In light of
the recent articles I’ve posted, commenting on a couple of Peter Leithart’s
articles, I found this article by Dr
Alan Strange, a professor at Mid-America Theological Seminary, which
provides a brief overview of the history and theologies of the “Federal Vision”
advocates. I know that reams and reams have been written about this topic, but
it’s still rumbling around “out there” (and maybe even a little closer to
home), and it never hurts to have a bit of background on these things.
The movement that has come to be
known as the “Federal Vision” came to the attention of many in Presbyterian and
Reformed circles following a pastor’s conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian
Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana, in January 2002. The word federal means “covenantal.”
Federal Vision proponents seek to revitalize and develop the doctrines of the
covenant and the church.
There are some legitimate concerns that
the Federal Vision has raised, especially in our current ecclesiastical
context. Being afflicted as we are, in this land, with a low view of the
church, the Federal Vision proponents strike significant chords in support of a
high view of the means of grace and of the visible church. They eschew a view
of the church that would stress the invisible at the expense of the visible and
that would exalt the individual and the subjective above the corporate and the
objective. They rightly observe that much of the church is afflicted with a low
view of the means of grace (especially preaching and the sacraments), the
obligation to live holy lives, and the inseparability of justification and
sanctification. The solution to these problems, however, lies in the historic
Reformed faith at its best. While even
Reformed and Presbyterian churches may suffer from what ails the broader body
of evangelical churches, they do so not because of their theology but in spite
of it.
The
problem with the Federal Vision is its tendency to overreact to problems in
broader evangelicalism and in certain Reformed circles. For example,
subjectivism is rejected by embracing an exaggerated objectivism. The
proponents of the whole Federal Vision program routinely seek a theological fix
for problems that ought to be addressed pastorally. It seems to be thought that
the problems must reflect shortcomings in Reformed theology, when in fact they
reflect shortcomings in Reformed practice. There’s nothing wrong with our
theology, except that we fail to live up to it. Our standards are not
deficient; rather, our deportment is. Too often we fail to be in practice who
we truly are in Christ. The solution to
lives that are not what they should be is not theological reformulation, as
Federal Vision proponents would claim, but faithful living within our already
well-developed theological system. It is the best expression of Scripture that
the church has, by God’s guidance and grace, developed thus far.
Twenty errors that are held by one or
more advocates of the Federal Vision are listed in the conclusion of the report
of the OPC’s Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification:
1. Pitting
Scripture and Confession against each other.
2. Regarding
the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic.
3. A
mono-covenantalism that sees one covenant, originating in the intra-Trinitarian
fellowship, into which man is invited, thus flattening the concept of covenant
and denying the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of
grace.
4. Election
as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant.
5. Seeing
covenant as only conditional.
6. A
denial of the covenant of works and of the fact that Adam was in a relationship
with God that was legal as well as filial.
7. A
denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works.
8. A
denial that the law given in Eden is the same as that more fully published at
Mt. Sinai and that it requires perfect obedience.
9. Viewing
righteousness as relational, not moral.
10. A
failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ’s.
11. A
denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our
justification.
12. Defining
justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins.
13. The
reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion.
14. Including
works (by use of “faithfulness,” “obedience,” etc.) in the very definition of
faith.
15. Failing
to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace.
16. Teaching
baptismal regeneration.
17. Denying
the validity of the concept of the invisible church.
18. An
overly objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and
that tends toward an ex opere operato [automatically
effective] view of the sacraments.
19. Teaching
paedocommunion.
20. Ecclesiology
that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.
Some of
these points, to be sure, warrant elaboration more than others….
Hey John,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great article. It really helps to explain what all this FV stuff is about.
BTW, what is this stuff:
1.
BTW, what is this stuff:
ReplyDelete1.
??
I think he's referring to some of the code that appears at the bottom of the post.
ReplyDelete