An Examination of Both the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul by Joseph Minich - April, 2006
"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
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
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
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
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
There were, however, some attempts at
mutual understanding and ecumenicity. The
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Once again, our Reformed ears might be twitching, but do
not the statements of our forefathers give the same ring? According to
ecumenical historian
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.
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.
2. Remembering What God’s People Said about God’s Words
Federal Vision theologians do not see themselves as some
“new thing” in the
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 the Reformed tradition (and it is
a problem), and the corresponding antinomianism that plagues the modern church,
Federal Vision theologians have been frustrated with their ability to apply
God’s word to God’s people in certain traditionally Reformed ways. Their solace
was not found in systematic theology, but in scripture. Somehow, the words of
God speak to the needs of the hour in a way that our dogmatics might limit it.
Again, this is not a criticism of systematic theology, but recognition of its
limitation. The embodied and Hebraic theology of scripture does not elude the
grasp of laypeople to cling to it, (With questions such as “Is that really
spoken to me?”) but descend in a living way into the trenches of human
experience. This is not a denial that Federal Vision critics are pastoral. It
is a question of whether or not they can employ the full arsenal of Christian
revelation (both systematic and biblical) in the war of their daily Christian
life. Of course, many Federal Vision critics, especially Michael Horton,
regularly encourage Christians to believe the promises and speak of the
foundation of assurance as objective.[129] Indeed, Horton’s statements about
sacramental assurance are often undistinguishable from those of Federal Vision
advocates.[130] But since the
promises offered in the sacraments must be believed, the question of assurance
(for many) is pushed back into an obsession over whether or not one believes.
Literally tens of thousands of pages have been written by Reformed pens on this
pastoral issue. The particular “innovation” of the Federal Vision is its claim
that this question does not apply to whether or not you “have” faith. If you
are baptized, you are in! It only applies to continuing in the faith, and so
the demands of the Christian life are ever present, and ever drive believers to
the throne of grace in the time of need. In other words, rather than obsessing
over whether or not we have been given saving faith, we must recognize God’s
objective promises in baptism (that is faith after all) and continue to cling
to Christ! The obsession over whether or not one has faith seems almost
parasitic to Reformed dogmatics. But as Douglas Wilson bluntly chides, “We
cannot teach…to believe by teaching…to doubt.”[131]
C. What are the benefits of the Federal
Vision?
1. Between Certainty and Complacency
Simply put, the Federal Vision claims to aid the people
of God in attaining the “infallible assurance” spoken of in the Westminster
Confession, and the “trembling” that the Confession claims co-exists with
saving faith. If Paul can speak of all the baptized as “in,” so can we! This must
be understood, and so I will repeat it, because it is very important. The issue
that so many tender souls face in the Reformed community is whether or not they
are “regenerate” or “really believe.” Federal Vision pastors are saying, “If
you are baptized, you don’t need to keep asking that question.” God has set a
seal upon you, now believe His promises and walk in His ways! It other words,
Federal Vision advocates attempt to get believers beyond the initial question
of assurance. It is completely untrue, as many critics suggest, that Federal
Vision advocates deny subjective grounds for assurance. They reject these
tests as demonstrating whether or not one is in a covenantal
relationship with God. They do not reject these tests when they concern whether
or not one is claiming and enjoying the blessings of such a covenant.
In other words, instead of saying to a practicing sinner in the church, “You
aren’t acting like you died with Christ, so you need to examine whether or not
you really did,” they are saying, “since you died with Christ, live like it!”
Those who fail to live in faith are cut off from the tree of God’s promises and
salvation. (Romans 11) But the tender conscience is able to cling to the
promises of God offered in baptism, not questioning whether or not he is
“elect” or “regenerate” or “deceiving himself” by misinterpreting the alleged evidences
for the same.
On the other hand, those who are baptized and confess to
follow Christ must live like it. One cannot claim to know Christ, and walk with
the devil. (James 2) Paul constantly warns the churches that if they do not
persevere, they will perish. (Rom. 8, Eph. 5)[132] This does not mean that one must
constantly worry, “Am I going to fall away? Am I going to fall away?” Rather,
the warnings passages are meant to drive the souls of God’s people to Christ,
so that their faith might be increased. Rich Lusk says it best, “Full assurance
does not make us immune to the warnings of Scripture. Assurance has a
paradoxical quality: we can only be assured of our salvation against the
backdrop of our possible damnation. It is the ever-present danger of apostasy
that drives us to continually cling to Christ as the One in whom saving grace
and full assurance are found.”[133] And of course,
from the perspective of the decree, Christ’s sheep hear His voice in the
warnings, and follow Him. (John 10) Assurance is not “security,” but a
certitude of hope in Christ.[134]
2. Against Christianity for Christendom[135]
The Federal Vision imagines that God has always had a
visibly identifiable people. Just as the children of Israelites in the Old
Testament were
There are two points here. First, in line with much
modern ecclesiology, (and in distinction from the emphases of theonomy) the
church is the new polis of God, the city which will eschatologically
compose God’s new humanity. (Rev. 21-22)[136] As such, she has the composition of a
nation by covenant generation, (A historically Reformed emphasis)[137] and functions
as a heavenly kingdom bound together by a heavenly constitution in the midst of
the kingdoms of this world.[138] Secondly, the
“place” of children in the covenant is no different than the place of
professing Christians of adult age. We treat the children of Christians as
Christians just as much as we treat professing Christians as Christians. While
it is possible that children will fall away, it is just as possible that the
Judas’s and Demas’s in our congregations will fall away. And so, our experience
of the benefits of the covenant is always conditioned upon the response of
faith, whether infant or secret infidel. We all need to remember the promises
and cling to Christ every day, that we might be found in Him. (Phil. 3) And He
promises to give help to those who ask. (Heb. 3, 12)
3. For Catholicity
In the current discussions, this point cannot be
emphasized too much. Lusk regards it as (perhaps) the most overlooked issue in
the Federal Vision controversy.[139]
The year after the two conferences on the Federal Vision, the Auburn Avenue
Presbyterian Church hosted a conference on Reformed Catholicity, with such notables
as John Frame and John Armstrong present. According to Lusk, those involved
with the Federal Vision may be called a “loosely allied ‘Reformed Catholic’
group.”[140] What does this
mean? It has at least two characteristics.
First, it means that theology must be done from several
different perspectives. It means that Reformed theology is simply a tradition
within the larger stream of the Christian tradition. (Albeit one with necessary
and valuable emphases) It means that it is imperative that we be in conversation
with the larger Christian world so that we may refine one another in pursuit of
eschatological unity.[141] As John Frame
has argued, denominations (by tearing apart the body of Christ) concentrate
God’s gifts and perspectives in boxes which disenable God’s people from being
mutually edified by one another.[142] Of course, several Federal Vision
critics, such as Robert Godfrey, are also very concerned with questions of
Catholicity. The particular criticism of the Federal Vision, however, is that
gentlemen such as Godfrey hold to corresponding perspectives about how to do
theology that wind up barring Catholicity from coming about. Federal Vision
advocates suggest that it is story and perspective (not always precise
theological articulation) that hold the best promise for bringing together the
diverse understanding which God has given his people, to the end of
accomplishing His goals in this world. If love is not played out in the church
in such a way as to “bind all things together” in new creation (Col. 3), then
the cause of God in this world is hindered by His own people.[143] Hence the
importance of Biblical (Read dynamic) theology to the Federal Vision.
Second, having a view for Christian unity gives Federal
Vision advocates a fresh appreciation for the larger
D. Objections to the Federal Vision
Many objections
have been anticipated and briefly dealt with above. Here I will quote from
particular sources with particular objections, and attempt to show how Federal
Vision advocates have or might respond to these arguments.
Objection 1: One problem with the Federal Vision is its “denial of
the traditional doctrine of the visible and invisible church and…
(its)…practical denial of the distinction between common and saving operations
of the Spirit as distinguishing the sincere believer from the hypocrite.”[147]
Answer: If they did deny the doctrine of the visible and
invisible church, they’d have the cheerful company of John Murray, but this
objection is not quite right.
Objection 2: “For assurance, the believer is
directed away from discerning the inward and spiritual graces unique to the
regenerate person, and is directed towards his water baptism…FV proponents
understand the doctrine of the sacramental union to mean that the sign and the
thing signified invariably accompany one another.”[152]
Answer: The AAPC answer to this charge is simply a
categorical denial.[153] As argued
above, subjective grounds for assurance have always been maintained by Federal
Vision advocates, but not as a matter of determining whether or not one is
“really” in covenant with the Lord. As to the direction towards “water
baptism,” this is simply misleading. No-one argues that water baptism saves in
itself. Indeed, as Herman Ridderbos emphasizes, baptism is always spoken of in the
“passive” in scripture. People don’t perform baptism; they “get baptized.”[154] It is never
spoken of as our work, but God’s. Baptismal assurance, as taught by John Calvin
and Michael Horton, simply means that one claims the promises that God has
objectified and conferred in the sacrament. Nothing more. Nothing less. If
Horton is afforded the benefit of the doubt, why not Federal Vision advocates?
This gives these debates a suspiciously political flavor. With respect to the Report’s
charge that there is no adequate distinction between the sign and the thing
signified in the sacrament, the AAPC session replies, “Just because the thing
signified is offered in the sign does not necessarily mean it is received. We
have repeatedly and in various ways stressed that faith is absolutely necessary
if the sacraments are to be effectual to eternal salvation, and frankly, are at
a loss as to why this is not noted.”[155]
As an aside, we might also answer this question from the incarnational
aspect of biblical theology mentioned above. This is in line with Leithart’s
discussion of personhood and “role.” What really happens to a person
defines who that person is in history. From this angle, to be baptized is to
“become a Christian,” to become an objective part of the redeemed community’s
story in time.
Objection 3: “Justification is defined in terms of
a process not a definite act, and good works are said to be necessary to
justification, particularly the believer’s final justification at the Day of
Judgment.”[156]
Answer: The evidence for this claim is sparse
indeed, and has been responded to by Peter Leithart, as he was its chief
evidence.[157] The report
backed up this claim by an appeal to Leithart’s discussion of justification taking
the form of liberation from sins mastery.[158] But as he responds, “My statement
about the interchangeability of justification and definitive sanctification
does not say that justification is a process, nor that good works are necessary
to justification…(but)…a judgment in our favor is inherently transformational.”[159] Leithart’s
argument is relatively complex, but he is basically arguing that God’s
declaration of justification takes the form not of some cosmic speech, but of
liberation from the mastery of sin. This does not mean that God looks upon us
as just because we are liberated from sin. Rather, we are liberated from
sin by the declaration of justification, which has both legal and
transformational dimensions.[160] He is here
following upon the scholarship of Richard Gaffin, who argues that the
vindication of Christ takes the form of His resurrection. In the same way,
Christians are justified by Christ’s resurrection, inasmuch as they are “raised
with Him.” (Romans 6) But Leithart is incredibly clear, “justification…has to
do with God’s counting someone as a covenant-keeper, not with the
justified person’s own covenant-keeping…Sinners…are counted as covenant-keepers
because we are in the covenant-keeper Jesus, and His covenant-keeping is
regarded as, and is, ours through faith.”[161]
This objection also shows concern about Federal Vision
formulas that speak of justification at the last day. But this is simply
historic Reformed doctrine. The Westminster Confession speaks of the last
judgment as requiring us to give an account for all things we have done in the
body. Robert Dabney, as quoted above, spoke of the last judgment as based upon
more than faith alone. Indeed, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has recently
added Romans 2:13 as a proof-text for the open acquittal of all believers at
the last day in its denomination edition of the Westminster Larger Catechism
(90). The alleged problematic statements
by Rich Lusk, quoted in the report, are immediately qualified by saying that
initial justification is by faith alone.[162] Furthermore, this overlooks the
revelatory function of the last judgment. Most Federal Vision theologians view
the last judgment as a demonstration of the faith of God’s children, and the
verdict of final justification is simply a pronouncement that those who
revealed themselves to be in Christ are part of His people. In other words, it
distinguishes the sheep from the goats. (Mat. 25) But all are clear that “the
final justification is not a change in status…We are already acquitted and
righteous; but these facts are openly acknowledged and consummated before the
whole world.”[163] And if it
couldn’t be clearer, “these works are not the ground of our justification or
glorification.”[164] That is, our
justification is publicly declared, shown to be true by public resurrection
deeds, and, as Augustine says, God crowns His own gifts in the faithful. Even
Calvin spoke this way, “because he examines our works according to his
tenderness…he therefore accepts them as if they were perfectly pure; and for
this reason, although unmerited, they are rewarded with infinite benefits, both
of the present life and also of the life to come.”[165] Similar statements could be adduced
from Turretin,
As for the idea of “process,” there is a significant
confusion about this. All Federal Vision advocates are clear that there is only
one justification, even though it is manifested in three moments. Ultimately,
the death and resurrection of Christ is the “moment” of justification. (1 Tim.
3:16) By participation in these benefits, we receive the judgment of the last
day now according to faith. This “eschatological” aspect of our righteous
status is well attested to in Douglas Moo’s commentary on Romans.[166] The final
judgment is the vindication and revelation of a judgment already made on behalf
of God’s people in Christ through faith. It is not a process, but an event made
present at three stages. Luther himself spoke this way.[167] While Rick Phillips may call anything
with a beginning and end (in time) a “process,”[168] this does not recognize that the
language of “process” in theology has to do with a Tridentine concept of
something that has an initial conception and that organically grows and
“increases.” No Federal Vision advocate has this sort of concept regarding
justification. As the AAPC statement says, “We do not consider justification as
a process, but as an act of God.”[169]
Objection 4: Speaking of Norman Shepherd, it is
said, “NS argues that justification contemplates faith not simply in its
receptive capacity but also in its obedient capacity. In this sense he argues
that the act of justification contemplates the believer’s grace-wrought fruit
of faith.”[170]
Answer: Though objected specifically regarding
Shepherd, this is a useful argument to address, because it is often claimed of
many Federal Vision advocates. Though similar objections against Norman
Shepherd have been made by E. Calvin Beisner,[171] David VanDrunen, and R. Scott Clark,
he has been quoted above as affirming the exact opposite of what these
objections attribute to him, and his specific formulations concerning
justification have been the subject of extensive treatment by Mark Horne.[172] As for Federal
Vision advocates, they are unanimous that faith does not justify because of its
“contemplated” good works. “It should not be seen as a faith that has to
perform a requisite number of good deeds so that it can earn its way into
heaven. Rather, obedient faith is the only kind of saving faith that God gives.
It is obedient because it is breathing.”[173]
Objection 5: “FV proponents deny the imputation of
Christ’s active (and perhaps passive) obedience to the believer for
justification.”[176]
Answer: This is just patently false. As the AAPC
statement says, “Men do vary on how they formulate imputation, but no-one
denies it altogether. At most imputation is seen by some as coming in
conjunction with union with Christ. Some…have stressed the role of Christ’s
resurrection in our justification…but even then, place is given to Christ’s
active obedience and imputed righteousness.”[177] James Jordan, Mark Horne, Rich Lusk,
Douglas Wilson, Steve Wilkins, and many more have been explicit in their
affirmation of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience. The
issue has never been whether or not believers stand before God in the
righteousness of Christ, but the model we use to communicate this truth. As the
analogy from Rich Lusk (quoted above) shows, Federal Vision theologians speak
more about marital union with Christ than they do about imputation, but this is
not because they reject the theology behind imputation. It is because they
think that union with Christ is the scriptural way to speak about it. I wrote
my bachelor’s thesis on this topic in Martin Luther, finding him in significant
agreement on this issue. Recent theologians, such as Don Garlington, Mark
Seifrid, and Robert Jenson, have made similar points. The issue of the
resurrection is important to keep in mind. It is specifically here that Federal
Vision writers are simply on board with modern biblical scholarship, in the
train of Richard Gaffin, Peter Stuhlmacher, and others. The above-quoted report
evidences its claim by appeals to statements from Ralph Smith and Mark Horne
which speak of justification as the reception of a “status” rather than an
imputation of merit. Merit will be discussed below, but it is incredibly odd to
pit the reception of a “status” over against imputation. The point of factoring
in the resurrection is to see that the status of believers is the very status
of Christ. This was made especially apparent by Rich Lusk in his replies to
critics.[178] And it is a
resurrection status that Christ received by His active obedience to the
Father. His resurrection is the public vindication that He has been perfectly
righteous. To be married to Him in His resurrection life is to receive all that
God crowned Him with in His resurrection, on the grounds of His perfect
obedience. The difference is merely the reorganization of categories, not
substantive denial.
