# What is the federal vision?



## Bandguy (Jul 3, 2006)

I am currently reading "Chosen By God" by RC Sproul in which he endorses the Federal Theory of original sin. Is this the same thing as the federal vision or something different?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2006)

TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Sproul is referring to the imputation of Adam's sin. This is "representational theology", or "federal theology." We are condemned _first_ not for the wickedness we add to our guilt, but by the guilt we first aquired (had imputed or "counted" against us) from Adam, our federal head. Thankfully, in Christ we have a new federal Head, for those who have faith in him. He is our righteousness, and his obedience is imputed to us, counted to our credit. Just as we died in Adam, so we shall be justified in Christ.

The FV is a distorted covenantal view, a primary focus of which is the idea that the covenant of grace is cooextensive with the visible church, and there is a corporeal quality to this covenant. It can be *seen*.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2006)

Totally something different. Federal Theology has to do with the Two Adams as our Federal head representatives. In the First Adam we all die. Jesus Christ our second Adam from Heaven is the Federal head of all who belong to Him. 

Federal Vision is a theology that tries to reanswer questions about the sacraments and who is in the Body of Christ in an unbiblical way I believe. Most of them deny the Covenant of Works which is where the First Adam fell into condemnation and condemned all who he was a federal head over.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2006)

Also, most of them deny the active and passive obedience of Christ which is imputed unto us as our righteousness. Their focus is mainly on the death of Christ. FV mixes in some of the New Paul Perspective with some of its beliefs. Though you couldn't prove it by me, some of the people who are supposedly FV don't hold to this position.


----------



## ef (Jul 3, 2006)

I have a great write-up by Rev. Fesko of the OPC on the Federal Vision.

The posts above hit it on the head, particularly our dear pipe-smoking Dabney lover there. (That pic gives me a serious case of beard-envy!)

By denying the covenant of works, the Federal Vision contradicts the Westminster Standards no matter how lose your definition of "subscription to the system of theology contained" therein may be. They've had years to articulate their view positively but can't. Therefore, in my opinion, they ought to be recognized as deserving a boot to the posterior. Instead they got a study committee at the most recent GA of the PCA.

If you're interested in the Rev. Dr's essay, please email me and I'll send it as a word doc. I apologize that I can't find the URL at this point.

[Edited on 7-3-2006 by ef]


----------



## Bandguy (Jul 3, 2006)

*Well, I am glad it is not the same...*

based on some of the reactions I have seen here. Although, I am glad it is not the same as what Sproul endorses in his book, I must admit as a person who is not really in Presbyterian circles, that I am still confused as to what it really is. Would someone mind putting this into clear layman's English to where I can understand?

Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Bandguy_
> based on some of the reactions I have seen here. Although, I am glad it is not the same as what Sproul endorses in his book, I must admit as a person who is not really in Presbyterian circles, that I am still confused as to what it really is. Would someone mind putting this into clear layman's English to where I can understand?
> 
> Thanks.



Sure; when and *If* they let us know, we will be sure to relay the information on to you! Don't hold your breath though........


----------



## Bandguy (Jul 3, 2006)

Scott,

Certainly, you have an understanding of what it is since your website opposes the doctrine so strongly. Now, that in mind, would you please put in dummy english what it is without all the theological mumbo-jumbo? Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Bandguy_
> Scott,
> 
> Certainly, you have an understanding of what it is since your website opposes the doctrine so strongly. Now, that in mind, would you please put in dummy english what it is without all the theological mumbo-jumbo? Thanks.



Simply put, they are redefining justification. However, they deny this; they say, 'You don't understand us'.

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Bandguy_
> ...



Could we say that they confuse justification and sanctification and thus include works in justification? 

I think the FV is an overreaction to revivalism and other elements in broad evangelicalism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Chris,
Thats the point, none of us know what to call it as they don't even know how to explain it!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



Like trying to nail jello to the wall.


----------



## beej6 (Jul 3, 2006)

Is this the Fesko article referred to above?

http://www.genevaopc.org/resources/res_pdf_44.pdf

{Isn't Google grand?}


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 3, 2006)




----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



or pick up a lougie! 

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 3, 2006)

The FV theology is Roman Catholicism repackaged with Covenantal Terms.


----------



## MW (Jul 3, 2006)

Or it could be seen as a misguided effort to capture some of the older reformed emphasis on ecclesiology and sacraments which is sadly lacking in the modern day.


----------



## ef (Jul 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> The FV theology is Roman Catholicism repackaged with Covenantal Terms.



You da man. Brevity from a theologian?!?!

The Fesko essay I mentioned in my initial post is the one referenced above. If you'd like a serious look at this issue, I'd suggest you check that out. If you have even a cursory knowledge of the Westminster Standards and covenant theology you should be able to get the gist of the issue, although Rev. McMahon just hit the nail on the head.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 3, 2006)

Start with my friend Guy Waters' excellent book:

<a href="http://www.reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/vobId__3491/">Federal Vision and Covenant Theology</a>


----------



## MW (Jul 3, 2006)

The thing is, that I read the Westminster Standards, and the westminster divines who wrote them, and I am forced to confess that there is a theology of the visible church and of the external administration of the covenant of grace which modern reformed people simply do not comprehend, and which the FV seems to be making a serious though misguided attempt at recapturing.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Start with my friend Guy Waters' excellent book:
> 
> <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/vobId__3491/">Federal Vision and Covenant Theology</a>



I just ordered my copy. I hope he calls it like it is...
His book on the NPP was good.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 4, 2006)

See also these resources:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php

The FV and Federal Theology are NOT the same thing. They confuse what they should distinguish: justification and sanctification; the internal and external modes of communion in the covenant of grace; the Supper and Baptism by making both the sign of initiation; the sign and thing signified by making all baptized persons _provisionally_ and _conditionally_elect, united to Christ, justified, adopted etc. 

Federal theology most simply refers to the two federal heads of humanity, Adam and Jesus. The first federal head sinned, plunging all his posterity into sin and death. The second Adam, Jesus, obeyed, *earning* eternal life for all the elect to appropriated by grace alone, through faith alone (i.e., by receiving and resting) in Christ and his finished work for us.

That they gave to themselves the name: Federal Vision says much about the hubris and ignorance of the movement and its leaders. 

rsc


----------

