather than didactics. This is not to say that the Western model is bad. It is to say that it is limited. From the perspective described here, it is not hard to see why Scripture might refer to a whole people group as “elect” or “Christians,” because phenomenologically (by confession and baptism), they all are! The difference here is one of category, not necessarily substance.

           

            2. Remembering What God’s People Said about God’s Words

 

            Federal Vision theologians do not see themselves as some “new thing” in the church of Christ. They see themselves as preserving certain elements of a long Reformed tradition. As is obvious from the above, many statements from our theological forefather’s can be amassed in their support. This does not mean these views have been prevalent in Reformed theology, or that there is nothing innovative going on. On the first point, no one denies that the Federal Vision view of sacramental efficacy has been a minority in the Reformed world in the last 150 years. Still, there is precedent in the writings of Philip Schaff and John Nevin, in the views of Dutch Reformed theologians, such as Klaas Schilder in the early twentieth century, and in the writings of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. On the other point, the innovation represented by the Federal Vision is a reflection of the innovation in all areas of modern theology. The “kingdom of God” motif, for instance, is almost entirely new as a controlling paradigm of the Biblical narrative. And it is widely recognized that John Murray’s reworking of covenant theology was innovative. Indeed, even Meredith Kline’s formulations of covenant theology (with whom many Federal Vision critics agree) are innovative (His view that covenant is not subsequent to creation, but inherent in it).[128] In summary, Federal Vision theology represents both a return to the sources (ad fontes) and an impulse to go beyond them (semper reformanda). The tensions that it makes apparent are tensions that exist in the history and soul of the Reformed tradition.

 

            3. God’s People Living by Every Word of God

 

            It is tremendously overlooked, in my judgment, that the Federal Vision is a pastoral impulse. In distinction from the now-quiet Reconstructionist movement, for instance, the Federal Vision is less a “how to” program for anything, as a pastoral reflection on the Christian life. Faced with the problem of assurance of salvation in th