Now, Norman Shepherd does deny the imputation of active
obedience, but he does not replace it with some infusionist theory of
righteousness. He is clear, “The Roman Catholic doctrine that justification is
a process in which the unjust man is transformed into a just man by the
infusion of sacramental grace confuses justification with sanctification, and
contradicts the teaching of Scripture that justification is a forensic verdict
of God by which the ungodly are received and accepted as righteous on the
ground of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. The Roman doctrine that
faith merits…the infusion of justifying grace, and that faith formed by love
performing good works merits…eternal life contradicts the teaching of Scripture
that justification is by faith apart from the works of the law.”[179] While Shepherd
does affirm the imputation of passive obedience only, he has well argued
Reformed precedent for this,[180] and no-where
denied the necessity of Christ’s perfect obedience.[181]
Furthermore, it is a matter of the historical record (And admitted by R. Scott
Clark and Bryan Chapell) that several Westminster delegates rejected the
imputation of the active obedience of Christ (including the rector of the
Westminster Assembly), and that this diversity of opinion was reflected in the
inclusive wording of the confession itself.[182]
Objection 6: According to Richard Phillips,
Federal Vision advocates reject “the classic Reformed understanding of God’s
dealings with Adam as the covenant of works…There is absolutely no room in
their mono-covenantal scheme in which the law and gospel, along with faith and
works, are no longer held in contrast…They posit a monolithic covenant by the
keeping of which God’s people may be saved. According to this view, we may only
be justified in the same manner offered to our first parent Adam before sin
entered into the works, and in the same manner by which Jesus himself was
acclaimed righteous before God. Under this scheme, our righteousness comes not
by receiving Christ’s righteousness but by following his example as empowered
by grace.”[183]
Answer: Even if the accusation that Federal Vision
advocates deny the covenant of works were true, this would not in itself be an
issue, nor would it lead to what Phillips says it does. The infinite and
representative value of Christ’s obedience has been argued by Tim Gallant (A
friend of the Federal Vision) to be valid not in contrast to the possible (but
failed) merit of Adam, but in light of Adam’s demerit.[184] Furthermore,
it has already been shown that there is tremendous Reformed precedent for
saying that Adam would not have merited anything in the creation covenant from
God. The Federal Vision does not result in intruding the requirements of Adam
into the gospel, but rather, intruding the sovereign grace of the gospel into
the life of Adam. He was not supposed to merit anything. Still, it is
universally acknowledged that one infraction on his part would cause his
falling away from the blessing of the Lord. And it is always recognized that
his works had a unique instrumentality in receiving justification that ours do
not, since Christ has entered eschatological life for us. Again, we may point
out that Lusk says that the grace Christ received is different from our own.[185] I may quote
him again saying “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.”[186] In personal correspondence with Norman
Shepherd, he conceded to me that in Christ, we are not merely in the same place
as Adam, but have received an eschatological position. Furthermore, Paul Owen,
(A friend to the Federal Vision) has addressed the question by saying that
(after the fall), obedience is not necessary as an instrument to receiving
justification, but only as a consequent necessity, whereas the situation is
different before the fall.[187] The denial of
the covenant of works is not a leveling of all eras of redemptive history, but
a denial that humans merit anything from God in any era. This is perfectly
consistent with historic Reformed doctrine.
But, as has been hinted, it is not even quite right to
say that Federal Vision theologians reject the covenant of works. James Jordan,
who has probably written the largest article on the subject among Federal
Vision advocates,[188] is not totally
against the concept. Indeed, in an interaction with Reformed Seminary’s J.
Fesko, he said that he could live with the confession’s version of the
doctrine.[189] Federal Vision
theologians have not totally rejected the covenant of works, but only reshaped
how it is understood. They have argued passionately that it is not a legal
contract in which humanity receives wages for a job well done. Rather, Adam was
God’s son and was required to live in perfect faith and obedience to inherit
the blessing eschatological and promised life.[190] But, the issue here is not whether or
not the human race stands or falls by the perfect obedience of Adam or Jesus,
but whether or not such justification could be said to have been merited.
Still, Meredith Kline has famously stated that “merit” is defined by the
covenant, rather than some abstract notion of justice, and so to keep the terms
of God’s “covenant” is to merit blessing.[191] But, according to Ralph Smith, this is
just a redefinition of “merit” altogether. It is better to speak of the
necessity of Adam’s perfect covenant obedience than of his merit.[192]
Beyond these particular discussions, there is the issue
of whether or not the “covenant of works” is even essential to Reformed
theology at all. It is no mystery that the Westminster Standards are the first
Reformed confessional documents which mention a covenant of works (and that
without merit). While it is assumed by many to be the foundation of the
Reformed doctrine of justification, this argument is historically tenuous at
best. It is sometimes overlooked that there is a significant debate among
historians right now as to the origin and precise function of federal theology
(covenant of works in contrast to covenant of grace) in the early Reformed
centuries. David Weir argues that federal theology arose in the German
Palentine out of debates concerning the origin of sin in the 1590’s.[193] Stephen
Strehle has argued that the entire federal tradition arose out of Medieval
dichotomies regarding the will and personhood of God.[194] Others have highlighted the particular
contribution of Ramist thought in the rise of bi-covenantal Reformed theology.
Peter Ramus developed a system of categories that worked in dialectic.
Nature/grace, law/gospel, covenant of grace/covenant of works were naturally
developed in this context.[195] Still others
do not recognize a mature federal theology before English Puritanism.[196] Criticizing
these theories, historical theologians Mark Karlberg,[197] Richard Muller, and Michael Horton
have argued that the reformed doctrine of the covenant of works is an outgrowth
of the historic distinction in Reformed theology between the law and the
gospel. In my judgment, there is much truth in each of these claims, but
historical scholarship still waits for a definitive monograph on federal
theology, and especially in its relationship to the law and gospel.
But arguing that the distinction between the “law and
gospel” is the centerpiece of Reformed orthodoxy only moves the historical and
theological problem back one step. This particular issue is the crux of the
matter for many Reformed Christians, particularly the faculty of Westminster
Theological Seminary in California.[198] And so this deserves brief attention.
It is really undisputable that some distinction between the law and the gospel
is part and parcel of the Reformed tradition. But there are at least two
factors that need to be considered when one uses the distinction to undermine
the orthodoxy of Federal Vision theologians. First, the distinction between the
law and the gospel is variously formulated in the Reformed tradition. While
famous quotes from Ursinus, Luther, and Calvin are commonly sounded in books
and articles, one needs also to consider statements like the following from
Zwingli, “I call everything gospel which God reveals to men and demands from
men. For whenever God reveals his will to men, those who love God rejoice; and
thus it is for them a sure and good message; and for their sake I call it
gospel.”[199] The fact that
Turretin can interpret Christ’s command to the rich young ruler as a gospel
offer is significant as well. Bill DeJong has argued that Calvin’s employment
of the theme was not the same as Luther’s. For Luther, the condemning function
of the law was principal, while for Calvin, argues DeJong, it was accidental.[200] Speaking of
the similarities between the law and the gospel, J. Wollebius stated, “Both
(law & gospel) urge obedience with promises and threats.”[201] Even the
Westminster confession speaks of those who “obey the gospel,” (33.2) and the
Westminster Standards in general treat the Mosaic covenant as an administration
of the covenant of grace.[202] Given this,
Federal Vision critics need to recognize that the law/gospel distinction can
variously be formulated.[203] And second,
Federal Vision critics need to recognize that these theologians speak of the
unity of law and gospel from a biblical theological perspective. They are not
using the categories as handed over from systematic theology. Lusk clarifies,
“I certainly do see a distinction between indicatives and imperatives, and have
emphasized it repeatedly in other writings and teaching. However, I do not
think indicatives = gospel and imperatives = law.”[204] That is the issue. For Federal Vision
advocates, the distinction between the law and the gospel is redemptive
historical, the moving of God’s story from an era of immaturity to maturity,
bondage to eschatological life. There are huge exegetical issues that need to
be addressed here, and once again, this nuance regarding the law/gospel
distinction is an almost irreversible trend in modern biblical scholarship.[205]
Clearly, Federal Vision theologians affirm all that the
bi-covenantal law/gospel Reformed tradition intends to protect. Adam and Christ
stand in both views as the representative head of the human race, and the
entire history of humanity depends on their actions. And, of course, “only
faith can unite us to Christ; works cannot do that, though of course, works
will flow out of a faith that has laid hold of Christ.”[206] In my judgment, while there are some
significant disagreements between the two camps, there is significant
continuity. If Federal Vision critics recognize conditions in the new covenant,
and the consequent condition of good works for salvation, there is actually significant
agreement. The rest is a matter of definition and formulation.[207]
Objection 7: “FV explanations of apostasy suggest
that a believer may genuinely possess Christ’s redemptive benefits and yet lose
them.”[208] Characterizing
the Federal Vision, Horton criticizes a category he summarizes, “We get in by
grace, but stay in by obedience.”[209] He goes on, “The reformers challenged
this entire paradigm by insisting that one not only gets in but stays in by
grace alone.”[210]
Answer: The
AAPC session protests, “This completely ignores all the nuances and
qualifications we have sought to make in our teaching on apostasy. Whatever
future apostates receive in the covenant is fully commensurate with their
membership in the visible church…nothing more, nothing less.”[211] The session
asserts divine monergism when it states, “God has not changed his decree
regarding such people; (apostates) to the contrary, He carries out His
sovereign purposes in and through their unbelief and rebellion. Those elect
unto eternal salvation are always distinguished by their perseverance in faith
and obedience by the grace of God.”[212] Furthermore, the AAPC clarifies that
the benefits received from Christ differ in the elect and reprobate. “All whom
God has ordained to eternal life will surely be saved. But there is another
sense in which all those in the covenant are ‘saved.’”[213] This tension is apparent when they go
on to say “Whatever the precise complexion and content of that union (with
Christ) for those who do not persevere…if Jesus Himself is salvation, must we
not conclude that being cut off from Him means being cut off from the source of
salvation, and in that specific sense, from salvation itself?”[214] One can
clearly detect that significant qualifications are being made here. Despite the
impression given by the report, Federal Vision theologians do not speak of
“salvation” in the same sense as many evangelicals. They do not speak of it as
some metaphysical change in an individual, or even as a series of cosmic
pronouncements that are irreversible, but as a point in the narrative of
someone’s life. That is, salvation, for Federal Vision advocates, is spoken of
as both relational and objective. It is a relationship. Once again, Peter
Leithart is so important here. The “isness” of a person is only defined in
terms of their “isness” in objective relationship. Salvation is not exclusively
some hidden quidity possessed by all those who secretly believe, but the
relationship possessed by all who confess Christ. To be cut off from it is to
be cut off from the source of salvation, Jesus Christ. This is not to be seen
as God changing His mind about whether or not His elect will be saved or not.
Once again, the various relationships of conditionality elaborated above must
be kept in mind. This is also the importance of the Federal Vision’s emphasis
on union with Christ. Salvation is something possessed in union with Christ,
not outside of Him. To be “in Christ” is to receive justification and
sanctification by virtue of that relationship, not as something occurring in
one’s self secretly. As almost all biblical scholarship agrees, biblical
justification is an eschatological event that has occurred in the death of
Christ as an anticipation of God’s verdict at the last day.[215] To be in Christ is to possess that
verdict. To fall from Him is to be lost from the source of justification. And
even here, since scripture does speak of individual justification (Romans 5:1),
the conditional relationship elements need to be preserved.
As for Horton’s claim that the Federal Vision teaches
salvation by grace, but judgment by works, one can object that he uses very
similar language in his reply to Rich Lusk. He states, “we have never said that
there are no conditions in the covenant - or even in justification. Rather, we
have argued that the conditions of salvation as a whole process are many…But we
have emphasized that these conditions are fulfilled by the gifts that come to
us through union with Christ.”[216] This is a fine
statement, but where does Horton get the impression that Federal Vision
advocates think anything differently, or (in the language of the quote above)
don’t think that “staying in” is by grace? Apparently the issue is that Federal
Vision advocates think that apostasy is real, and if apostasy exists, then
salvation by grace cannot. One can see these tensions played out in Horton’s
recent work on covenant theology, where he struggles to explain how
conditionality can work in the context of a covenant without real apostasy. The
Reformed tradition has struggled with this long and hard. Are those who fall
away in the covenant or not? Are they not “really” in the covenant but only in
the “covenant community?”[217]
But Horton’s objection is understandable. Objecting to
the AAPC summary statement, which says, “By baptism one is joined to Christ’s
body, united to Him covenantally, and given all the blessings and benefits of
His work;” the MVP Report objects that (since) “baptism…does not
guarantee what is termed the gift of perseverance…perseverance and final
salvation are not understood to be among ‘all the blessings and benefits’ of
Christ’s work.’”[218] The AAPC
session later amended this sentence to read “By baptism, one enters into
covenantal union with Christ is offered all his benefits.”[219] Once again, distinctions are present.
Notice also that the language of “covenantal union” implies that there are
other dimensions to “union with Christ” (as to marital union) that might be
understood. Furthermore, to speak of the reality of apostasy does not undermine
the uniqueness of God’s work in the elect (they are “effectually called”
according to the AAPC document), or the uniqueness of their possession of
redemptive benefits, even if this distinction is not always explained in
scripture.[220] As quoted
above, the AAPC statement is clear that the distinction between the elect and
reprobate with respect to grace is not merely its “duration.” And as Lusk
states further, “I fully affirm… (that)…only those actually predestined unto
life are effectually called and the reprobate never ‘truly’ come to Christ.
There are numerous passages which differentiate the grace of the elect and the
reprobate within the covenant. But this differentiation between elect and
reprobate covenant members only becomes evident over time. Insofar as history
is real to us (And to God!), we must take undifferentiated covenant grace
seriously.”[221] Not only is
this helpful, it is actually quite sophisticated. Undifferentiated grace is
covenantal in nature, and historically real. Even as orthodox a theologian as
John Frame has recently made some similar distinctions in his widely acclaimed Doctrine
of God.[222] Notice again
how important the elements of time and narrative are here. Within the context
of God imminently incarnated into our story, apostasy is very real. But from
the perspective of His secret work, the enjoyment of union with Christ and
heart faith is only possessed by the elect.
Another corrective
to the objection here about grace is to realize that what we are dealing with
is the problem of sin in a specific manner. No-one chastises R.C. Sproul or
John Gerstner for thinking of the origin of sin as a mystery, but somehow
Federal Vision advocates are chastised on an issue they directly compare to the
mystery of the fall.[223] This does not
mean that God’s election changes or that particular redemption is in threat.[224] As John Murray
taught, non-elect persons receive benefits from the cross, but only as much as
the cross purchased for them.[225] Nor, as stated
above, does this threaten assurance of salvation. Assurance of salvation has
never been found in access to eternal decrees, but only in their manifestation
within history in the sacraments. As Calvin argued, “Christ is the mirror of
your election.” Calvin constantly used the doctrine of predestination as an assurance
to the visible people of God.[226] Finally, one
must understand that the reason to make these distinctions is primarily
exegetical. To Federal Vision theologians, we need to have categories that
enable us to speak in the dynamic language of scripture. This does not overturn
our systematic categories, but merely expand them. (As with Francis Turretin)
No one denies that all the eternally elect must be saved, or that the reprobate
will never be. Something distinguishes elect and reprobate at the fount of
baptism which will manifest itself ultimately in perseverance and apostasy
respectively. Those who are ultimately saved have always been “saved” in this
sense. As we can see, all of these emphases must be understood within the
theological and philosophical categories in which they are communicated. When
this is done, there might still be theological difference, but charges of
unorthodoxy have much less weight.
III. The New Perspective
on Paul
It needs to be
understood immediately that the following does not purport to be an
“evaluation” of the New Perspective on Paul in any meaningful sense. I have not
studied second temple Jewish literature and thus cannot judge the New
Perspective as an interpretive movement. The exclusive aim of this section is to
analyze the New Perspective only inasmuch as it relates to the Federal Vision
controversy, and as it manifests itself in the current justification debates
within the Presbyterian church. That is, I am examining the polemical response
to the New Perspective. This means that our focus will primarily be on N.T.
Wright, even though brief attention will be given to scholars who have
contributed to the current re-evaluation of Paul. Since there is an attempt at
brevity in this section, objections to the New Perspective will be dealt with
in the treatment of requisite scholars.
A. What is the New Perspective on Paul?
1. Krister Stendahl
Evaluation of the New Perspective on Paul could start just
about anywhere in the last 100 years to explain its origins.[227] Stendahl is
more or less a popular place to start. Drawing on the scholarship of several
theologians before him, Stendahl postulated that the Apostle Paul did not
struggle before his conversion with what he called an “introspective
conscience.[228] That is,
unlike Luther, who allegedly discovered the doctrine of justification by faith
after a long struggle with his internal battle in the face of God’s law,[229] Paul did not
go through a psychological stage of conversion wherein he felt the tremendous
guilt of his sin, and subsequently found its remedy in the cross of Christ.
Indeed, before his conversion, Paul described his self-conscious state as
“blameless.” From here, Stendahl went on to argue that since Paul’s conversion
(Though Stendahl’s sees the Damascus road experience as a “call” rather than a
conversion) does not represent an existential encounter of guilt with grace,
Paul’s doctrine of justification cannot be read through such a lens. Rather, we
must recognize that Paul’s doctrine of justification is framed in the context
of disputes between Jews and Gentiles. Paul’s forbiddance of “works of the law”
for justification is not to be understood via Lutheran dogmatics, but it is to
be put in its Jewish context. The “works of the law” were primarily Jewish systems
of conduct which (Paul argued) should not be imposed on Gentile converts to the
new Christian faith. In the context of such illegitimate imposition, Paul
develops his doctrine of justification by faith apart from “works of the law.”
In the portion of the exegetical community which is
critical of the New Perspective, Stendahl’s first point has been well received,
while his conclusion has been severely questioned. The first position, with respect
to reading the Western “Lutheran” conscience into Paul has been evaluated by
Seifrid, “There is something that rings true in the criticism of the older
portrait of Paul. When Paul speaks of his past life in Judaism, he speaks of
that of which he was proud and in which he regarded himself as successful…Not
even Romans 7 reveals much…since in this chapter Paul does not describe his
psychological state, but his condition as seen from the perspective of faith.”[230] And with a
little bit of qualification, even Westerholm argues that “he (Paul) did not
suffer from poor self-esteem, nor was his conscience of an introspective,
troubled sort.”[231] Recent
exegesis has especially confirmed this sensibility in common analyses of
Galatians 3. Very few exegetes interpret the “task-master” law of Paul’s
epistle to mean that the law shows individuals their guilt, which drives them
to Christ. Most take this passage redemptive-historically. Indeed, even Douglas
Moo, whose law/gospel contrast no-one doubts, (Not even John Robbins)
has called into question this traditional exegesis.[232]
As to the implications of this shift in emphasis,
however, there is much dispute. New Perspective critic Seyoon Kim has amassed a
huge effort to call into question Stendahl’s thesis (which is really
Schweitzer’s) that Paul’s doctrine of justification is merely polemical, that
is, framed exclusively in response to Jew-Gentile issues.[233] Seifrid as well wrote his doctoral
dissertation to undermine this position.[234] In the judgment of both of these
scholars, Stendahl is right that Paul’s knowledge of the law did not drive him
to Christ, but he has tremendously underestimated the import of Paul’s
encounter with the risen Christ, and its effect on his understanding of sin and
redemption.
