# "The Federal Vision (in one easy lesson)"



## reformed_vanilla (Jul 12, 2012)

At this stage, I know Federal Vision bad, but I can't summarise to someone (or to myself) exactly why it's bad or the extent of its badness. Recently, I read "The Federal Vision (in one easy lesson)". 

I think that Wilson is wrong in this article in three ways, but I'm concerned that the issues I identify in the article could be non-issues, that I'm misreading Wilson, or worse still, that my concerns are wrong in themselves. Can someone explain to me what is wrong with what Wilson proposes in his article?


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 12, 2012)

Uhhhhhhh.... either I'm incredibly ignorant of the FedVision, or Mr. Wilson in this article simply restated the core of Reformed theology. Because if there's a difference between what he says and what is believed by Calvinists/Reformed, I'm not seeing it.


----------



## reformed_vanilla (Jul 12, 2012)

Bits of it sounds nice, but does that include the paedocommunion bit? Does that include the bit where he says "If you believe that Adam should have obeyed God by continuing to trust and rest in Him, and that striking out "on his own" is what got us into all this trouble, then in principle you are in sympathy with the Federal Vision"? Also, I'm not 100% sure the grace he's talking about is the grace I mean when I say I am saved by God's grace.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 12, 2012)

Andrew, it's a nightmare trying to figure out what Doug Wilson believes. He is very facile and uses all the right words, but he means something different in almost every one of them. It has frustrated many good men trying to pin him down.

If you really want to get into it (it is a wearisome exercise) you might want to read some of the Federal Vision posts on Lane Keister's blog: Green Baggins

Also, Scott Clark of WSC has a lot of resources: Resources on the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 12, 2012)

Here is my short understanding on the subject with some links to position papers.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/working-federal-vision-summary-48/


----------



## reformed_vanilla (Jul 13, 2012)

So Martin, are they essentially saying that all covenants are covenants of grace, and defining covenants of grace as what a confessionalist would call a covenant of works, or am I completely on the wrong track?


----------



## py3ak (Jul 13, 2012)

> What does the phrase Federal Vision mean, then? The word federal comes from the Latin word foedus, which means covenant. Vision obviously refers to seeing, and perhaps to seeing on a grand scale, and so the Federal Vision wants to urge believers to see the world through covenantal eyes. The Federal Vision expresses a desire for a more rigorously consistent covenantal theology. In this respect, the Federal Vision is an answer to prayer, God's gracious fulfillment of a promise He has made to those who fear Him. "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant" (Ps. 25:14). There is one important thing we must carry away from this passage, and that is that the covenant needs to be shown to us by God. It is not something we can attain to by our own effort—it is all the sheer grace of God.



This is classic Wilson. It is warmly written, contains some striking and unusual thoughts, and is very positive in tone. It is also wrong. The giveaway is in the phrase "more rigorously consistent covenantal theology." On its own, that sounds like a good thing: rigor, consistency, and covenants are all things that Reformed theology values. But more rigorously consistent _compared to what_? The true answer is, compared to the variegated and complex covenant theology of the Westminster Standards.

His explanation of the "nub" of the difference also glosses over many of the very real issues; but it is telling in one particular. The FV does want to flatten out the covenants. There is no doubt they have a federal vision - a sweeping perspective that subsumes everything under the notion of covenant and practically reduces the covenants to one: in some cases even the doctrine of the Trinity is in effect reduced to another instance of the covenant.

Now that approach is horrible in many ways. But there is another point which Wilson identifies and yet mischaracterizes in the linked article: how we view the world order before and after the fall. The point of difference is not between those who wish to keep the word "grace" for a post-lapsarian context and those who are comfortable calling the "voluntary condescension" exhibited in the covenant of works, "grace". On that point, Wilson is quite right that there has been variation within the Reformed tradition, and theologians of no mean caliber have blithely spoken of grace before the fall. That's not where the difference lies between the Reformed and the Federal Visionists. The difference rather lies in whether things were substantially different before and after the fall. Wilson presents it positively: Adam cannot merit, therefore much less can we merit: accusations of works righteousness against the FV are therefore totally unfounded. But look at the end result: Adam and we are fundamentally in the same position. The difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is minor - perhaps only a question of degree. And that is a departure from Reformed theology. Our antecedents certainly distinguished merit very carefully, some rejecting the term altogether, and by no means held that God could ever be obligated to us, unless he bound himself by a word of promise: some in our own time have not adequately maintained those distinctions, or made it clear that "do this and live" is not equivalent to merit, whether of condignity or congruity. But the rejection of a works principle in _every sense_ effectively means that between God's command, "Of the tree that is in the garden thou mayest not eat" and the requirement to believe on Christ to be saved, there is no difference. Denial of the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace doesn't actually result in the magnification of grace, however much one tries: it results in turning grace into law.

