# Federal Vision and Lutheranism



## SRoper (Dec 29, 2007)

Is the Federal Vision teaching any worse than the teachings of confessional Lutheranism? Is the difference the fact that there aren't any Lutherans in the pulpits of Presbyterian and Reformed churches? Why then the rhetoric that the FV leads to Rome when one doesn't commonly hear this charge against Lutherans?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 29, 2007)

It might be helpful to describe such an amalgam of views as the FV as a "trajectory" rather than a "body of divinity". As RSC described it, FV is has been "making it up as they go along," which is part of what distinguishes FV as a (self-described) "movement."

Confessional Lutheranism, as Confessional Reformed (or Confessional Romanism) is a result of "getting someplace," and codifying both the pathway and the results. If one then charts the "placement" of these positions in a matrix, one will see them in relation to the others. Lutheranism is is quite a different place from Rome, in "degree" and "attitude" (to use certain graphical adjectives). They are in a different sort of relation to the Reformed, and still different from, say, 39-Article-Anglicanism. But they are clearly Protestant (to put them in a broader grouping).

With the FV, one can find various starting points, that converge at some point, and seem to angle through a "Reformed nexus". In some ways, the "degree" and "attitude" mirrors certain features of Lutheranism (as with other traditions). But the trajectory is not taking them into Lutheranism, it isn't heading to a "point of rest" in Confessional Lutheranism. For proof, just answer the question (if possible) "How many FVers have ended up as Confessional Lutherans?" And then, the follow up: "How many have "ended up as Romanists?"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 29, 2007)

Good point Bruce. Maybe if some of the vocal whiners in the movement would just sit down and write a Systematic Theology that allowed their views to cohere then there would actually _be_ a theology. I like how you call it a trajectory. That's a great way to describe it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Good point Bruce. Maybe if some of the vocal whiners in the movement would just sit down and write a Systematic Theology that allowed their views to cohere then there would actually _be_ a theology. I like how you call it a trajectory. That's a great way to describe it.



Interesting point; a problem I find with FVers is that they continually claim that they have been misunderstood and that all their critics misrepresent them. If that is the case, then why not write a comprehensive systematic theology for everyone to examine?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 29, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Is the Federal Vision teaching any worse than the teachings of confessional Lutheranism? Is the difference the fact that there aren't any Lutherans in the pulpits of Presbyterian and Reformed churches? Why then the rhetoric that the FV leads to Rome when one doesn't commonly hear this charge against Lutherans?




Tremendously worse, while Martin Luther didn't fully develop out the Scriptural implications of Augustinianism, he did doctrinally stand upon Sola Scriptura. Hence, the issue is one of Authority, not interpretation, that is to say the difference between Reformed Presbyterianism and Lutheranism's syncretic sacramentalism is one of interpretation, not first principles of Authority.

Federal Vision, on the other hand, is the result of being more epistomologically self aware than modern Reformed theology and working out the end of the radical departure from Sola Scriptura at the beginning of the 20th century. Hence, what started in the Reformed Church as an implicit return to Romanism in terms of Authority, is now being confessionally worked out as an explicitly counter-reformational work and is outworking its framework in soteriological terms of the visible Church as Authority.

Federal Vision is here to stay and it will grow and grow rapidly as the Reformed Church at large no longer has the theological standing to correct it. The only thing that can really be brought against it is that it has departed from the Westminster Confession, which is, of course, a meaningless charge since its departure is entirely dependent upon the prior departure from Sola Scripture as Authority.

When one returns to Rome's doctrine of a subordinate Bible then you return to Rome's doctrine derived from the subordinated Bible, it's not difficult to understand. Federal Vision is consistent with it's first principles, modern Reformed theology is inconsistent since it departed from the historic Reformed orthodox doctrine of Sola Scriptura - the latter will progressively lose ground and congregations to the former.

The problem is that there is a tremendous hole over the past century in Reformed theology that has adopted the radical discontinuity of it's doctrinal departure between private and public life, as a result there can be no true Confessional unity because there is no continuity in terms of Authority. The Federal Vision boys are searching for continuity and they are creating it in terms of the visible Church, they will lead many back to Rome, I'm afraid.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 5, 2008)

Bruce you make an excellent point that the FV is a trajectory.

Let's say that the FV arrived at something like A Joint Federal Vision Statement. Is there anything in there that is more troubling than what a confessional Lutheran believes? Would you find issue if a FV proponent was a regular contributer to a publication like Modern Reformation?

Thomas, I have not seen where the FV makes the Bible subordinate to the Church. Can you substantiate this charge?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 5, 2008)

Yes, there is a great deal more danger in the FV than in confessional Lutheran churches. 

A confessional Lutheran will always confess justification <i>sola gratia, sola fide</i>. A conf. Lutheran will always confess a distinction between law and gospel. A conf. Lutheran agrees with us about total depravity and even about unconditional election. 

Where we part with them is over the matter of resistibility of grace, the extent (and intent) of the atonement, on baptismal regeneration, the two natures of Christ, and the nature of the presence of Christ in the Supper.

These are not small matters. They justify separate ecclesiastical lives. Nevertheless, we are one with them on justification and on the fundamental difference between law and gospel in justification and on the moral, logical necessity of the third use of the law. We are not one with the FV on these essential Protestant issues. The FV denies the law/gospel distinction. That distinction is the essence of the Reformation. The medieval church taught "old law/new law" and more grace under the "new law" to cooperate toward justification. That's pretty close to the FV. 

No where can we find the FV being unequivocal about justification sola fide, sola gratia. We are one with the Lutherans on justification. 

These differences are life and death.

We have the same relations with the FV that we had with the Remonstrants. The Lutherans agreed with them in certain respects, partly out of spite for the Reformed, but that didn't keep us from continuing to affirm the Lutherans, on the issues with which we agreed, as "our Lutherans" or as fellow "evangelicals." 

Is there overlap between the Lutherans the the FV, yes. Are there clear differences? Yes and those differences are huge!

rsc

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 5, 2008)

ps. Lane Keister at Green Baggins has done massive work replying to the FV Statement point by point, clause by clause, phrase by phrase.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 5, 2008)

SRoper said:


> Thomas, I have not seen where the FV makes the Bible subordinate to the Church. Can you substantiate this charge?



The very means in which they collapse the distinction between the visible and invisible Church is neccessarily a transfer of Authority from Scripture to the visible Church. While it is still attempting to straddle the Reformed fence and walk with one foot on each side, that is to say one foot on Roman soil and another on Protestant, the necessary presupposition of subordinationism is necessary to throw one leg over the fence. While it is not explicitly pronounced, it is implicitly necessary, to collapse the distinction.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 5, 2008)

Thanks, Dr. Clark. I have read some of Lane Keister on this.

Thomas, I was going to write that I understand your post here better from what you posted in the Textual Manuscripts thread; Warfield made the FV possible. I don't agree, but your first post is less cryptic to me. Now with your follow-up post, I see that you had something else (or something additional) in mind. I don't see how the Church is the final authority necessarily follows from redefining the distinction between the visible and invisible Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 5, 2008)

Incidentally, CPJ3 has a great article on the issue of Sola Fide and a repudiation of the FV notion that the Reformed confessions don't teach it.

The Confessional Presbyterian » Welcome


----------