2. E.P. Sanders
It was Ed Sanders’ ground-breaking monograph, Paul and
Palestinian Judaism,[235] however, which
inaugurated what has become known as the New Perspective on Paul. The
complexity of his position makes it hard to summarize, but the broad outlines
are clear enough. First, Sanders book is mostly about second-temple Judaism,
not Paul. Indeed, his treatment of Paul takes up one fourth of the volume, and
is really only a comparison of the Apostle with the “pattern of religion” to be
found in second temple Judaism. This “pattern of religion” motif is also very
important. Sanders, recognizing the diversity of second-temple Jewish
literature and opinion, tries to find “patterns” which can summarize the basic
drives of the Jewish world as a whole. He calls this broad pattern, “covenant
nomism,” and defines it as follows, “(1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given
the law. The law implies both (3) God’s promises to maintain the election and
(4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes
transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement
results in (7) maintenance of re-establishment of the covenantal relationship.
(8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and
God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important
interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately
salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.”[236] For our
purposes, Sanders position on Judaism can be summarized in two points. First,
the old interpretation of Judaism as a legalistic system of works-righteousness
(a la Bultmann) is entirely wrong. In short, “The theme of God’s mercy as being
the final reliance even of the righteous appears in all the literature surveyed
except IV Ezra.”[237] Second,
election must be seen as by grace, while works are necessary to maintain that
elect status within the covenant. However, Sanders clarifies, “works are the
condition of remaining ‘in,’ but they do not earn salvation.”[238] Like
Stehndal’s treatment of Paul, Sanders argues that second-temple Jews have been
read through the lens of Luther’s battle with Roman Catholicism, Protestants
often treat the Jews as proto-Roman Catholics or Pelegians, and Paul as a
proto-Luther. Says Sanders, this is a total misconstrual of Judaism, and
therefore, could not be what Paul was responding to.
What does this have to do with the Apostle Paul’s own
formulations, however? In my own reading, this question is tremendously
overlooked with respect to Sanders. Few scholars seem to recognize that Sanders
actually does not label Paul a “covenant nomist.” Indeed, “Paul presents an
essentially different type of religiousness from any found in Palestinian
Jewish literature.”[239] In contrast to
his Jewish contemporaries, “Paul’s thought is not that one ratifies and agrees
with a covenant offered by God, becoming a member of a group with a covenantal
relation with God and remaining in it on the condition of proper behavior; but
that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation
which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation, that one is a
member of the body of Christ and one Spirit with him, and that one remains so
unless one breaks the participatory union by forming another.”[240] In other
words, Paul replaces the Jewish category of being “in” the covenant with the
category of participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. While
different from Judaism in this fundamental respect, Paul still retains the
notion that being “in” Christ is by grace, while the final judgment will be in
accordance with works.[241]
This causes Sanders to reinterpret the entire Pauline
corpus. Paul’s criticism of “works of the law,” for instance, is not his
response to attempts at self-salvation, but his critique of the Jewish response
to the human plight. That is, working from the perspective that Christ is the
solution to the fall, Paul deduces that the law cannot be.[242] In sum, “this is what Paul finds wrong
in Judaism: it is not Christianity.”[243] This also causes Sanders to
re-interpret Luther’s favored phrase, “the righteousness of God.” It is no
longer understood as the status “righteous” received by sinners through faith,
but the righteous action of God in saving sinners.[244] His righteousness is that by which He
finally deals with the problem of sin according to His promises. The
righteousness of God in saving sinners, however, does result in His
effective declaration of their justification, by which they are newly related
to Him, and required to be obedient. Indeed, “the reality of justification is a
reality of relationship.”[245]
It is simply impossible to describe the effect of
Sander’s scholarship (or at least that which he represents) on future
generations. Virtually no-one holds to the view of Judaism that he condemned in
his studies. His criticism of the traditional view of the “righteousness of
God” has been well-received and integrated into the scholarship of Douglas Moo,
Thomas Schreiner, (See their commentaries on Romans 1:16) and Mark Seifrid.[246] His approach
to the “pattern of religion” found in Paul and Judaism has been more or less
adopted by Seifrid.[247] But what is
more, his facing of the “judgment by works” language in Paul has been duly
noted by the evangelical community. Indeed, New Perspective critics such as
Seifrid, Simon Gathercole, Frank Thielman, A. Andrew Das, and Thomas Schreiner,
have all admitted that the typical evangelical handling of these texts is
insufficient. For examples, see Schreiner’s treatment of Romans 2,[248] and Douglas Moo’s
commentary on James 2 in his James commentary. This is not to say that
these scholars came to their conclusions specifically because of Sanders as an
individual scholar, but it does say that Sanders represents exegetical shifts
which are wide-spread even in orthodox Protestant and historically Reformed
circles.
But Sanders has also been duly criticized on several
accounts. Here I must be brief. On Sanders interpretation of Paul, many have
criticized whether or not the relationship between getting in Christ and
staying in Christ can be carried over from Judaism. That is, Paul’s treatment
of “conditions” is not the same as that of Judaism.[249] Furthermore, Seifrid has challenged
Sander’s (and his followers) treatment of judgment by works. While admitting that
Paul clearly believes this truth, he argues that Paul’s interpretation of
judgment by works was completely re-worked in light of the mystery of the
cross.[250] As for Sanders
interpretation of Judaism, Thomas Schreiner has argued that we do not need to
understand Judaism as much as we need to understand Paul. What matters is not
so much what Jews thought of themselves, but what Paul thought of them.[251] After all, no
Roman Catholic would say they were “legalistic” if asked. But their claim to
the contrary does not make them immune to critical analysis which might suggest
that their theology really is legalistic. On this same note, A. Andrew Das has
chimed in saying that Sander’s treatment of the Jewish literature was highly
selective, and does not represent those elements of Judaism that inevitably led
to legalism.[252] But, as
Seifrid has argued, even if Sanders is entirely correct in his reading of
Judaism, it is not clear that the Jewish populace would be immune to the
criticisms of Luther.[253]
And so, several broad objections may be offered to
Sanders’ portrait. First, even if his interpretation of Judaism is correct, it
is still semi-Pelegian, and highly susceptible to Luther’s criticisms. Luther
criticized any contribution of the human as constituting the ground of
salvation. While Sanders claims to portray a religion of grace, it is not a
religion of grace as defined by the Reformers. Even if the Jews were not legalists,
however, the Protestant interpretation of Paul does not depend on legalistic
interpretations of Judaism. Frank Theilman, for instance, almost fully agrees
with Sanders interpretation of Judaism,[254] but has a very Protestant
interpretation of Paul. (As indicated by his glowing endorsement of Piper’s
recent book on imputation) As for the Federal Vision and their friends (Don
Garlington and Tim Gallant), they all affirm a form of “self-righteousness” of
Judaism.[255]
Second, Sanders’ portrait is too dichotomizing in its
categories. Even Don Garlington, a theologian sympathetic to the New
Perspective, has admitted this.[256] Unfortunately,
this causes Sanders to confuse categories when thinking of legalism and
religions of grace. Furthermore, it causes him to pit forensic interpretations
of the “righteousness” against transformational concepts, despite his protests
to the contrary.[257] This confusion
of categories also indicates a tragic lack of awareness regarding highly
relevant matters of historical theology. Sanders’ “covenant nomism” is not only
similar to late Medieval Catholicism, (Against which the Reformers responded) it
is very similar, especially the emphasis on election by grace and
maintenance of elect status by obedience.[258] It was precisely against these
Medieval “patterns of religion” that the Reformers developed a “new”
understanding of the relationship between obedience and grace. As noted above
regarding Federal Vision theologians, not only is election by grace, but so is
perseverance. And obedience, while a “condition” for salvation, is not its
cause or ground in any sense. Obedience is but the life of the incarnate Christ
in the church. Indeed, it is the presence of the “already” of salvation, not
the instrument of attaining it.[259] Seifrid has
written much on this theme in Martin Luther, and it cannot be better summarized
than to say that the final judgment according to works has an entirely
different meaning when the cross and resurrection is factored in.[260] I will attempt
to develop this when I get to N.T. Wright and his relationship to Federal
Vision theology. Suffice it to say for present that Federal Vision authors
borrow nothing more from Sanders than the entire exegetical community borrows,
and they are also critical of him in ways reminiscent of most conservative
evangelicals.
3. James Dunn
No-one has spent more energy defending the New Perspective
than James Dunn. Indeed, it was he who coined the phrase, “New Perspective on
Paul.”[261] For our
purposes, we will only focus on his treatment of Paul’s notion of “works of the
law.” Building upon Sanders’ scholarship in second-temple Judaism, Dunn argues
that Paul’s focus in discussing the “works of the law” are those works which
separate Jew from Gentile. As argued by Dunn, when Paul speaks against “works
of the law,” he is condemning the ethnocentric use of the law by Jewish
Christians. That is, when Jewish Christians insisted that Gentiles practice
“works of the law” (Become Jews) to be identified as the people of God, Paul
responded that no-one is justified by “works of the law,” (Being Jewish) but
rather by faith alone in Christ. The Old Testament codes may not serve as
“boundary markers” by which God’s people are identified. It must not be
suspected, however, that Dunn’s attempt is to smuggle in a salvation by faith and
“works which are not of the law.” Indeed, he speaks extensively
about justification by faith alone.[262] It is confusing, however, that Dunn
can insist that he interprets the “works of the law” as referring to the entire
law, and yet speaks as though only those laws which served as boundary markers
were at stake.[263] Indeed, he
even says that Paul asserts a “negative sense” to works of the law in
controversy with the Jews.[264] But as many
have criticized, Paul never speaks of the works of the law in any negative
sense, as if they illegitimately marked off one section of the people of God
from another. Indeed, Paul always speaks of them as good in themselves,
which it seems he would not do if the issue was merely one of “illegitimate
use.” But Dunn has shown tremendous humility in his replies to critics. When
objected that Jewish exclusivism is a form of self-righteousness and salvation
by moral superiority, Dunn has tipped the hat and admitted, “such a formulation
constitutes a helpful middle way…which could provide a basis for a richer
synthesis.”[265] It is
precisely from the standpoint of this synthesis, based upon a redemptive
historical reading of Paul, that Federal Vision pastors endorse New Perspective
scholarship.
4. N.T. Wright
It is the name “N.T. Wright,” however, that raises most
Presbyterian eyebrows. Here is the fella who has influenced the Monroe four, it
is thought. His invitation to speak at the Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference in
2005 did much to confirm this suspicious connection. Indeed, in Guy Waters’
narrative, N.T. Wright represents the entrance of New Perspective scholarship
into mainline evangelical churches.[266] Because he is a particular target of
New Perspective and Auburn Avenue critics, I will spend a little bit more
effort trying to elaborate his thought, especially in his departures and
modifications of Sanders and Dunn.[267]
The most important thing to note up front is Wright’s
methodology. There is little doubt, in my judgment, that most N.T. Wright
criticism would cease if his methodology and definitions of key terms were
taken into account.[268] Whereas E.P.
Sanders focused on the “pattern of religion” found in ancient near eastern
texts, Wright seeks to understand how “stories worked in the ancient world, and
how a small allusion could and did summon up an entire implicit narrative,
including narratives within which speaker and hearer believed themselves to be
living.”[269] This is
simple, but incredibly important. Paul must be understood, for Wright, as
speaking in categories of thought; or rather, narrative sequences - which stood
in both continuity and discontinuity with his Jewish and Greek contemporaries.
Guy Waters immediately contests, “We have, then, in Wright’s thought, an
inherent bias against doctrinal formulation and linear, logical reasoning.”[270] But Wright
insists that narrative “does not reduce Paul’s thought, as some have darkly
hinted, to a world of ‘story’ over against ‘doctrine..,” rather, “Jewish
literature from the Bible to the present day is soaked in certain controlling
stories…so that a small allusion to one of these…is usually a safe
indication that we should understand the whole narrative to be at least
hovering in the background.”[271] That is,
narrative does not negate an emphasis on theological organization or doctrinal
formulation, even if it functions differently towards the end of the church’s
theological task. Indeed, the two methods are not mutually exclusive![272]
Why is this so important? Because Wright is primarily an
exegete of scripture, self-consciously trying to reproduce the thought of the apostle
Paul in as precise a way as he can, with great sensitivity to the particular
categories of thought that Paul employed. Here he follows New Testament
scholars Ben Witherington and Richard Hays, in self-conscious contrast
to E.P. Sanders and James Dunn.[273] What does this
do to his treatment of Paul? One can only summarize here. For Wright, Paul is
to be seen as an interpreter of Israel’s history. Paul had a very particular
understanding of Old Testament/Jewish motifs before he encountered the risen
Christ, but his conversion to Christ restructured his understanding of God, his
understanding of God’s people, and his hope for God’s future.[274] For Paul,
redemptive history (unlike its German counterpart) is Jewish history.
The purpose of God’s call of Abraham was to deal with the problem of sin (From
Adam and Eve) and to fulfill his original promises to the entire world.
(Genesis 12) Here, Wright is particularly cognizant of how God’s call to Adam
is repeated in the history of Israel. (Be fruitful, multiply, fill, subdue, and
rule)[275] But even
though God called out Abraham’s family to bring about his original plan for
creation, there was a problem; “Israel is herself sinful…the nation that should
have been the solution became part of the problem. The trouble with Israel was
that she too was in Adam. The physician succumbed to the disease. What Israel
now needed…was a physician’s physician, one who could do for Israel, and hence
for the world, what neither could do for themselves or for each other.”[276] Israel’s
sinfulness became particularly manifest when she came under the curse of the
covenant and was taken away into the Babylonian exile. It is here that
second-temple Jewish literature picks up the redemptive story. According to
Wright, the issue of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries was the continuation
of the Jewish exile and curse of the covenant. Though Israel was physically in
the Promised Land, she was occupied by foreign powers, which was an indication
of her continual exile. For Wright, then, the story of the exile is part of the
story of universal sin.
Paul’s conversion on the Damascus road was his
realization that in the person of the Jewish Messiah (who was Christ) the exile
of God’s people had ended. Christ had borne the curse of the law on behalf of
His people (and by implication on behalf of the entire world), thus dealing
with the problem of sin, and reconstituting the people of God in new creation.
Here is where Paul, according to Wright, stands in both continuity and
discontinuity with his Jewish contemporaries. Because of foreign occupation,
Israel was very concerned with questions of identity. How were God’s people to
be identified in a time of occupation by pagan nations? For Jewish persons,
argues Wright, they were identified by “works of the law.” Paul’s conversion,
however, led him to believe that God’s new people were not to be identified by
the Jewish law, but now by faith in Christ. Faith, for Paul, is the recognition
that Jesus has come as the Savior and Lord of the world, and has brought to a
climax the history of Israel in his life, death, and resurrection.[277] The triumph of
Israel’s God has resulted in new creation and a new people. (i.e. The reverse
of the curse) Paul’s critique of Judaism then, is not a criticism of their
attempts to gain favor with God by their good works. Rather, his criticism is
eschatological. They identify God’s people as those who do Jewish works rather
than those who have faith in Israel’s Messiah. That is, they have made idolatry
of their law rather than submitting to the incarnate Lord of the world to whom
their law pointed. (Rom. 9:26-10:4) Faith, then, is not a “means” of getting in
the new people of God for Paul. Rather, coterminous with Israel’s emphasis on
identity, it is that which identifies God’s people in distinction from all
other people. “The badge of membership, the thing because of which one can tell
in the present who is within the eschatological covenant people, was…faith, the
confession that Jesus is Lord and the belief that God raised Him from the dead
(Romans 10:9). ‘Faith,’ for Paul, is therefore not a substitute ‘work’ in a
moralistic sense. It is not something one does in order to gain admittance into
the covenant people. It is the badge that proclaims that one is already a
member.”[278] For Paul,
justification is God’s declaration that one is in the “family of Abraham” and
therefore, has their sins forgiven. Justification is not about getting in the
covenant, (Or even about staying in the covenant) but about who is in the
covenant, and therefore forgiven in the sight of God.
Wright’s narrative is far more complex and nuanced, but
this provides some basic frameworks from which we can hear the objections to
his theology, and (in reply) see how his theological categories relate to our
own cherished doctrines. It is objected, first, that Wright believes
justification to be a doctrine “touching ecclesiology and not soteriology.”[279] This is based
upon Wright’s now infamous quip that justification wasn’t “so much about
soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the
church.”[280] This is a
large misunderstanding, and it is based upon a single statement from Wright
speaking at his worst. Even in the quotation itself, one can see that Wright
says that justification is not “so much” about salvation as about the church.
The qualifier should key one in to his nuance. Furthermore, Wright is here
speaking of “salvation” as it is typically conceived by evangelicals, not as
Paul employs the theme. For Wright, as he said during a question and answer
session at the 2005 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s conference, part of his intension in
writing theology has been to combat the false antithesis that is often put
between the church and salvation. As confirmed in his recent book on Paul, to
speak of “justification or the church” is to speak of a “false either/or.”[281] Rather, since
the church is the newly constituted people of God through the work of Christ,
it fulfills the promises to Abraham, which promised to deal with the problem of
sin in a people. That is, “The present declaration (justification) constitutes
all believers as the single people, the one family, promised to Abraham…the
people whose sins have been dealt with as part of the fulfilled promise of
covenant renewal…Membership in this family cannot be played off against
forgiveness of sins; the two belong together.”[282] One can see the importance, for
Wright, of framing Paul’s doctrine of justification precisely in the narrative
framework and consequent questions of his Jewish contemporaries. The new family
of Abraham is the locus of forgiveness and new creation/ “being in the right”
with God, precisely because Christ has fulfilled the covenant and brought it to
its climax.
