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 th