Ultimately, they seem to be OK with that as the practical result of their ideas. It connects well to the somewhat sacerdotalist sacramentology. In some of the more derivative science fiction of the FV, they have taught that man is _homo sacrificans_, sacrificing man, that Adam should have laid down his life for Eve in combat with the serpent, and that it is by ongoing covenant renewal in worship and the sacraments that we persevere in grace. The stability of the covenant has come around to depend on us again.

Covenant, sacrifice, grace: how could Reformed people not love anything that is so consumed and driven by these ideas? Well first of all because Reformed theology is not reductionistic, it does not attempt to deduce everything from one central dogma, but to harmonize and properly relate the teaching of Scripture as a complexly inter-related whole. Second, because the context for these terms is everything. They must be set in opposition to the right antonyms. When you suppress the antonyms, as Wilson does, you can make a very positive presentation, but the antonyms then come back around in the outworking of your theory and appear in inconvenient places. Others of his co-seers make a less _gracious_ case, and the legal cast to their thinking may be more apparent: but the fact that they all find themselves in broad agreement shows that whether you start by minimizing the grace, or by removing the law, you can only truly have both if you keep them in fruitful interaction. It is the distinction and conjunction of the two, in a way exemplified by Scripture itself, that enables Reformed theology to be fruitful in areas like holiness and assurance; remove either side of the equation, and you get mutation or sterility.

The FV responded to a real deficiency in many particulars, but with a cure worse than the disease they attacked.


----------



## Zach (Jul 13, 2012)

Thanks for your helpful response, Ruben. I've also had a hard time figuring out what the Federal Vision is (particularly with what Wilson writes because he puts a mask over it) and your explanation cleared up a lot on how FVists depart from a Reformed understanding of the Covenant of Grace to a works based righteousness.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 13, 2012)

Martin, Ruben: can you two get together and rewrite the tax code? 

Seriously, though, I noted the part on the sacraments. Are they saying one is saved by partaking in the sacraments a la Rome?


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 13, 2012)

As an ex-Federal Visionist, I can recommend this series by Guy Waters and Joey Pipa as being fair to the arguments of the Federal Vision folks, and showing the flaws in their theology and the important ramifications of those flaws.

Analyzing the Federal Vision Series - SermonAudio.com

Doug Wilson, by the way, is the most difficult to pin down of all the Federal Visionists. His usual way of speaking is to use all the right words, and define them in significantly different ways than the historic Reformed faith.


----------



## arielann81 (Jul 13, 2012)

I just want to say that I really appreciate the PB and all the members here. I actually asked this question this week myself and then I find a post about it a few days later. I benefited from your responses and will research more with the links provided. The PB has been a valuable resource for me since becoming reformed in summer 2011. I think its a safe place to ask questions and find issues explained from all perspectives. You guys rock!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 13, 2012)

reformed_vanilla said:


> So Martin, are they essentially saying that all covenants are covenants of grace, and defining covenants of grace as what a confessionalist would call a covenant of works, or am I completely on the wrong track?



It is all one Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works is a gracious Covenant. The discussion can get very complicated because the way things are defined are not necessarily being used in their historical understanding. God was gracious in condescending to his creature Adam. But that doesn't mean that the prelapsarian covenant (the Covenant of Works) was a gracious Covenant as the Covenant of Grace is. Some want to redefine things and it gets a little confusing because of how these terms are used. I believe most of the adherents to the Federal Vision camp are Mono-covenantalists. There is just one over arching Covenant of Grace according to their view instead of the biblical bi-Covenantal view that the Bible teaches.

The Guy Water's book is really good. I read it years ago. Keep in mind that the Federal Vision is not a monolithic movement. It is a strange breed with some people accepting different parts of its doctrine while redefining many other doctrines such as the New Paul Perspective does. There are cross overs between both of these two camps also.


----------



## mvdm (Jul 13, 2012)

Here is the URCNA's Synodical Committee Report on the Federal Vision:

https://www.urcna.org/urcna/StudyCommittees/FederalVision/Federal_Vision_Study_Committee_Report.pdf


----------



## Puritan Scot (Jul 13, 2012)

Amazon.com: Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root (9781936054077): David J. Engelsma: Books


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 13, 2012)

Wilson also signed the FV Statement in 2007, after the PCA GA & URC Synod rejected the FV. 

There are differences among FVists but they all, including Wilson, teach that we are brought into a conditional saving union with Christ through baptism. The condition is obedience (or faithfulness). This, as others have noted, turns the covenant of grace into a covenant of works. Further, it is sacerdotalism, i.e., it turns the sacraments into magic.

As mentioned above there is a great lot of resources at Resources on the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul

There are Office Hours episodes on these issues at http://wscal.edu/officehours


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 13, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> There are differences among FVists but they all, including Wilson, teach that we are brought into a conditional saving union with Christ through baptism. The condition is obedience (or faithfulness). This, as others have noted, turns the covenant of grace into a covenant of works. Further, it is sacerdotalism, i.e., it turns the sacraments into magic.