It is further objected that for Wright, “present
justification is declared on the basis of future justification, which shall be
grounded upon the believer’s faithful obedience to the covenant.”[283] With all due
respect, this is bordering on slander towards a brother in Christ. This
statement is also based upon a famous quip of Wright, “justification, at the
last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession.”[284] Another oft-quoted Wright clip is,
“Present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future
justification will affirm publicly on the basis of the entire life.”[285] But even surface
exegesis of these two statements shows the above claim to be completely without
basis. First, it is very misleading to speak of Wright “grounding” future
justification in faithfulness, since the notion of “grounds” plays a very
specific function in Reformed theology, completely absent from Wright’s agenda.
(Notice he uses the word basis) Furthermore, the “possession” of which
Wright speaks is Jewish possession of the law, and the “performance” contrasted
with it is not an amalgamation of good deeds towards the law, but faith in
Christ! (See below) As for the latter quotation, it is bewildering that anyone
could say that for Wright, present justification is grounded in future
justification. He says almost the exact opposite. Contrary to the Jewish expectation
of vindication at the last day, Paul teaches that all who have faith receive
the final verdict now, by faith alone! The future declaration, (notice the
language) will “affirm publicly” what has already been declared!
Furthermore, there is tremendous scholarly hypocrisy to complain that Wright
wrongly defines justification, (the first objection) and then charge him with
heresy when he speaks this way as though he defined justification that way
we do! (the present objection)[286] If, for Wright, justification is about
“who is in the covenant,” not “how one gets in the covenant,” then future
justification according to works is not a merit-based entrance into heaven, but
the identification of who God’s saved people are by the fruit in their
lives. That is, they function as evidence of who belong to God, not merits to
gain favor with God. As Wright said in 2003 at his Rutherford house lecture,
these works “are the things which show…that one is in Christ.”[287]
Along these lines, it is important to point out that Wright
is substantially Protestant in his understanding of Christ’s work and its
relationship to our salvation. Wright has written extensively in support of the
traditional doctrine of Christ’s propitiatory death,[288] and enthusiastically supported
Christ’s sin-bearing work on behalf of His people[289]despite the MVP Report’s tragic
insinuation that Wright merely “concedes” that we may speak these ways.[290] And despite
its claim that Wright “knowingly and explicitly repudiates the traditional
doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness,” it is not indicated that
Wright affirms that Christians are righteous because of Christ’s own
righteousness. As he has recently affirmed, “the accomplishment of Jesus Christ
is reckoned to all who are ‘in him.’”[291] Again, “there is indeed a status which
is reckoned to all God’s people, all those in Christ; and this status is that
of… ‘righteousness’…and this covenant membership…must be covenant membership in
which the members have died and been raised.”[292] As he clarifies his position in
relation to the common doctrine of imputation he says, “I regard this
(imputation) as saying a substantially right thing in a substantially wrong
way.”[293] He clarifies
his objection to the traditional formulation, “I…object to…calling this truth
by a name which…is bound to be heard to say that Jesus has himself earned
something called ‘righteousness’ and that he then reckons this to be true of
his people…whereas on my reading of Paul the ‘righteousness’ of Jesus is that
which results from God’s vindication of him as Messiah in the resurrection;
and, particularly, that this is what Paul means when he speaks of ‘God’s
righteousness’ as though that phrase denoted the righteous status which God’s
people have in virtue of justification.”[294] Again, “He sees us within the
vindication of Christ, that is, as having died with Christ and risen with him.”[295] Anticipating
an uncharitable interpretation, “when the judge finds in favour… ‘righteous’ at
this point is not a work denoting moral character, but only and precisely the
status that you have when the court has found in your favour.”[296] As if this
were not enough, “he (Christ) sums up his people in himself, so that what is
true of him is true of them.”[297] One can see
that Wright’s notion of union with Christ, (what he calls “incorporative”
Christology) takes the place that “imputation” takes in our own theology.
Furthermore, it becomes clear once again how he reorganizes these themes around
the narrative of Israel’s history as it comes to its climax in the person and
work of Christ.
Finally, it is objected that for Wright, “with respect to
future justification…faith and faithfulness are to be understood synonymously.”[298] This is, once
again, simply untrue. It is not untrue to say that works function in the final
verdict in a way that they do not function at the beginning of the Christian
life, but contrary to the report, neither faith nor good works ever serve as
the ground of either dimension of justification. They are “badges/evidences”
that one belongs to Christ, and are thus “justified” in Him and His work. They
are shown to be part of the forgiven/reconstituted family of Abraham. It is
amazing that the Report (Along with a recent document from the RCUS)
references this quote from Wright: “The ‘obedience’ which Paul seeks to evoke
when he announces the gospel is thus not a list of moral good works but faith.
Faith, as Paul explains later (10:9), consists in confessing Jesus as Lord
(thereby renouncing other lords) and in believing that God raised Jesus from
the dead (thereby abandoning other worldviews in which such things did or could
not happen…) This faith is actually the human faithfulness that answers to
God’s faithfulness.”[299] Could it be
any more obvious, especially in light of his denial that faith is “good works”
that Wright is not defining faith as faithfulness, but exactly the opposite,
faithfulness as faith alone! Indeed, in another oft quoted section of Wright,
he says “Faith and obedience are not antithetical. They belong exactly
together…Nor…does this then compromise the gospel or justification, smuggling
in ‘works’ by a back door. That would only be the case if the realignment I
have been arguing for throughout were not grasped. Faith, even in this active
sense, is never and in no way a qualification, provided from the human side,
either for getting in to God’s family or for staying there once in. It is the
God-given badge of membership, neither more nor less.”[300] This quote is used by Guy Waters to
demonstrate Wright’s heterodoxy.[301] But it is an amazing quote to use.
First, Wright, contrary to the Report, does not state that faith and
obedience are “synonymous,” but that they are not “antithetical.” Furthermore,
Wright is incredibly clear that if he were employing the categories of Waters,
the criticism would be valid. But, argues Wright, he has “realigned” the
definitions in question! Furthermore, Wright has here gone beyond Sanders in
saying that “getting in” the covenant is just as much a matter of grace as
“staying in,” and further that the faith which we possess is God-given. Wright
has gone here from merely orthodox to delightfully Calvinistic! As if more were
needed, Wright goes on to say that “Justification in the present tells every
believer that she or he is a beloved, forgiven child of God…Justification by faith
in the present is therefore equally about (a) the sigh of relief that I don’t
have to earn my status in God’s people, simply to receive it and (b) the
definition of the Christian community in terms of nothing more nor less than
faith itself.”[302] Present justification
is a “proper anticipation” of such a verdict in the future.[303] Finally, the impression that Wright’s
doctrine of justification is merely corporate (and not individual) is shown
here to be misleading. Says Wright, “When we believe in justification by faith
what we get is…assurance…Justification by faith, the verdict issued in the
present time over gospel faith which anticipates the verdict issued in the
future over the entire life, thus produces the solid assurance of membership,
now and in the future, in the single family promised to Abraham.”[304] In sum,
corporate an individual are no more dichotomous in Wright than faith and
family, assurance and community, or eggs and omelets.[305]
There is so much more that could be said, but this must suffice.
It must be remembered that Wright is not using the traditional terminology or
speaking the traditional way. But he is saying something substantially
traditional (As he constantly affirms) in a substantially untraditional way.
Though I will elaborate this below, suffice it to say for present that there is
a constant problem among many Wright critics that they put an uncharitable spin
on his language; and that with very few and often nauseously overused
portions of his much larger body of work. Indeed, he is often argued to be
saying the exact opposite of what he is trying to say.
B. Why the New Perspective on Paul?
1. Not…
A. A reaction to anti-Semitism.
It has been argued by many (Sinclair Ferguson in an
otherwise good lecture)[306] that the New
Perspective arose out of post-Holocaust reaction to anti-Semitism, manifest in
its attempt to portray the Jews of history in a positive light. To do this, it
is argued, required a rereading of the ancient Hebrews as stuffy legalists to
something more honorable. While there is some truth in saying that such social
concerns motivated the study of Judaism itself, it is unfair to characterize
all mainstream New Perspective scholarship as being tainted (i.e. rendered
dispassionate) by this impulse. Speaking of Sanders in particular, Wright says,
“His agenda…included a desire to make Christianity and Judaism less
antithetical…I never embraced either Sander’s picture of Paul or the
relativistic agendas which seemed to be driving it.”[307] Wright claims to have arrived at his
position completely independent of such an agenda, and indeed, independent of
Sanders own scholarship. How this can be is elaborated below.
B. An Ecumenical Agenda.
The argument here goes that since New Perspective
scholars have declared the Reformers wrong about certain aspects of Paul’s
thought, and since it was Pauline theology that kept apart Rome and Geneva in
the Reformation, is there not now great hope for their reunion (Since we’ve
discovered that the Reformation tradition is wrong)? This is a misguided
criticism, and certainly does not form the motivation for New Perspective
scholarship.[308] First of all,
New Perspective scholars are not monolithic. I am sure there are some who would
be interesting in Roman Catholic/Protestant union, but there are many (such as
Wright) who would probably avoid this. And even if Wright were interested in
such union,[309] or ecumenism,
it would not be because his formulations approximated those of Rome, but
because he constantly argues that one is not justified by faith because of
believing in justification by faith. Indeed, both Charles Hodge and Philip
Schaff defended the individual salvation of Roman Catholics from precisely this
viewpoint.[310] Yet no-one
believes that Schaff and Hodge agreed with Catholic theology or that they did
not see Rome’s errors as devastating. It has been demonstrated above that
Wright’s doctrine of salvation departs from Rome on just about every level.
(And we have not even touched his categorical denial of merit)
2. The New Perspective is Necessary Because of…
A. Global Scholarship
What does this mean? Postmodernity is largely a
philosophical reflection on the global condition. As never before, we are faced
with viewpoints and ideological positions that our forefathers could
conveniently ignore. Sources are more available than ever before, and
communication is easier than ever before. There is a complete overload of
intellectual stimulation and corresponding responsibility before a global
academy and church. That is, our own positions are challenged from so many
different cultural, intellectual, and spiritual angles, all while our own work
is so easily engaged, challenged, and refuted with but the composition of an
e-mail and a few people pressing “forward” on the computer board.[311]
The re-reading of Judaism and Paul must be recognized as
but a symptom of something that has occurred in all biblical scholarship in the
last 100 years, the re-evaluation of all historical-critical scholarship.
Meredith Kline’s study of ancient near Eastern backgrounds to the biblical
covenant could not have been conceived before our century.[312] Our understanding of various allusions
between the titles of Christ and the titles of pagan political figures could
not have been as imagined before our own time.[313] Correspondingly, there is simply no
one who has the old perspective on Judaism, at least not without
significant nuance. The issue is not whether the New Perspective has corrected
us, but how we interpret the new information and how it changes what we have
always thought. That is, in one large sense, this is not an issue of if;
it is an issue of now what?
To put this in broader perspective, there is no field of
scholarship in the modern global economy that has not been untouched.
Historical scholarship on the Roman empire, the American constitution, our
understanding and motifs for historical development, (John Gaddis) our
understanding of the sciences, (Quantum theory) our understanding of
Mathematics and logic, (Bertrand Russell) etc. have all changed. The New
Perspective is simply a reflection of the change which has occurred in all
learning. But, as with mathematics, 2 + 2 still = 4, even though we might
understand “2,” “4,” “+,” and “=” more fully than we ever have.
Finally, it is in this context that the modern
“ecumenical” impulse must be analyzed.[314] It is precisely in a global context, a
forced recognition of the weakness of common stereotypes, etc. that has forced
the modern church to re-evaluate its divisions. Thomas Oden in particular has
pointed out a “rebirth of orthodoxy” in this context.[315] Even those who do not crave a
Protestant rapprochement with Rome have recognized that the modern church is
much too divided, and often because of irresponsible misunderstanding and lack
of global (read kingdom) vision.[316]
B. Biblical theology
This is probably the most important point. It is very
interesting that if you read Wright‘s 2003 Rutherford House lecture and the
beginning of his Paul in Fresh Perspectives, you will find him
associating the New Perspective less with a change in perspectives on Judaism
as perspectives on scripture and theology itself. This is where his “story”
theme comes in. Ed Sanders attempt to recollect the “pattern of religion”
behind Judaism, and Wright’s attempt to understand the “stories” which informed
the Jewish worldview, both reflect attempts in all scholarship to understand
past ages and ideas ideologically, from the basis of their presuppositions. In
some sense, this sort of work was pioneered by Thomas Kuhn’s now classic Structure
of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn’s thesis was that ideological development
does not move from error to truth, but from paradigm of thought to paradigm of
thought. Consequently, practices and ideas within historic and modern cultures must
be looked at in the context of their fundamental structures and relationships
to all other practices and ideas.[317]
Biblical theology, pioneered in the Reformed community by
Gerhardus Vos,[318] is a
reflection of the reality that scripture does not come to us in the form of a
systematic theology text book, but mostly as stories, partly as poetry, and
only finally as logical argumentation. Its attempt is to understand the whole
of scripture in the way scripture presents itself.[319] The New Perspective is precisely an
effort to recreate the thought of Paul with this method. The thing to realize
is that all modern biblical scholars do this in their own areas of expertise.
Once again, Kline did this with our notion of the covenant; others did this
with our notion of the “son of God,” others with the emphasis on “kingdom of
God,” Albert Schweitzer with Paul’s “in Christ” theme etc. Of course, biblical
studies are always advancing, but there is no question that the 20’th century
has irreversibly altered the direction of Christian theology.[320]
There is no better evidence for this than simply to note
that if anyone picks up a book critical of the New Perspective or even a
commentary on Romans, by Dunn, Seifrid, Moo, Schreiner, etc, one will
inevitably (or at least most of the time) find more references to Bultman,
Wright, Dunn, Sanders, Kaseman, Schweitzer, etc. as individuals than one
will find of Martin Luther, Charles Hodge, Robert Haldane, William Hendrickson,
St. Augustine, and John Wesley combined! And, contrary to expectation,
the references are very often affirmative and supportive, not critical. In sum,
the New Perspective on Paul is not a monolithic movement, but for better or
worse, an exegetical impulse shared by many scholars. For instance, it is the
almost universal recognition that “virtually whenever Paul talks about
justification he does so in the context of a critique of Judaism and of the
coming together of Jew and Gentile in Christ.”[321] The debatable point is (for the most
part) what the significance is, (of this fact) and whether or not it warrants a
significant shift in historic Protestant thought. Mark Seifrid in particular
has felt the import of this observation, and has done an incredible job
demonstrating that justification was a “central” theme for Paul, even while it
was usually brought up in a Jewish context. (He gives his own interpretation of
this)[322]
C. What About This Attracts Federal
Vision Advocates (And Others)?
It needs to be pointed
out up front that there are many disagreements between Federal Vision advocates
and New Perspective scholars. It is much more a “critical appreciation” than
“scholarly dependence.” For instance, there is not a single Federal Vision
advocate who agrees with N.T. Wright that justification does not include
“getting in” the covenant. Furthermore, I am not aware of any Federal Vision
advocate who does not find some form of legalism in Judaism. It is also
important to note that various aspects of New Perspective scholarship are
accepted and rejected by its critics. Mark Seifrid, for instance, is very
critical of the significance Wright gives to themes of “exile,”[323] while Thomas
Schreiner believes that it represents a valid exegetical advance.[324] On the other hand,
Schreiner is critical of reading “ethnic” concerns into the apostle Paul,[325] whereas Seifrid finds such conclusions
undeniable.[326] A. Andrew Das
finds legalistic elements in ancient Judaism, whereas Frank Thielman seems to
think such themes are overblown. This does not mention the variance in Simon
Gathercole, Richard Hays (who found Das’ work quite illuminating) and others.
It is also important to note that Wright tips the hat to some of his critics,
including Westerholm and Thielman.[327]
Given these qualifications, what positively attracts
Federal Vision advocates to various aspects of New Perspective Scholarship?
Mainly is its attempt to balance individual and corporate emphases. It is this
specifically that Lusk identifies as the importance of the New Perspective on
Paul. It looks at salvation from “30,000 feet up” as he says.[328] This is
because it treats salvation as a narrative within the history of Israel, and
ultimately as “climaxing” in the person of Christ. To speak of salvation as
ultimately about the new creation, which is inseparable from the restoration of
Trinitarian relationship - that is, to speak of the gospel as the
reconstitution of a family - is to get the gospel exactly right! It is the
reverse of the curse and the fragmentation that plagues the sinful world and
the modern church.
The latter is particularly important. According to Lusk,
by focusing on the “merit-theology” of ancient Judaism, the church has
forgotten the more subtle legalism of finding one’s identity in anything but
Christ. That is, the modern church misses the most basic critique of Judaism,
that it did not find its identity in the eschatologically reconstituted family
of God, but in its own traditions.[329] The incredible division that exists in
the Protestant church and (ironically) the very attitudes and misunderstandings
prevalent in the current church controversies, reflect conflicts over issues of
confessional identity; and unfortunately seem to be revealing uncharitable
attitudes and totally biased engagement of brothers in Christ. In short, “the
Reformation dealt with the heresy of Pelegianism, but the Galatian heresy is
alive and well. God help us!”[330] For Lusk, to
get caught up in the large kingdom of God and its implications is not to risk
illegitimate union with Rome, (Hence his essay “Why Rome won’t have me”) but to
risk actually understanding brothers in Christ and acting like the new
creation, not like Congress.
As well, Federal Vision advocates are attracted to New
Perspective scholarship for its emphasis on biblical theology and exegesis.
Despite their sometimes significant disagreements,[331] they appreciate the attempt to
recreate biblical categories as they are given, and not as we wish them to be
given. Given this and the aforementioned similarity, it seems that Federal
Vision theology arises out of a similar worldview to New Perspective
scholarship. That is, there is no relationship of dependence, (see below) but
there is a common maternity. While the New Perspective draws upon the liberal
scholarship of previous generations, (Wrede, Schweitzer, Davies) the Federal
Vision draws upon the conservative scholarship which was always in dialogue
with liberal analysis. (Kaseman, Murray, Shepherd)
Federal Vision thinking is seen as “dependent” on New
Perspective scholarship because of its categories of identity, being in our out
of the covenant, judgment by works, etc. But (as has been shown), Federal
Vision scholarship has precedent for these categories in certain streams of
Reformed theology that existed long before E.P. Sanders.[332] Furthermore, this connection ignores
the fact that Federal Vision advocates employ these themes in very different
ways from Sanders, indeed, often in antithesis to him (and in significant
continuity with Calvin and others). Federal Vision advocates are very
sympathetic to Wright’s statement above that getting in, staying in, and faith,
are all gifts of God. Faith alone secures and maintains union with Christ.[333] And as Wright
says further, present justification properly anticipates our future vindication
on the last day, which will demonstrate that we are in Christ.
IV. Evaluation
A. Observations: Why We Talk Past One
Another
1. Systematic and
Biblical Theology
I do not pit these two categories against one another,
but they are distinct. Furthermore, despite the church’s best attempts,
priority is often given to one over against the other.[334] In my judgment, the current
controversies are unquestionably an instance of this tension. As Steve
Schlissel has said, “The Monroe Four sought to answer long-contested questions
in a way that gave full weight to Scripture’s explicit testimony, even if it
means saying ‘I don’t know’ to questions not expressly answered in the Bible.”[335] Of course,
many argue that their positions are clear in the Bible, but here is just the
contested point. And to clarify, it is not so much a point of theory as of
practice. When it comes down to it, what do we do when we are faced with two
seemingly contradictory sets of texts? Do we explain one in light of the other?
Do we explain the allegedly clear in light of the unclear? How do we decide
what is clear and what is not clear? Roman Catholics seem to think James 2 is
more clear than Romans 3. This tension is manifest even in those who seem to
find themselves “above the battle.” It is manifest in the way they handle
difficult texts, and the way they deal with objections. To give an example,
Baptist minister James White (Who had the only public debate with Douglas
Wilson on this issue) has often been faced with the warning texts of scripture
in various debate contexts, and he characteristically answers them by saying
that one can interpret warning passages prescriptively or descriptively. If one
interprets scripture in a “God-centered" way, he says, they will be
interpreted descriptively, and if in a “man-centered” way, the opposite. While
this is an extreme example, it is not practically far from how many texts are
handled. Systematic theology is imported into the text, and if a verse is
speaking of good works as “conditions” for attaining blessing, they are either
“covenant of works” passages or “sanctification” passages. They can’t be about
justification, because justification is…well, you get it.[336]
Exegesis is often done from the assumption that various texts “can’t”
mean x or y because that would contradict what we already know from text (or
systematic category) a and b. Further confirmation of this tension is that New
Perspective and Federal Vision critics spend far less times (on these issues)
exegeting texts than they do attempting to show that their opponents are
un-Reformed. Guy Waters, for instance, spends only about thirty pages in
exegesis in a 212 page work which is allegedly a response to scholarship which
is built on literally tens of thousands of pages of scriptural analysis. In
stark contrast is the treatment of Westerholm and Seifrid.
This tension between biblical and systematic theology is
clear in the critical responses to this debate as well, especially over the
issue of narrative in theology. Notice, it was not N.T. Wright who pit
narrative against doctrinal clarity, but Guy Waters. Apparently, for the latter
and others, theology is to be done more in categories and linguistics than in
stories. This is apparent in the criticism of Joey Pipa in The Auburn Avenue
Theology.[337] Indeed, the
congregation briefly mentioned above claimed clearly that one of the largest
problems with Federal Vision advocates was their extra-confessional use of
theological language and categories. They have “no right,” it is said, to use
theological language in a different way than the confessions. This point hardly
needs to be defended. It is precisely their use of theological language that
gets Federal Vision advocates into trouble. Theological substance apparently
must be communicated in set terms.[338] This larger conflict has been recently
manifested in the debate over strict subscription versus adherence to a “system
of doctrine” taught in our confessions.[339] Finally, since it is usually the very
people whose work is charged with being too scholastic who claim that the
biblical-systematic tension to be overblown; does not this very divide indicate
that the tension does in fact exist, and that it is playing out before us here?
2. Two Covenant Theologies
Covenant theology is not a monolithic entity. As recent
as our own generation, one can see a relatively different approach to covenant
theology in the recent publication of (Covenant Seminary’s) Michael Williams’’ Far
as the Curse is Found[340] and Michael Horton’s God of
Promise. The former sees God’s covenant as inherently gracious, while the
latter sees two covenants (of works and grace) to be in fundamental contrast in
this respect.[341] This slight
difference is also apparent in the debate between John Murray (His rejection of
the Adamic covenant) and Meredith Kline. Murray saw the covenant as primarily
redemptive, while Kline saw the covenant as primarily a treaty. A generation
earlier, one finds a more federal flavor of covenant theology in Gerhardus Vos,[342] whereas a more
relational covenant theology was anticipated by Abraham Kuyper. In our day,
David VanDrunen proposes the redoing of theology around the former style of
covenant theology,[343] while the
Federal Vision proposes the redoing of theology around the latter.[344] And this
tension goes even further back. It is usually recognized that Calvin saw the
covenant (along with John Murray) as exclusively redemptive, whereas later
Reformed theologians would see it as part of creation itself. (Ursinus) Most
importantly, the notion of covenant must be distinguished from the employment
of the covenant as an organizing principle for theology. While Calvin and early
Dutch Reformers had a developed doctrine of the covenant, they typically
organized their systematic works around the Apostles Creed. Only later did
theology become organized around a covenant narrative. However, the organizing
principle of the covenant never fully gained precedence. Our Theology
texts are usually preceded by the word Systematic, after all, rather
than the word Covenantal. Herman Witsius, perhaps the greatest of the
early federal theologians, wrote both a systematic theology organized around
the covenant, and a theology organized around the apostles’ creed. This is
important to note, because it shows the breadth of Reformed theology, and the
complexity that is inherent in discussing issues like election, the
relationship between the law and the gospel etc. It is not going too far to say
that Reformation theology has not quite found the balance between these two
perspectives, (Confessional and biblical) and that this struggle is manifest in
the current controversies.
3. The Continental and the American Reformed Tradition
One of the most revealing quotations in all these
controversies was the following made from Guy Waters, “May God give us the
grace that we may not squander the rich theological heritage bequeathed to us
by the Reformers, historic British Calvinism, and American Presbyterianism.”[345] It is a bit
too ironic to me that British Puritanism (As mediated through American
Presbyterianism) is precisely the ilk out of which the current theological
controversy has arisen. That is, this controversy is not raving in Europe. What
is so revealing here is that he unwittingly indicates that the Reformed
tradition is much larger than this. If the Federal Vision controversy, for
instance, can be seen as ultimately an impulse to view theology through the
“reality” of the sacraments, one can find enormous precedent for this in the
entire Dutch Reformed tradition.[346] Kuyper and his successors struggled
with this question in their development of the notion of “presumptive
regeneration.” Indeed, it is self-consciously against the backdrop of American
Reformed abuses (as they see it) that Federal Vision theologians have rethought
many of their theological categories. One of the lectures at the original
Auburn Avenue conference was entitled, “the legacy of the halfway covenant,”
and Rich Lusk has written large historical articles detailing the decline of
sacramental theology in the American Reformed tradition.[347]
This conflict is apparent in at least two other ways.
Foreign educated persons and German immigrants in the middle of the nineteenth
century (When American Reformed theology already had its identity) were
extremely critical of many distinctively American impulses. Philip Schaff and
John Nevin, for instance, butted heads many times with theologians like Charles
Hodge and R.L. Dabney over their views of the church and sacraments.[348] It is not
surprising that it is especially these two Mercersburg theologians which are
the recent historic inspiration for Federal Vision advocates. Especially out of
the Dutch Reformed community, many Federal Vision themes emerged onto the
American scene. James Bratt has mentioned the “organic connections, not
fragments or individual parts… (and)…the ethnic-communal factor in the groups
life”[349] as Dutch
Reformed distinctives. There is little surprise then, that many of the current
battles are reflective of tensions which characterized the Dutch Reformed
tradition within the early twentieth century. It is no wonder that the Dutch
produced both the covenantal vision of Klaas Schilder (A precedent for Norman
Shepherd) and the (perhaps) “hyper-Calvinism” of David Engelsma.
The continental tension was further manifest in the clash
between German idealistic philosophy and the American Common Sense rationalism.
This perhaps ultimately explains the tremendous amount of fights that were
eventually fought at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. The amount of
professors there who were immigrants in 1929 was probably equal to those who
were not. American common sense philosophy was somewhat intolerant of apparent
contradiction and “mystery” and it approached revelation like a scientist
approached nature. (To use Hodge’s famous analogy) Dabney’s rejection of
Calvin’s Eucharistic views is a case in point of this. In stark contrast to
this was the theological method of Van Til and his followers.
4. The Clark/Van Til Controversy
While I don’t typically endorse the writings of John
Robbins, he is right that the current controversy is at least partly related to
the controversy between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark in the early decades
of the twentieth century.[350] The debate
between Clark and Van Til had to do with the relationship between the
creature’s knowledge of truth and God’s knowledge of truth. Van Til emphasized
the qualitative difference between human and divine knowledge, which meant that
our grasp of reality was only an analogy of God’s own grasp, and that mystery
was inherent to the Christian faith. As some have argued, theological paradox
in grounded in the ultimate ontological reality of the Trinity.[351] That is, we
cannot get beyond the issue of “paradox” anymore than we can see our own eyes.
All of reality is grounded in the Trinity, and God is that against which all
knowledge etc. is to be known and tested. It is the fact that He is the ground
of all truth and reality that makes it impossible for Him to be the subject of
scrutiny in the same way as things within creation. Why? Because He
Himself is the foundation of the tools of analysis and the categories to which
the tools can be employed. They are explained and real only with reference to
Him, not the other way around. But since God (being) is triune, reality is
multifaceted, and inherently relational. As such, all of reality has
a paradoxical quality to it. This does not mean that the cosmos is
contradictory, but that it exists in fundamental relatedness. Nothing can be
understood without reference to other things, just as God is no more one
than three. Unlike Van Til, (And later Smith) Clark rejected “paradox”
as inherent to the Christian faith,[352] instead proposing that the Christian
faith could be deduced from revelation much like geometrical answers from a set
of given axioms.
This relevance of this to the current debates is best
manifest in two lines of evidence. First, it is interesting to see that it was
Van Til and his followers (Frame, Bahnsen, etc) who were openly supportive of
Norman Shepherd during the controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary.
Whereas many criticized Shepherd for his contradictory formulations, his
Van-Tilian observers understood the difficulty of walking the “fine line” of
theology and exegesis as something reflective of real Christian theological
struggle. His critics, on the other hand, usually criticized him for
contradicting himself. A recent example of this is David VanDrunen’s recent article
in the Banner of Truth.[353]
Self-consciously faced with the decision interpreting Shepherd’s language in an
orthodox or an unorthodox manner, VanDrunen decides that it seems most likely
that Shepherd is unorthodox. (Apparently because his statements are “inconsistent”)
As it applies to the Federal Vision controversy, Cal Beisner was ultimately
turned off to the Federal Vision because they did not seem to give enough
credit to logic.[354] Indeed, he
refers to this as the “root of the problem,” and even alludes to John Robbins
critique of Van Til.[355] While it is
not true that Federal Vision theologians do not feel the pressure of logic, as
is manifest in their endorsement of many scholastic distinctions to be found in
Turretin, Ursinus, and Dabney, they do not require an understanding of divine
things before they believe them. That is, logic’s pressure is an
“afterthought” to acceptance, not a condition. Indeed, Lusk is clear that
questions of logic must ultimately be dealt with.[356] Furthermore, this does not mean that
Federal Vision advocates call for the adoption of irrational positions. (Nor
that their opponents are all avid Clarkians) Rather, they call for the
acceptance of categories which are not always clear, which is not to say
that they are contradictory. In fact, they spill a lot of ink trying to
explain their positions in propositional form and with helpful analogies. Like
the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation, the issue is not one of
blindly accepting contradiction, but of believing despite remaining mystery.
That is, God reveals more than enough to enable His children to avoid
irrationalism, but little enough that faith and trust are still required. More
provocatively, if it wasn’t mysterious, it would not be Christian, because it
would not be Trinitarian. Provocation aside, the picture I am painting is
summarized by Lusk, “In one sense, a good deal (though by no means all!) of the
controversy taking place right now over covenant, salvation, the sacraments,
and apostasy, is between those who are content to let loose ends dangle
mysteriously and those who insist on tying up every last one.”[357]
5. Postmodernity Again
It needs to be observed, based on what has been said
above, that these tensions are also a reflection of two reactions to the
Postmodern turn. As is implicit in the above narrative, globalism (especially
as faced in the problem of immigration) has forced communities to interact with
one another. A subsequent change of ideas has occurred, and traditions have
shifted and gained nuance. After the New Perspective on Paul, for instance,
there is no going back to pre-Sander exegesis. The old interpretations of James
2 and Romans 2 will probably never get beyond the exegesis of Simon Gathercole,
Mark Seifrid, and Douglas Moo. Considered perhaps the greatest critic of the
new perspective, even Westerholm has made the point, “We may well decide, in
the end, that the reading of Paul by…Luther, Calvin…requires modification in
light of later knowledge; I myself believe this is true.”[358]
With respect to the Federal Vision, systematic theology will never be done as
it was done in the days of Charles Hodge. The questions are too many, the
perspectives are too varied, and we are forced to reckon with other traditions
as never before. Though very confident in the remaining validity of old
categories, Michael Horton’s Covenant and Eschatology reflects our
inability to ignore these turns.
This brings up the question of identity, a large one in
the Postmodern context. Indeed, it is probably the most important question to
ask as far as the place of our own hearts. John Frame recently wrote an article
entitled “Machen’s Warrior Children,” detailing over twenty theological battles
that have been fought in conservative Presbyterian circles in the last eighty
years.[359] It reveals an
incredible concern in the last century to find and hold on to real “Reformed”
theology. I don’t need to prove this. Anyone who has read any theology or been
in Reformed circles for more than a year knows that there is tremendous anxiety
over what is and is not Reformed. The rhetoric of our conferences is that in
such and such a case, “our Reformed heritage,” “the gospel,” or whatnot is
under attack.[360] There is a
hermeneutic of defense when face with new ideas, and a hermeneutic of suspicion
when these ideas enter our communities. The quickness of response to Federal
Vision advocates, the willingness to speak of “heretics” so soon, the
tremendously small quantity of exegesis compared to discussion of what is and
is not Reformed, etc. all reveal an unfortunate posture of suspicion. Not
unlike the Fundamentalists of the early twentieth century, there is a
tremendous amount of guilt-by-association, lack of categorical proof etc. The
rejection of “x” (The Bible does not always use the language of the confessions
etc.) must mean that they believe “y.” (Systematic theology is not important
etc.) Or, “to be consistent,” etc.[361] Case in point of this is Waters’ stark
conclusion that all theologies lead ultimately to either Geneva or Rome. He
leaves little doubt which path the (supposed) Geneva-critics are paving.[362]
The fundamental “identity” drive in this theological
conflict is demonstrated as well by the seeming political and ideological
alliance between various strands of the Reformed world. Somehow, Steve Wilkins
is sacerdotal while Michael Horton is completely orthodox. Somehow Shepherd is
on the road to Rome when he speaks about faith while John Gerstner is safe at
home in Geneva. John Robbins can publish Mark Karlberg as completely orthodox
and declare Van Til a heretic. (A hero of Karlberg) If anyone brings up the
Reformers to oppose recent Reformed thinking, a typical response is that they
have not read Richard Muller books and therefore don’t even have any right to
talk about historical theology.[363] They, it is
said, illegitimately pit Calvin against the Calvinists, succumbing to a totally
refuted “Barthinian” reading of the Reformers. Furthermore, it is interesting
to note that almost all of those criticized are heirs of reconstructionist
forefathers, even though they do not adhere to the old system. All this paints
the following picture; There is nothing in Federal Vision theology which cannot
be reproduced in scholars who seem to be immune from charges of heresy.[364]
B. Critique of Federal Vision Critics
1. Methodological Response
John Frame has wisely written that when critiquing the
position of another person, the critiqued should be able to look over your
shoulder and say that your presentation of their position is in fact their position.[365] There is not a
single instance, so far as I am aware, where this has been done in the recent
controversies. This is partially because critics have not seemed willing to
distinguish theological terminology from doctrinal substance, but it has also
just been selective reading as well. The MVP Report, for instance, was
immediately responded to by at least four theologians and the Auburn Avenue
Presbyterian Church (Almost all criticized in the report) as a shameful
misrepresentation of their views. Furthermore, Guy Waters’ treatment of the New
Perspective has not been commented on by any actual New Perspective advocates
as being a sound critique.[366] Wright and
Dunn have explicitly disagreed with its presentation of their views. And this
is not because they don’t accept criticism. Wright admits that Westerholm and
Thielman are competent critics, while Dunn has shown some scholarly deference
to Seifrid.
The selective reading has been particularly devastating.
It is so easy these days to accuse another person of heresy and to have this
charge spread nationwide. But should we not take the charge of gospel slander
with much more gravity? Should not love believe and hope all things concerning
a brother in Christ? Indeed, it seems to me that we should never accuse of
heresy unless we have sweated blood in a ferocious attempt to prove that our
brothers were not heretics. Until we have spent all our effort trying to
read them as charitably as possible, we have no right to speak against them.
Not only does the evidence suggest a lack of this effort, (with a few
exceptions) it often manifests the opposite. The common treatment of N.T.
Wright, for instance, disappointingly reveals many souls willing to sling the
“h” word because of a couple of quotes within thousands of pages of material.