Dr Clark if this is the case (I am not doubting this, thats how I always understood them) why does it seem that the FV proponents are willing to openly fellowship with antipaedobaptists in the CREC? If baptism automatically brings a conditional union with Christ wouldn't it be a greater sin for parents to neglect this because they would be damning their children by withholding this rite? Is this question ever addressed by any major FV proponent.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 14, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Martin, Ruben: can you two get together and rewrite the tax code?
> 
> Seriously, though, I noted the part on the sacraments. Are they saying one is saved by partaking in the sacraments a la Rome?



Wilson at least try’s to make question 161 on “How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation” the basis for his view of the WCF’s entire sacramental theology. But I think this is flawed because if you remove that question, which I am not saying we should, it doesn’t change the rest of the confession on this matter. But Wilson wants to see it as the fundamental question for understanding sacramental theology; this is bad scholarship on his part. 

My daughter actually summed up sacramental theology for me last weekend when I had her. I asked her what a rainbow meant and she said (she is 9) “It means that God is still keeping his promises to us”. I said where did you learn that she said “I don’t know I just thought that myself”. I told her to remember that when she thought about her baptism that that was God saying He was still keeping His promises to her. And I said when she is old enough to take the Lord’s Supper than that means the same thing that God is saying that He is always keeping His promises to us. 



> Question 161: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
> 
> Answer: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.
> 
> ...


----------



## reformed_vanilla (Jul 14, 2012)

Thanks for the clarification Martin. I think I'm starting to get to grips with sections of their covenant theology now.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 14, 2012)

reformed_vanilla said:


> Thanks for the clarification Martin. I think I'm starting to get to grips with sections of their covenant theology now.



Well for them it seems that being part of the visible church alone makes you in one sense a covenant member in the COG. Where as traditionally we understand that only those who are actually redeemed are in the COG but the ordinary place where God acts is the visible church. Those promises extend towards our children too.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 14, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> [W]hy does it seem that the FV proponents are willing to openly fellowship with antipaedobaptists in the CREC? If baptism automatically brings a conditional union with Christ wouldn't it be a greater sin for parents to neglect this because they would be damning their children by withholding this rite?



It's precisely _because_ they believe that baptism brings about a saving union that they are willing to become ecclesiastically affiliated with antipaedobaptists. It turns them into radical ecumenists, because they cannot turn down someone who is baptized. Why the allowance of baptists in their denomination and not, say, Lutherans? I can't say. I didn't understand it when I was a member of a CREC church either.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 14, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > [W]hy does it seem that the FV proponents are willing to openly fellowship with antipaedobaptists in the CREC? If baptism automatically brings a conditional union with Christ wouldn't it be a greater sin for parents to neglect this because they would be damning their children by withholding this rite?
> ...



Excellent point!


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 14, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> It's precisely because they believe that baptism brings about a saving union that they are willing to become ecclesiastically affiliated with antipaedobaptists. It turns them into radical ecumenists, because they cannot turn down someone who is baptized. Why the allowance of baptists in their denomination and not, say, Lutherans? I can't say. I didn't understand it when I was a member of a CREC church either.


If I could bake I would mail you a cupcake for that answer. Thanks


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 14, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > It's precisely because they believe that baptism brings about a saving union that they are willing to become ecclesiastically affiliated with antipaedobaptists. It turns them into radical ecumenists, because they cannot turn down someone who is baptized. Why the allowance of baptists in their denomination and not, say, Lutherans? I can't say. I didn't understand it when I was a member of a CREC church either.
> ...



Haha thanks.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 14, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> I asked her what a rainbow meant and she said (she is 9) “It means that God is still keeping his promises to us”. I said where did you learn that she said “I don’t know I just thought that myself”. I told her to remember that when she thought about her baptism that that was God saying He was still keeping His promises to her. And I said when she is old enough to take the Lord’s Supper than that means the same thing that God is saying that He is always keeping His promises to us.



What a wonderful thought. Your daughter already has a beautiful grasp of some concepts.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 14, 2012)

a mere housewife said:


> What a wonderful thought. Your daughter already has a beautiful grasp of some concepts.



I am very proud of her! Thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 14, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > There are differences among FVists but they all, including Wilson, teach that we are brought into a conditional saving union with Christ through baptism. The condition is obedience (or faithfulness). This, as others have noted, turns the covenant of grace into a covenant of works. Further, it is sacerdotalism, i.e., it turns the sacraments into magic.
> ...



I think this has already been well answered. I can only add that they are broadly ecumenical re baptism for the reason Leithart says what he does re E. Orthodoxy & Romanism. 

This ecumenism fits their eschatology and social program. In several cases where the emphasis in the 70s was on transforming culture through direct action the emphasis shifted in the 80s and 90s to the ecclesiastical sphere and modified versions of sacerdotalism. Here's a little more on the relations between theonomy & the FV movements.


----------