One questions whether charges of heresy would be so easily slung around in the
persecuted church. It is my impression that those who suffer for the gospel do
not find themselves with the time to misinterpret their brethren in such sloppy
ways. Focusing on kingdom advancement, it is no wonder that Paul was so careful
to delineate clear methods of church conflict. Of course, Paul did have his
uncompromising moments! However, it is almost a sure indication of reactionary
thinking when one employs Paul’s rare “bulldog” language (Gal. 1:9) as a
precedent for their own evaluation of brothers around them. This does not seem
to account for the “post-Apostolic” humility that must accompany legal charges
at this stage in redemptive history. That is, these things should be prosecuted
and examined in court, not in gossip and slander. We do not have apostolic
authority or revelation (Except as handled in a communal context),[367] and should not
act as though God has inspired us to write Second Galatians.
Beyond the issue of the process by which we formulate
charges against brethren, it also needs to be recognized that the affirmation
of one proposition is not a denial of another proposition. To affirm “general”
election does not entail the denial of “individual election.” To affirm that
all in the covenant are “saved” does not deny that there are no distinctions
between salvation in the elect and reprobate etc. Almost all criticism of the
Federal Vision has been based on the assumption that if x is true, y must
not be true. It is important to keep in mind here, once again, the
distinction between analogical and revealed knowledge of God. This has been
enshrined in the Reformed tradition in the terms of archetypal and ectypal
theology. Unfortunately, even these categories have been used in overly-narrow
ways of late.[368] Still, they
have great ecumenical potential, since they put theological reality beyond the
realm of full articulation, and thus provide the foundation for diverse
theological expression. In summary of all the above, this entire issue has gone
to the Presbyterian courts without good Presbyterian dialogue.
2. Specific Responses
First, the Federal Vision is not the New Perspective on
Paul, and neither of them are “movements.” They are distinct groups of impulses
that are shared by various ensembles of theologians and scholars. With particular reference to the Federal
Vision, there is a tremendous tentative quality to its explorations. Lusk
speaks of himself as “still working” on the mysteries that the Federal Vision
seeks to address.[369] As well, the
Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church summary statement calls its conclusions an
“exploration” into theology.[370] One must
remember that no-one intended to start a movement. The Federal Vision is name
given to this “pattern of religion” by others, as it was originally just a set
of perspectives given by very different speakers at a conference. It became a
“movement” only when its critics labeled it as such.
Second,
the common claim that Federal Vision advocates are unaware of historical
theology is quite simply untrue. This constant emphasis by the critics on
“historic Reformed theology” goes along with the “if you only understood this”
sort of response. If they “just understood” the difference between
justification and sanctification, or law and gospel, then “they would see” that
the Reformed faith has already answered these questions. There is almost the
lack of recognition that traditional formulas are actually being critiqued.
One cannot just give trite answers and categorical “signposts” as the answer to
all theological and exegetical questions. You can’t just fit every text of
scripture into a systematic category. Indeed, that is the very argument of the
Federal Vision. These answers, while they have their truth, don’t fully account
either for revelation, or for real life!
Third, and probably most importantly, these issues need
to be settled at the bar of scripture. We must get beyond the simple debate of whether
or not such and such is “Reformed.” The most important question for us and our
congregations is whether or not it is the authoritative and loving word of our
sovereign God. The inability to get to the text and the impasse over questions
of Reformed identity is not functionally different from the Roman Catholic
response to Luther. “You don’t have the authority to say that. There will be no
debate over the text.”
C. Suggestions for Further Dialogue
1. Methodological Suggestions
First, if the style of one’s criticisms can be applied to
the doctrine of the incarnation, then it is not a valid objection within the
parameters of the Christian faith. Christ is fully God and fully man. He is
fully both in different senses, but we do not fully understand what these
senses are. Indeed, the Eastern and Western church, as well as the Lutheran and
Calvinistic churches, were never able to fully agree on how to understand the
nature of Christ.[371] Especially in
the early church, sustained debates without number were carried on over whether
or not this “emphasis” on the humanity of Christ undermined His divinity, and
vice versa. Much like the current controversy, strict use of certain
terminology (rather than theological substance) became the standard for
orthodoxy among several groups, often and illegitimately dividing the church
theologically.[372]
Federal Vision theologians have articulated all of theology from this
perspective. All revelation reflects both the perspective of God as He is in
Himself and the perspective of God as He dwells among us. He both “loves” and
“hates” and “loves with an everlasting love” towards Israel. He is both
uncontained in the world, but dwells specifically among His people. He knows
all things, but “now he knows” that Abraham is obedient to Him. The paradox of
Federal Vision theology is a reflection of the paradox that exists in all of
Christian theology.
Second, we should recognize our own philosophical and cultural
assumptions when having these debates. Do we think of personhood
“metaphysically” or along narrative lines? Is the symbolic less real than the
“internal?” What is real? Is our understanding of forgiveness etc. based upon
assumptions that are more reflective of modern individualism and constructions
of human individuality, or of scripture? This does not mean that our
perspectives are wrong in themselves, but we do need to recognize that we might
be articulating truth in categories that scripture does not. And that is a
totally legitimate enterprise! But we must understand, no matter what side
of the fence we are on, how our history, how nineteenth century American
theology,[373] how our
philosophical assumptions,[374] have all
affected our thinking and approach to theology. As well, does it not raise any
eyebrows that the high rhetoric, rampant division, and lack of co-operation
look suspiciously like the American political scene?
Finally, we simply cannot write off or underplay the
importance of “perspective” to theology.[375]
If truth is inherently Trinitarian, and if revelation climaxes in one
who is fully God and fully man, then “perspective” is necessary to understand
revelation. This is why, it seems, scripture might be able to speak in such a
multifaceted way, and even use language so dynamically. Indeed, it seems that
other models of doing theology are caught in archaic assumptions about how
human language and words function. They do not function as axioms from which we
think, but as ways of describing God’s world. That is, language is as dynamic
as our triune God, and we must be sensitive in theological articulation to both
preserve its integrity, but capitalize on its dynamicity![376]
2. Specific Suggestions
First, the current debate might be aided if the various
parties were to re-examine the place of “covenant” within Reformed theology,
inasmuch as it has become an organizing principle for theology. While
“covenant” was a prevalent principle in Calvin’s theology, it is certainly
debatable that it organized his theology, or was its center. In 1994, Reformed
theologian John Stek made suggestions along these lines with an article
entitled “Covenant Overload in Reformed Theology.”[377] I cannot help but think that some of
the current tensions stem from attempts to account for the totality of
scripture while maintaining “covenant” as its central theme. Without being too
provocative, perhaps Reformed theologians should examine whether or not
covenant takes the stage we have typically given it. Of course, there is no
question that it is a central scriptural theme, and that it is virtually
everywhere in redemptive history. But perhaps it is one among many themes that
are central in redemptive history. The early church and early Reformed theology
seemed to have been able to have all the emphasis of both Federal Vision
advocates and the emphases of their critics without reference to the covenant
as a central theme of theology.[378] Indeed, the
fact that there are such good exegetical points on both sides of this debate
seems to indicate the difficulty of integrating the text of scripture with our
systems. While the Federal Vision is an attempt to do biblical theology, it is
still (paradoxically) within the system of covenant theology.[379]
I am tempted to suggest two correctives to this. First,
the primary model for exegesis and theology should be the incarnation of
Christ, and ultimately its culmination in His glorification.[380] That is,
Christian theology should see all things through the lens of the incarnate
Christ and His work. All things, including covenant and promise culminate and
find their end in the historical person and work of Jesus Christ. Second, we
should perhaps recognize that there is no “central” motif to scripture. This
does not mean that there is no central message, but there is no central image
or “organizing principle.” The theme of covenant does not function any
differently than promise or creation. Of course, it does tie together various
eras of redemptive history, but we should not argue that it was present with
Adam, for instance, without this being incredibly clear. To say that “all the
elements of a covenant” are present in Genesis 1 through 3 seems like forcing
the scriptural doctrine of covenant around a narrow mold that it does not seem
to fit.[381] That is, no
exegete has demonstrated an Adamic covenant without reference to covenant
making in later eras of redemptive history, and subsequently importing those
elements into an earlier portion of redemptive history. But this does not
recognize that exegetes might be illegitimately locating the essence of
“covenant” where it ought not to be located. (See the specific suggestions of
Stek) The fact that several Reformed theologians in Protestant history have
objected to an Adamic covenant, and continue to be unconvinced by traditional
lines of evidence (Even after Kline) suggests that there are still exegetical
issues to be resolved. Furthermore, the presence of covenant in the New
Testament is incredibly sparse if it is the organizing principle of scripture.
That is, explicit references to covenant are almost totally absent in the
gospels and Acts. And where it does occur in the New Testament, it is usually a
reference to the old covenant.
Even the search
for an organizing principle of theology or redemptive history reflects the
Western obsession with methodology.[382] But scriptural motion is more
artistic. Perhaps there is no single thread or motif which ties it together.
Perhaps there is a Mosaic of themes that weave together the large tapestry of
Christianity, ultimately enshrined in the creeds of the church. Given these two
emphases, I might propose that theologians do theology through the lens
of incarnation, see redemptive history as a multifaceted pattern (after the
Trinity), and organize theology in exactly the way the church always has, in
her confessions/summaries of the faith (And in constant dialogue with the
past). In this sense, theological reflection and systematic theology are the
ongoing analysis of the large tapestry of God’s revelation, ultimately climaxing
in Jesus Christ, and codified in the always advancing confessions of God’s
people.[383] In this model,
the new strands identified by God’s people are no threat, but reverent
adorations of newly discovered elements of God’s own handiwork.[384]
As for the effect of this model on the covenant motif
itself, it can only be observed that many of these debates might leave us if we
re-examined precisely the nature and essence of covenant in scripture, and even
more precisely the nature of God’s relationship to mankind. The legal/filial
dichotomy might perhaps be overcome by a fresh study of sonship. This argument
has especially been made by Catholic theologian Scott Hahn, in his almost
completely ignored dissertation Kinship by Covenant. Exciting work along
this line has also been done by Orthodox Presbyterian theologian, Ronald
Wallace, in his great essay, Covenant and Inheritance.[385] Rick Phillips’
insistence that covenants are not relationships (but treaties which govern
them) might be added to these considerations, and be mined for theological
fruit.
Second, we must be “dogmatic” about “perspectives” one
last time. Recognizing the Trinitarian nature of all truth, one can make a
suggestion to both sides of the debate regarding the use of scriptural texts.
The Federal Vision rightly points out that Paul often uses the word “elect”
when speaking of “general election,” whereas Federal Vision critics point out
that Paul qualifies his statements in ways that seem to allude to special
election. Taking the principle mentioned above, it would be odd to apply this
dichotomy to passages speaking of Christ. For the most part, when we read of
Christ in the scriptures, we do not begin to discuss whether or not a single
passage is alluding to “Christ as man” or “Christ as God,” but usually we
recognize that most passages refer to the “one person, Christ.” Likewise, when
speaking of election, perhaps it would be better for us to recognize that Paul
speaks of both general and special election in his use of
election-words. That is, his theology is dynamic and refers to both in
different senses. This might offer a corrective to Federal Vision advocates
when they say that while scripture does teach the Westminster doctrine of
election, it does not always mean this when the word “elect” is used.[386]
More than just alleviating the concern of the critics (who often wonder just
where the Westminster doctrine is taught), this approach seems no more
necessary than saying that when scripture speaks of Christ being “thirsty,” we
must say that His divinity is not present here. On the contrary, it is assumed.
To speak of the “sun rising” or the “earth revolving around the sun” is not to
refer to two distinct realities, but two perspectives on one reality, both
assumed in the use of either phrase. From the perspective of time, story, and
finite experience (which God deigns to share with us in His incarnation), all
who are baptized are saved, in Christ, and elect. But from the perspective of
God’s secret and transcendent knowledge, the status of “elect,” “saved” and
“forgiven” apply only to those who are really in Him alone. Even in the
Old Testament, God manifests Himself as going through experiences with His
people. It is in this sense that we can interpret passages in which God seems
to “change His mind,” whereas others seem to say that God “does not” change His
mind. This is no more a contradiction, but no less a mystery than the
incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Though more tricky, I am convinced that this method (of
perspectives) would also help our understanding of the law and the gospel.
Zwingli, for instance, did not see one passage in scripture as “law” and
another as “gospel,” but he saw law and gospel as two functions of every
passage of scripture. The sheep who hear Christ’s voice and follow him find
comfort in His law and promises! To the sheep, all of Christ’s words are
gospel, because they call God’s people to a life consistent with the
resurrection they have in Christ. That is, God’s words are all gospel because
they effectively produce in us the reality of the New Creation, which the
gospel intends to restore! It is in this way that Turretin could interpret
Christ’s offer to the rich young ruler as an offer of the gospel. The point of
this passage and others (including the prophets) is not to say that one must
perform a certain number of good works to be accepted by God, but it is the
offer of a type of life which is totally different from the kind that is
dominated by sin. It is to offer a life redeemed from the curse. It is to offer
eschatological life in Christ. To reject the life that Christ offers is to
reject His redemption from the power and consequence of sin. That is, in
Christ, all of God’s word functions as gospel because all of His commands are
summons to Christ and to life in Him. To the unbeliever, both the law and the
gospel are naked law, before which he stands condemned, both for unbelief and
disobedience. Outside of Christ, all of the scripture is law to us. Even for
believers, from the perspective of our still-fallen flesh, even the command to
believe in Christ is a threat. We do not naturally believe or obey. But from
the perspective of God’s work in our lives and incarnate promises in His
sacraments, we freely receive His redemption from sin’s guilt and power. There
are other more complex dimensions to this. For instance, why are law and gospel
contrasted in more than a “functional” way in Galatians 3? How are we to
understand the difference between the “law of works” and the “law of Christ?”
This paper is too brief to do justice to these questions, but I can say that
certain attempts to flesh out this perspective have addressed these questions.[387]
V. Conclusion: A Proposal
for Ecumenical Dogmatics
Faced with the
quickly spreading division within Protestantism in the sixteenth century, John
Calvin once famously said that he would gladly have crossed ten seas for the
sake of unity within the church. It is with the theme of a Reformed Catholicity
that I must end this paper. To speak of such Catholicity is not to speak of a
reunion with all of Christendom despite theological differences. Rather, I
speak of a dogmatic ecumenicity. The current challenge in conservative
Reformed circles, however, is not our lack of dogmatic clarity, but our lack of
ecumenicity. To be sure, there is great danger in shallow unity, and it is
entirely true that we should not pursue unity at the expense of truth, but it
is equally true that we should fight to the shedding of our own blood, to the
end of unity in truth! (Eph. 4) Brothers and sisters, can our Lord’s
prayer that we all be “one” be fulfilled in a church that is visibly divided?
Must we not have our Lord’s own Trinitarian vision for church unity? I believe
that it is precisely a nuanced doctrine of justification that can provide this
trajectory.[388]
Before this, a confession. I do not say any of the
following under the auspices of a teacher of more-flawed individuals. The sins
I believe I am describing are my own at least as much as they are anyone else’s.
I speak from the bottom of my heart, with a sincere posture of pleading. (Not
accusation) I hope these words are taken in the spirit which (by God’s grace)
they are given.
First, the justification of individuals implies
both the vindication of the ungodly, and their future resurrection. That is,
justification makes us simul justus et peccator. Present perfection is
declared of sin-sick souls, and promised at the last day to the same. How would
constant recognition of our own sin and God’s amazing grace change the tone and
method of our dialogue? We all live in between the initial pronouncement of our
redemption in Christ and our eschatological renewal. In this interval, we are
still tainted and indeed overwhelmed with remaining sin. This is true not only
of the habits of the church, but of her theology. Would not a fresh
emphasis on God’s amazing forbearance and forgiveness, as well as His
acceptance of the ungodly in Christ, pave the way for us to accept
imperfections in our brethren? Does not the demand that everyone always speak
the same way reflect both an unrealistic expectation of fallen people, and a
somewhat presumptuous overlooking of our own remaining sinfulness?[389] Of course,
this does not mean there are no boundaries to orthodoxy, but it means at least
that they should not be set by individual’s at their keyboards, and at most
that they set broad parameters (not narrow rules) within which the multifaceted
wisdom of God’s church can be continually expressed.[390]
Second, the justification of communities reminds
us that God has saved a people to Himself! He has declared these people
righteous in Christ, and through His Spirit, is leading them to His promised
rest. What does this mean? It means that ultimately, church unity in practice
and doctrine can only be done in dialogue and interaction with the entire
visible church! (Eph. 4) The buttressing of our own traditions as “the true
whatnot” totally ignores God’s actions in history, God’s present work in the
world, and God’s plans for the future! This does not mean there are not
grievous errors in our brethren. But how will they ever know them if our
churches and conferences are content with homogeneity? How will we ever know
our own errors if we don’t let those outside of us lovingly point them out?
This begs the question, “Do we assume that we are sick?” We don’t need Christ
to be our physician (through His church) if we don’t recognize and assume
that we are (still) sick! To make a (hopefully) poignant illustration, let us
ask ourselves how our marriages would function if we applied the same
principles to our spouses as we have often applied to Federal Vision advocates
in this controversy.
Third, and most importantly, justification is
eschatological. We are not yet what we ought to be, and to find our present
identity in anything but God’s past work and promised future is to lose our
identity in the time-bound efforts of Christ’s church. Necessary as these are,
all the church’s work (confessions, etc) are pointed towards the last day.
(Creeds do expand and morph after all) To be caught up in the advance of God’s
kingdom, to be wrapped up in the wonder of His amazing grace in saving sinners,
and to be excited by His reconciliation of the fragmented human family through
the power of the gospel, is to loose our impulse to find our identity in
anything but Christ alone. We must not hate evil more than we love good, or we
will see “evil” everywhere. It is my fear (of myself as much as others) that we
condemn heresy in words while sometimes performing the heresy of division in
action. Good doctrine, for Paul, always led to good works. And I can only
wonder what the emphasis in our theology is becoming when the gospel of
reconciliation is purported as upheld among those who are so incredibly
fragmented. To believe and live the gospel is to hope and believe all things
concerning brothers in Christ. Again, this does not risk reunion with Rome, but
it does risk dogmatic dialogue with her. With respect to this controversy in
particular, would not these perspectives enable us to genuinely attempt an
understanding of Federal Vision advocates? Would we not be more willing to say
that “perhaps” a problematic statement was made in the context of a conference,
among a fairly homogenous group of people, and thus was not intended in a way
that people outside that group might take it?[391]
Indeed, would we not also graciously recognize that when defending one’s self
against critics who do not share common assumptions, it is incredibly difficult
to anticipate how they will understand your speech? After all, Federal Vision
advocates have constantly been surprised at how they are interpreted.
Still, the Catholicity being proposed in Reformed! We cannot compromise the centrality of the
gospel, the truth of justification by faith alone, the centrality of God’s
sovereignty, the reality of sin’s import, etc. But we can understand
them more fully. And we can live their implications differently than we
typically have. If we believe in the unique truths of our Reformation
tradition, should we not be great instruments of Christian unity? Not only are
we weak at this, but we are in fact, often the opposite. This is devastating to
our witness, especially in an age when our members (in my own experience among
the Reformed of my generation) are leaving the faith in droves. Though we claim
that our theology safeguards grace more than any other, we are sometimes the
last to actually be gracious. Once again, I point the finger chiefly at myself.
I have often been ungracious, partisan, and rash.
Michael Horton once quoted John Webster as saying, “To
confess is not to reflect, even to reflect theologically; it is to herald the
gospel…To Confess is to testify – and to testify with a bit of noise.”[392]
I close with asking the question, “What are we testifying to the world in this
controversy?” Does the world see our love for the gospel, or a bunch of
squabbling theologians? I dare say that the Reformed faith is at a crossroads
in its attempt to “confess” to the world. As one of my friends has said, so much
of our effort has become spit in a rainstorm. We must love truth, but we must
also truly love. I don’t want my friends (many who have fallen away) to only
have Gandhi to look at as a picture of love. It is time that we testify afresh,
but that with both our words and our lives. There is no doubt in my own mind
that if this controversy were re-oriented to balance our zeal for truth with
Christian charity, our testimony would be powerful indeed. Indeed, our Lord
Jesus said “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have
love for one another.”
As I
said in my introduction, I don’t doubt the motives of Federal Vision critics,
nor their love for God’s people and message. They are right that we must not
compromise the gospel. But, we often fail to recognize that we are just as
tempted to compromise the gospel in action as we are in words. The more we look
like the American Congress and less like the new creation in Christ, we do
compromise the gospel, and it is no less damaging to our witness than
compromise in theological content. Peter was not rebuked by Paul, after all,
for bad theology, but for failing to live the implications of the gospel in His
fellowship. I do not say these things without full recognition that in the
process of these explorations, the Lord has shown me to be as much a part of
the problem as anyone. I cannot claim to be a voice of unity in the church when
I am so often harsh on my wife, and far too easily impatient and frustrated
when I see brothers in Christ being misrepresented. These battles indicate (in
my judgment) what it means for the church as a whole to struggle with remaining
sin.
However,
our Savior has still given us a task. Our vision is to be of His kingdom alone.
To be taken up with that is to be overwhelmed both by the glory of God’s new
creation, and the wonder of the gospel which brings it about. To be overwhelmed
with that gospel is to know the forgiveness of sins, and to live a life filled
with grace. To be overwhelmed with that new creation is to be completely under-whelmed
by anything else. I cannot help but believe that if our hearts were on
these things; this controversy would be just a conference again. Surely we
would spend incredible amounts of time dialoguing, desperately trying to
understand one another before filing charges. Surely the recognition that our
brothers are sons of the Most High God would prevent us from pointing a finger
so easily. Surely recognizing the treason of our own hearts would stop all
presumption or rashness from escaping our lips. Surely we would hope and
believe all things. Surely we would only charge people in Christ’s church with
error if we had absolutely no recourse but to do so. Surely “claiming” the new
creation would be more important the “reclaiming” the Reformation. Surely new
insight into the word of God would scare us no more than our own
sanctification. In short, surely if we were all more caught up in the cause of
King Jesus, we would be less focused on the squabbles of His vassals. May our
gracious Savior give us all this vision, be it federal or not!
A Prayer:
Our Heavenly
Father, praise be to You for Your work in the church; for redeeming us from sin
in the completely finished work of Jesus Christ. Praise be to You that You
continually apply that salvation among your people, despite our stubborn and
confused hearts. At this time, we ask for Your wisdom, discernment, and
love. Preserve your gospel from
detractors, so that Your people may always feed freshly upon the promises which
are all “yes” in Jesus Christ. If I have been wrong in my presentation here,
and if these theological impulses really do harm Your people, please forgive
me, rebuke me, and sovereignly stop the influence of these men and this essay.
If not, please give myself and my brothers the love and the truth by which the
world knows that we are children of the Most High God, redeemed by Christ, and
preserved by Your Holy Spirit. Let us all taste afresh the glory of Christ and
the grandness of His kingdom. Let us all remember the great sin from which You
alone have redeemed us. I beg for the grace that we so desperately need. We are
helpless to live as new creatures without You. Revive us o Lord. Amen.
Appendix: Partial
Transcript of Lecture (Delivered on 4 – 7 – 2006)
My method here will be to give representative quotations
from Federal Vision authors, and to exegete and contrast them to statements
made by a theologian who is openly critical of the Auburn Avenue pastors,
Michael Horton. I choose Horton because he is one of the most significant
theologians in the Reformed world today, and he has typically shown a
tremendously charitable spirit when engaging this and similar issues.
The Federal Vision. The Federal Vision is an attempt to
focus on the “objectivity” of God’s covenant people and His covenant salvation.
As the pastor of AAPC, Steven Wilkins puts it, “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.” Particularly
capitalizing upon Paul’s language towards seemingly weak Corinthian Christians
(Paul calls them sanctified in Christ, baptized in the name of Christ,
brothers, etc.), Wilkins goes on, “He (Paul) 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.” To J. Steven Wilkins and others, all who are in objective
covenant relationship with Jesus Christ are saved in some sense. Let me repeat
that. All who are in objective covenant relationship with Jesus Christ are
saved IN SOME SENSE! We’ll come back to this.
Ok, so everyone’s saved! Great! Not great! What about
those who fall away? Does this not lead to believing that one may, according to
one critical Presbytery on these issues, “genuinely possess Christ’s redemptive
benefits and yet lose them?” And if so, what about the doctrine of election?
Aren’t those who get saved by Christ elect? Can one lose their election? These
are excellent questions, and one can already see why these statements itch our
Reformed ears the way they do. How do Federal Vision advocates respond to them?
Commenting on the statement in Galatians 5:5, “ye are fallen from grace,” one
writer said it this way, “The words, ’ye are fallen from grace,’ must not be
taken lightly. They are important! To fall from grace means to lose the
atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which
Jesus Christ merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of
God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God.” That sounds heretical. Oddly,
however, these words were not penned by a Federal Vision advocate, but by
Martin Luther.[393]
But to take one from a Federal Vision author, (Rich Lusk) apostates, “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.” Don’t
worry. They didn’t really mean it like it sounds to us. We’ll come back
to it soon. As for election, one writer (you know my trick already) said, “It
is not enough that God should choose any people for himself, except the people
themselves persevere in the obedience of faith.” That one was Calvin. Clarified
in the words of John Barach, “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.”
These are difficult statements, and we must examine them
with great care. Most importantly, we must examine them in context. If the
quotes from Calvin and Luther above were the only statements we had ever heard
from the Reformers, they would have no place among our theological forefathers.
Taking statements from the opposite extreme, we are usually very incensed when
sloppy scholars take “hyper-Calvinistic” statements from either Calvin or
Luther and quote them out of context, and then tell their congregations how
Calvinists don’t believe in the free offer of the gospel or human
responsibility. It is precisely the courtesy which we extend to brother Martin
that I wish to spend the rest of this lecture extending to Federal Vision
advocates.
And I believe I can do this by talking about the Reformed
doctrine of baptism into union with Christ. No, I did not say Roman Catholic
doctrine, but Reformed doctrine of baptism into union with Christ. It’s
rather ironic, though, that Paul was writing to Romans when he penned the
words, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into
death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of
the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united to
him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a
resurrection like his.” Were the Federal Vision controversy to be reduced to a
single issue, in my judgment, it would be reduced to the contrary ways in which
both sides of the controversy interpret these words of the Apostle.
So how do Federal Vision advocates interpret these words?
I said above that Auburn Avenue pastors emphasize the objectivity of God’s
covenant people. But if God’s people are objective, what is the ecclesiastical
thumbprint? Not surprisingly, it is baptism. Again, Wilkins, “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.” It is here that brother Horton will first come in handy.
Perhaps to many people’s surprise, he also says, “Scripture refers to
water baptism as the laver of regeneration and forgiveness because the sign
does truly participate in the thing signified. Just as circumcision could be
called ‘the covenant,’ baptism is called ‘the washing of regeneration.’”[394]
Again, “In baptism we are identified with Christ and united to him.”[395]
Though it is surprising to most of us, the greater portion of the Reformed
tradition has spoken this way regarding the sacraments. Calvin could say, “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.” And Turretin could say,
“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.” Time would fail me to quote to
you from early English Puritans, and many Westminster delegates. As recently as
Herman Ridderbos, the Reformed tradition has argued, “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.”
So here is the rub. In this light, how does the Reformed tradition
deal with apostasy, with election, and with justification by faith alone? We
believe in justification by faith alone after all, not justification by
faith and baptism! Part of the problem here is seeing baptism as a “work.” The
Reformed tradition, as Wilkins explicitly affirms above, sees baptism as the
work of God. The command of scripture is never to perform baptism in the
active, but to “be baptized” in the passive. But, assuming apostasy, the
objection is understandable! How do we reconcile these things with our doctrine
of justification, and does a real possibility of apostasy threaten our doctrine
of salvation by grace alone?
Let us ask this more positively. What is gained in
baptism, and what is lost in apostasy? (Repeated) This question will take up
the rest of my treatment of the Federal Vision. In the current Reformed world,
we tend to speak of salvation as a declaration that we as individuals are
righteous before God, (justification) and a hidden renovation of our sinful
hearts by the work of the Holy Spirit. (sanctification) That is, the metaphors
we use are both individual and internal. Of course, from this perspective, the
statements by Federal Vision advocates above seem very problematic! Does God
declare individuals to be righteous, and then subsequently say, “What! You fell
away!?!? Never mind! I take that back! You’re unrighteous again!” Does God
regenerate the hearts of all who are baptized and then say, “Aw…forget it. I
was going to let you stay regenerate so that you could persevere to the end,
but I‘ve decided to pull the plug.” Given these metaphors, it is not hard to
see where Federal Vision critics are coming from. But, it is often overlooked
that this problem plagues any interpretive tradition, and most particularly the
Reformed tradition. With the doctrine of baptism elucidated above, how does one
(like Michael Horton) both account for the strong baptismal language of
scripture and yet avoid speaking about apostasy and seeming loss of salvation
the way Federal Vision advocates do? That is, how can Michael Horton say what
he does about baptism, and yet still be critical of the Federal Vision? Perhaps
Horton believes that baptism is simply where all the blessings of union with
Christ are offered, but that these blessings are only experienced
by faith alone. As he puts it, “Apart from the Spirit’s effectual working, an
external cutting cannot by itself save any more than the external preaching of
the gospel can. The same is true of baptism. While we must never separate the
external and internal actions, we must recognize that the gift that God gives
his people in the covenant must be received.”[396]
There you go! The difference between the good ol’ Reformed guys and Federal
Vision deviants is that the former says that the benefits of the sacrament must
be received by faith while the latter thinks that splashing water on babies
gets them all to heaven! Nope. That just simply isn’t the case. The session of
the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian church concur with Horton, “Just because the
thing signified is offered in the sign does not necessarily mean it is
received. We have repeatedly and in various ways stressed that faith is
absolutely necessary if the sacraments are to be effectual to eternal
salvation, and frankly, are at a loss as to why this is not noted.” Douglas
Wilson seconds, “I agree completely that the grace experienced by the apostate
and the persevering grace experienced by the elect differ, and that they differ
in the hearts of those concerned.” And Wilkins chimes, “The gospel is only
saving to those who ‘hold fast to the word.’”
So what is the difference between Michael Horton and the
other guys? The difference, in my judgment, is over what precisely the
reprobate do receive in baptism, and what this implies about the nature of our
experience of justification by faith. Notice I did not say it implies something
about justification by faith itself, but about the nature of our experience
of justification by faith. Keep a look-out. For Federal Vision advocates, those
who reject their baptism fall from the “blessings of the covenant, including
the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification,
etc.” For Horton, “returning to spiritual blindness and death is an
impossibility for those who are in Christ.”[397]
But then how does Horton interpret the grace received by the reprobate in
baptism? He explains, “Not everyone who belongs to the covenant community will
persevere to the end. Some are tares sown among the wheat, seeds that fell on
rocky soil or that is choked by the weeds. Some braches do not bear fruit and
are broken off…It is possible to be in the covenant externally but not to
actually be united to Christ through faith…Those who apostatize from the faith
are members of the covenant community and have benefited remarkably from the
Spirit’s work among them…Yet all of this covenantal solidarity cannot itself
bring with it ‘things that belong to salvation.’ God works faith in our hearts
be the preaching of the gospel and confirms it by the sacraments, but not all who
hear that gospel and receive its sacraments actually receive the one who gives
himself through them. Those who are repentant and trust in Christ can know that
these warnings (Of Hebrews 6) do not pertain to them.”[398]
It is apparent that after all, for Horton, reprobates who do not receive the
sacraments with saving faith only possess external membership in the kingdom of
God. They are part of the “covenant community” in Horton’s terms, but are not
“actually united to Christ.”
Now the rubber meets the road. Federal Vision advocates
strongly disagree with Horton here. To them, Paul is unequivocal in his
language. He does not speak of baptism uniting believers to the “covenant
community.” He speaks to those baptized as united to Christ. Period!
Furthermore, Horton’s claim that the warnings of Hebrews 6 do not apply to
those who have faith is severely challenged by Federal Vision pastors. Rich
Lusk, in an exposition of this very passage, states, “When God warns His people
against apostasy, He is not playing games with them.” Alluding to Paul’s
reference to the Israelites in 1 Corinthians 10, he continues, “Paul
specifically says the record of the Israelites who failed to persevere and were
destroyed was ‘written for our admonition’ in the New Covenant era.”
So, how can Federal Vision advocates speak of “all”
baptized as united to Christ, and apostasy as a sort of “loss” of redemption;
all while maintaining faithfulness to the Reformed tradition? First of all, it
must be understood that the motifs they use to describe the experience of
salvation are not those used by Horton. That is, when they speak of salvation
being received at baptism, they do not have in mind either God’s personal
declaration concerning them in justification or God’s secret renovation of them
in sanctification, at least as they are typically understood. They do
believe in these things! This is somewhat confusing. But as is clear from
the quotations above, they delineate various “senses” in which people may be
spoken of as “saved.” Let us explore this.
Building upon John Murray’s rejection of abstract notions
of the “invisible church,” Federal Vision theologians argue that to be part of
the people of God is to, in some sense, possess the benefits of the people of
God. As such, rather than understanding salvation (in both legal and
transformative dimensions) as predicated on individuals in themselves, all who
are baptized possess these things only in an objective manner. That is,
they possess them in relation to the covenant and to Christ; not in
themselves necessarily. Think of a son who was adopted into a family. As an
adoptee into that family, he has a right to all the blessings the family has to
offer. They are “his” in a certain sense. But the son must still receive those
blessings. In this analogy, adoption is akin to Christian baptism, and the
receiving of these blessings is akin to saving faith. Only those who receive
their status as “adoptee” receive the blessings of adoption in a fuller and
richer sense. Or imagine two couples who are getting married. One couple is
completely in love and are thrilled about consummating their marriage on the
wedding night, while another couple gets married out of social pressure and for
security reasons. Let us say that this latter couple does not even really love
each other that much, and worse; they never consummate the marriage. Now, from
the perspective of the marriage covenant itself, both of these couples possess
the same thing. They both “possess” all that marriage has to offer. They have a
right to these things. But they do not both receive the blessings they
rightfully own. One couple has union with one another in both an objective and
subjective way. (sexuality as consummation) Another has only objective union
with one another, but refuse to enjoy what that represents. Now, let us further
say that the second couple ended up getting a divorce. Would we say that they
were never married? Would we say that they did not possess the blessings of
marriage in any sense? Of course not! Indeed, the fact that they did possess
these blessings but refused them makes them all the more guilty for their
divorce. It is specifically in this sense that Federal Vision advocates speak
of reprobates “possessing” the benefits of salvation at baptism. Like the
branches in the vine of John 15, they have a “right” to the sap that branches
being burned do not, but they refuse to “abide in the tree.” Like the branches
in the olive tree of Romans 11, they have a standing in the tree of God’s
people and, indeed, possess its benefits in some form; but they do not receive
the benefits in lasting faith.
This is what we must understand. Federal Vision advocates
speak about membership in the covenant and union with Christ as having an
objective quality. Cleary, however, the two couples above are distinguished at
the beginning of their relationships. As Rich Lusk puts it, “perseverance is
not the caboose on the end of the salvation train, its presence or absence
qualifies one’s participation in the whole ordo salutis.” Or as the AAPC
summary statement puts it, only the elect are “effectually called.” Notice how
careful they say the following; “whatever the precise complexion and content of
that union (with Christ) for those who do not persevere, nonetheless, if Jesus
Himself is salvation, must we not conclude that being cut off from Him means
being cut off from the source of salvation and, in that specific sense, from
salvation itself.” Notice that there is a “precise complexion” to the union of
apostate with Christ. Notice that the union is one of “source to recipient,”
clearly not one of personal benefit. And notice that it is only in “that
specific sense” (as being cut off from a source) that they lose their
redemption. That is, the loss of redemption is not, for Federal Vision advocates,
the undoing of individual justification or regeneration. What is lost is the
rightful “possession” of redemptive blessings in objective relationship to
Christ, precisely because the blessings were never received in faith! As
Wilson puts it, the reprobate falls away “in one sense from what they never had
in another sense.”
The difference between Michael Horton and the Federal
Vision might be summed with one more marriage analogy. In the Roman Catholic
church, if a couple goes through a wedding ceremony, but they do not really
mean it, or if either of them secretly does not want to get married, (or is
being forced to get married) if they have lied about infidelities, or secretly
do not want to have children, a spouse can have the marriage “annulled.” Now,
this is not the same as a divorce. Annulment means that the church declares the
marriage to never have, in fact, taken place. This is because the Roman church
views the sacrament of marriage to ultimately be a metaphysical union between
the couple. If the liturgical enactment does not represent an internal reality,
then the entire thing is only a façade. In the Protestant tradition, for the
most part, if you say the vows and the preacher says “I now pronounce,” you got
married. Horton’s view of baptismal grace is similar to a Roman Catholic view
of marriage. While you really do enter into a covenant, if a certain subjective
or metaphysical element is missing (conversion, saving faith), you don’t
“really” possess the union with Christ or the benefits of baptism themselves.
You aren’t REALLY married. For Federal Vision advocates, if you are baptized,
you are married to Christ, and you have a right to all His benefits, even if
you do not receive them.
There are many objections to the Federal Vision’s
teaching that I cannot deal with here. Most important is the suspicion that
they teach that “perseverance” maintains the believer’s union with Christ in
the covenant, and not faith alone. While Horton maintains that perseverance is
necessary for final salvation, he understand the Federal Vision to teach that
we get in the covenant by faith alone, but stay in by obedience.[399]
This is not the case. Lusk speaks of faith as the “mother condition” of the
covenant; and further states 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;” and again; “only faith can
unite us to Christ; works cannot do that, though of course, works will flow out
of a faith that has laid hold of Christ.” Wilson concurs, “The only hand which
a man may extend to receive the gift of justification is faith…(and)…faith is
the only instrument that occupies this place. We cannot intrude works…here.”
And as if to avoid any doubt; Lusk again, “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
outside of union with Christ). The conditions are not… ‘Do this and live.’”
I wish I could go on, but time is short. What is the
motivation for Federal Vision theologians to speak the way they do? Why must we
speak about “various senses” of election and salvation? There are two answers
to this. The first is a principle defended by Michael Horton in probably his
best work to date, Covenant and Eschatology. In probably one of the most
significant arguments in recent Reformed history, Horton insists that the
content of Christian dogmatics should determine its method. That is, the very
material of scripture (covenant etc.) should determine how we go about doing
theology. Federal Vision theologians apply this principle by saying the
following, “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.” That is, if Paul
can talk to the church in general as elect, saved, justified, sanctified in
Christ, etc. then so MUST we! Gone from Paul’s speech are the all-too-common
qualifiers “if you really believe,” “if you are really regenerate,” etc. The
Federal Vision attempts to develop metaphors and “senses” which might account
for both our Westminster tradition and the precise way scripture seems to be
able to address the people of God. Second, this enables tender souls to be
assured of their salvation. Again, Horton approvingly quotes Calvin, “‘Through
baptism, believers are assured that…condemnation has been removed and withdrawn
from them.”[400]
Similarly, Federal Vision advocates believe that the objectivity of the
covenant assures tender souls that they really belong to the Lord, while
challenging presumptuous souls that they must receive the benefits of their
baptism! This is a serious issue. The obsession of whether or not one “really
believes” has plagued the Reformed tradition since its inception. For Federal
Vision advocates, if you are baptized, you do not need to look for tests to
prove to yourself whether or not you are really in! You’re in! Tender souls do
not need to doubt whether or not they are in, but presumptuous souls must not
become arrogant, as the branches in Romans 11, because we only stand by “faith.”
In short, for Federal Vision advocates, we should not worry about whether or
not we really believed at the beginning of our Christian lives, but we should
focus on submitting to the call to persevere in faith as those who are already
among God’s people.
Would you like to comment on this article? If so, then feel free to join the discussion here or here.
Return to The Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Discuss Reformed Theology online at The Reformation Superhighway.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.
[2] September-December issue, 2002. These articles received wide attention, at least on the internet. P. Andrew Sandlin was among the first to respond in defense of the Monroe four.
[3] In personal correspondence with the pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (Steve Wilkins) and the formers assistant pastor (Rich Lusk), I was told that the RPCUS was the first group to publicly respond to the teaching of the conference. Examining the dates of my resources, this information checks out. Links to the documents of these charges and the response of AAPC can be found at http://www.paulperspective.com.
[4] It was published in relatively close proximity to the conference in 2000 (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2000).
[5] Chief among these critics would have been John Robbins and Mark Karlberg, who have long been vehement opponents of Rev. Shepherd. Whether or not one agrees with his take on the issue, O. Palmer Robertson’s The Current Justification Controversy (Unicoi: The Trinity Foundation, 2003) is helpful with respect to the events surrounding the Shepherd controversy.
[6] (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997)
[7] This is especially apparent in the writings of Matthew McMahon and Rick Phillips.
[8] Available at http://www.semper-reformanda.org/ericson.html.
[9] Available at http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm.
[10] Several articles available at http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/s36p93.htm.
[11] Just see the archives at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/archive.php?s=1.
[12] See his extensive posts at http://www.crcchico.com/covenant/shepherd.html. This discussion took place in 2001, just after the publication of Shepherd’s book in 2000. But Clark’s position on Shepherd was confirmed in 2003 when he revised the following document; http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Theses.html.
[13] Horton wrote on the Shepherd issue before 2002; http://www.spindleworks.com/library/CR/horton.htm. But he wrote a very critical article of Federal Vision theology in the July/August issue of Modern Reformation 13.4 in 2004.
[14] The document is available on their church website; http://www.auburnavenue.org.
[15] The Auburn Avenue Theology (Fort Lauderdale: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004), pg. xi.
[16] This was Rick Phillips, in a taped lecture (“Covenant Confusion”) he presented at the Philadelphia Conference of Reformed Theology (PCRT) in 2004. To be precise, I cannot remember whether Philips said this in the lecture itself, or whether he said it in conversation with some of the lecture’s attendees immediately afterwards. In either context, he further indicated that he felt a split within the PCA might be necessary to resolve these issues. To avoid misinformation, I am not sure whether he “feared” the controversy beyond dialogue, or whether he actually thought it was beyond dialogue. Likewise, I do not know whether he thought a split was merely possible, or whether it might actually be necessary.
[17] Says Beisner, “They have taught…some serious errors about covenant theology and its implications for salvation…Their attempt to destroy the complacency of the presumptuous is in profound danger of promoting a legalistic notion of works righteousness,” The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 306.
[18] The article by Horton has already been mentioned. See Lusk’s response to it and the many other documents at http://www.paulperspective.com. At about this time, I remember receiving a pamphlet for the 2004 PCRT. Rick Phillips elective seminar was advertised as exposing false teaching on the covenant within the Reformed community, a teaching which was undermining the gospel and proclaiming a different one altogether.
[19] Document available at http://builder.rcus.org/cxtmpl/rcus.org/content/pdfs/SynodreportShep3.pdf.
[20] See the recent book by one of these gentlemen, Paul M. Elliot, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond (Unicoi: The Trinity Foundation, 2005).
[21] The document is available at http://builder.rcus.org/cxtmpl/rcus.org/content/pdfs/SynodreportShep3.pdf.
(The implication of “heresy” is especially apparent in the introduction) In my
judgment, this document is the most important from the side of Federal Vision
critics. Several responses to it are available at paulperspective.com. Pay
special attention to the insightful responses by S. Joel Garver and Dr. Paul
Owen.
[22] I believe the specific wording was that they did not want to create a “burdensome precedent” by the distribution of the document.
[23] Document available at http://www.woodruffroad.com/federal_vision.php.
[24] Overture 2 at this year’s General Assembly from Rocky Mountain Presbytery.
[25] Document available at http://www.louisianapresbytery.com/AAT-FV_final.htm.
[26] Document available at http://www.knoxseminary.org/downloads/louisiana%20response.pdf.
[27] Document available at http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/1137614345MOPresFVreport2006.pdf. This is the Missouri Presbytery.
[28] Wilkins, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 262.
[29] Ibid, Pg. 263.
[30] Ibid.
[31] John Barach, Ibid, Pg. 151.
[32] Ibid, Pg. 153.
[33] Ibid, Pg. 154.
[34] Steve Wilkins, The Federal Vision (Monroe: Athanasius Press, 2004), Pg. 62.
[35] Douglas Wilson wrote the book Reformed is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant. (Monroe: Canon Press, 2002)
[36] Rich Lusk, The Federal Vision, 288. Note the qualifying language. Elaborated below.
[37] Wilson, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 5.
[38] Wilson, Ibid, Pg. 231.
[39] Wilson, Ibid, Pg. 232.
[40] Wilkins, Ibid, Pg. 267.
[41] Wilkins, Ibid.
[42] See Wilkins comment in Ibid, Pg. 268, especially footnote 29. This is especially pertinent to the Reformed tradition, since we emphasize the deceitfulness of the human heart in conjunction with our doctrine of total depravity. Tender souls are often afraid that what they might interpret as “evidence” of their secret conversion could actually be just the deceptive illusion of their wicked hearts.
[43] Wilkins, Ibid. Pg. 265.
[44] See the excellent discussion of Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), Pgs. 210-230.
[45] Calvin‘s Commentaries Vol 13 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), Pg. 83.
[46] It is entitled The Concepts of Conditionality and Apostasy in Relation to the Covenant, available at http://www.spindleworks.com/library/bratcher/concepts.htm.
[47] Commentary on 2 Peter 2:1-3.
[48] Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.2.11. Ford Lewis Battles translation.
[49] Commentary on Heb. 12:14. In his comments on verse 17, Calvin speaks of “selling” salvation.
[50] Institutes 3.2.11.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Collected Writings of John Murray Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), Pg. 132.
[53] Wilson, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pgs. 243-44.
[54] One of the original talks at the 2002 conference was Barach’s “Covenant Speaking.”
[55] These sermons are published by Banner of Truth. And if I remember correctly, Luther used “loss of justification” language in his commentary on Galatians 5:1-6.
[56] Barach, The Federal Vision, Pg. 34.
[57] Wilkins, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 257.
[58] Wilson, Ibid, Pg. 3.
[59] Leithart, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 68.
[60] Leithart, Ibid, Pg. 69.
[61] See especially Leithart’s doctoral dissertation The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003). See Further Lusk’s paper entitled “Baptismal Efficacy and the Reformed Tradition: Past, Present, and Future,” available at http://www.hornes.org/theologia. (Hereafter Theologia) They draw, in some respects, upon the work of John Milbank.
[62] See the end of his “Do I Believe in Baptismal Regeneration?”
[63] Document available at http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/calcat.html.
[64] Quoted in Lusk, The Federal Vision, Pg. 89. The quote is from Calvin’s Antidote to the Council of Trent 1.5.
[65] Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 53.
[66] Quoted in Schlissel, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 93. Taken from Appendix to the Tract on Reforming the Church, 3:316-29. For tremendous resources along this line, see Schlissel and Tom Trouwborst’s contributions in this volume. Of course, the latter is balanced by Carl Robbins article.
[67] Institutes, 4.15.3.
[68] The best work on this subject in Jonathan Trigg, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther (New York: E.J. Brill, 1994).
[69] See Lusk’s paper on baptism in The Federal Vision, Pg. 92. See also his paper “Do I Believe in Baptismal Regeneration” available at Theologia.
[70] See his fascinating distinctions in Lyle D. Bierma German Calvinism in a Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), Pgs. 99-105. It will be interesting to see how R. Scott Clark’s (A vocal Shepherd critic) new book on Olevian might modify Bierma’s presentation. If Bierma’s presentation is accurate, I find it hard to understand how Clark can criticize this theology, while supporting Olevian as a model for doing covenant theology. His book is entitled The Substance of the Covenant: Casper Olevian and the Double Benefit of Christ (Rutherford House, 2006).
[71] Quoted in Lusk, “Do I Believe,” citing from Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.
[72] Commentary, Pgs. 369-70.
[73] Institutes of Eclenctic Theology 19.1.2. See the short article by S. Joel Garver on Turretin’s view of baptism at http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/sacr/turretin.htm.
[74] Institutes 17.1.22.
[75] His book is entitled The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and new England 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).
[76] See the paper by S. Joel Garver, “Baptismal Regeneration and the Westminster Confession 28.6,” available at http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/sacr/wcf.htm.
[77] See the paper by Mark Horne, “Sacramental Assurance and the Westminster Standards,” available from Theologia.
[78] Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), Pg. 412.
[79] To this extent, the replies and quotes of Carl Robbins and Rick Phillips in The Auburn Avenue Theology really touch the issue very little. Federal Vision theologians have no qualms with saying that the benefits of the sacraments cannot be received apart from faith, as their quotes from Calvin and others demonstrate. The issue is what Phillips and Robbins do with quotes which seem to speak of sacramental efficacy and sealing apart from (a.) our ability to demonstrate real faith (i.e. infants) and (b.) such benefits in apostates. To be true to all the statements of the early Reformers, one must, like Turretin, be able to distinguish certain senses in which we may speak of sacramental benefits. It is this that the Federal Vision theologians are trying to do.
[80] Quoted in Lusk, The Federal Vision, Pg. 104.
[81] See the excellent essay of C.A. Schouls, The Covenant of Grace: Its Scriptural Origins and Development in Continental Theology (Vineland, On: Niagara Ligonier Study Centre, 1996), available online at http://www.spindleworks.com/library/schouls/Covenant01.htm.
[82] Horton in God of Promise, Chapter 9. Also his co-professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, R. Scott Clark. This is probably the most common Reformed answer, at least recently.
[83] Quoted at the end of Schouls. This distinction will be given much greater elaboration in the appendix.
[84] See his helpful article, “The God of Contingencies,” available at http://www.cmfnow.com.
[85] The book to read is S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991).
[86] The Eternal Covenant: How the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology (Moscow: Canon Press, 2003).
[87] Read Leithart’s “Trinitarian Anthropology” in The Auburn Avenue Theology. Richard Phillips has constantly argued that Smith’s construction reveals unorthodox Trinitarian tendencies. He has been responded to at length by Smith in three articles available at http://www.berith.org. (See especially the most recent on “covenantal ontology”) These articles also respond well to Philip’s claim that a covenant is merely a treaty which governs relationships, not itself a relationship. While I personally am sympathetic to Phillips’ claim , Smith demonstrates that he is wrong to claim that this is the “consensus” of the Reformed tradition. And since this paper is defending the Reformation Orthodoxy of Federal Vision advocates, this must be noted.
[88] See the beginning of his Christ of the Covenants (Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980).
[89] Lusk, The Auburn Avenue Theology, pg. 137.
[90] Horton makes this claim in the first document mentioned in footnote #13.
[91] This is especially apparent in the writings of Wilson at the beginning of The Auburn Avenue Theology and his Reformed is Not Enough.
[92] This position has also been advanced by Daniel Fuller (The Unity of the Bible) and more recently by John Piper. (Future Grace)
[93] Lusk in “Rome Won’t Have Me,” available at Theologia.
[94] Institutes 3.15.2.
[95] Institutes 2.17.1.
[96] Institutes 17.5.7.
[97] Quoted in the superb essay of S. Joel Garver, “The Covenant of Works in the Reformed Tradition,” available at http://www.joelgarver.com.
[98] See his recent God and Adam: Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant (Wantirna: New Melbourne Press, 2003).
[99] Aforementioned essay in Modern Reformation.
[100] Quoted in Lillback, Pg. 275. See especially the thesis by Bratcher.
[101] Institutes 3.14.21.
[102] Institutes 2.17.3.
[103] Institutes 2.4.11.
[104] Commentary, 484-85.
[105] The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust), Pgs. 596-598.
[106] Systematic Theology, 23.12.
[107] “Rome Won’t Have Me.”
[108] See the second to the last chapter in Lillback’s The Binding of God. I believe the “redemptive” argument has been made by I. John Hesselink in his book on Calvin and the new covenant.
[109] See the extremely helpful essay by Peter Wallace “Covenant and Inheritance,” available at http://www.nd.edu/~pwallace/inheritance.htm.
[110] John Frame’s thoughts are helpful here. “Covenant of Works? Yes and No” available at http://www.christianculture.com.
[111] Wilkins, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 260.
[112] See especially Jordan’s contribution in The Federal Vision.
[113] Lusk, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pgs. 141-43.
[114] “On the Development of Martin Luther’s Doctrine of the Saint’s Union With Christ, and its Relationship to Justification by Faith,” available by request. (Email me: ReformedCatholic@Gmail.com) I am well aware that R. Scott Clark has argued that this language in Luther is primarily legal, and deal with these arguments in my essay.
[115] Institutes 3.11.1. See Craig Carpenter’s recent essay, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification” in Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002), Pgs. 363-386. Available free online at “WTS” website.
[116] It is in this sense that Leithart’s contribution to The Federal Vision must be understood, not in the sense interpreted by the MVP Report.
[117] Wilson, The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pg. 2.
[118] “The Grace of Justification” available from Theologia.
[119] “34 Theses” available from ibid. Shepherd’s position on the active and passive obedience of Christ will be dealt with below.
[120] “Rome Won’t Have Me.”
[121] Ibid.
[122] “34 Theses.”
[123] Lusk, The Federal Vision, Pg. 275. The AAPC “Summary Statements” makes similar reservations. Lusk often mentions William Evan’s dissertation for Vanderbilt University on “Imputation and Imparation: The Problem of Union with Christ in Nineteenth Century Reformed Theology,” as particularly pointing out how simply legal metaphors for justification had a difficult time tying and keeping together justification and sanctification, the indicative and the imperative.
[124] Many of the critical presentations in The Auburn Avenue Theology can be faulted with this (probably unintended but nevertheless) patronizing sort of treatment.
[125] The Federal Vision, Pg. 18.
[126] Ibid, Pg. 35.