# What is the difference between Lutheranism and Federal Vision theology?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

This is a serious question. The more I read about FV theology, the more I sit back and scratch my head, thinking ... isn't that just Lutheran doctrine? How can these guys say they are Reformed?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 21, 2005)

Doesnt FV theology go with works based salvation. Luther to my knowledge did not advocate works based salvation. Unless you are refereing to Lutheranism as opposed to Luther the man himself?

blade


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

I've been wondering about this, too.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Doesnt FV theology go with works based salvation



No, it does not.
Auburn Avenue Position Statment on Baptism


The odd similarity here, as far as I can gather (I'm sure Gabriel can give you a better summary) is a combination of monergism with a sort of fuzzy (as I can gather) view on regeneration... If you read the summary there, there seems to be a state in which a person can be regenerate, yet still stray from the covenant. Nonetheless, Auburnites still maintain that those who persevere are justified by faith, not works. 

Of course there are different shades within the FV, but there's the AAPC line on it.

For comparison, you might want to browse through the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod site:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=570

_{Link fixed to avoid format issues - FTG}_

[Edited on 7/21/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

At the risk of annoying everyone by triple posting, there are some significant differences that I can note.

Auburn theology may seem to allow that one can be regenerate (in a sense) and leave the covenant community, as does Lutheran theology. However, in the Auburn circles, there is still much more emphasis on the family as the normal means of entering the covenant community. Auburnites baptize infants (and may or may not believe in a sort of baptismal regeneration... which would be another similarity to Lutheranism) but they only baptize infants who are born into the covenant community. Lutherans are much more open in whom they will baptize; all it takes in the LCMS is a commitment from an adult in the child's life to teach the child the ways of the Lord. The difference, I suppose, is that while both may or may not allow for a sort of regeneration in one who will not finally persevere, Lutherans differ from Calvinism in a desire to make grace more universally effective. Auburnites are in no way attempting to alter the plain sense of predestination, but they are simply playing around with the definition of regeneration. They are just expanding _additional_ covenant benefits to those that the rest of the Reformed consider part of the covenant community, while Lutherans would tend more to relax the boundaries of who is considered a member of the covenant community, besides denying a consistent doctrine of election. Their doctrine of election is, by their own admission, contradictory:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=576

Well, it's quite late. I'm hoping that at a more decent hour someone else can come in and clarify/correct all this.


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

With respect to baptism, I suspect they may be the same. They often cite Luther for baptismal issues, such as the relation of sola fide to baptismal regeneration. They try and fit their views in with the WCF but from what I have seen their interpretations seem forced to me (although, in their defense, the Zwinglian interpretations imposed by many modern reformeds on the WCF are even more forced in my opinion). I suppose they have to address the interpretation of the WCF, b/c they are not part of a Lutheran communion and are often part of institutions that adhere to the WCF. I doubt they would feel at home in a Lutheran communion, though, as the conservative ones can be pretty strict in terms of doctrinal fidelity to the Lutheran confessional documents and those confessions would affirm views on other doctrines outside the FV. Conservative Lutherans even have still affirm (in greater or lesser degrees) a doctrine called unionism, which forbids interassociation with other denominations and religions (part of the reason perhaps that conservbative Lutherans have weatherd evangelicalism better than, say, the PCA). 

I should also qualify this post by noting that I am not an expert on either Lutheranism or the FV. I have read from both but my knowledge is limited and I am just expressing general impressions.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> At the risk of annoying everyone by triple posting, there are some significant differences that I can note.
> 
> Auburn theology may seem to allow that one can be regenerate (in a sense) and leave the covenant community, as does Lutheran theology. However, in the Auburn circles, there is still much more emphasis on the family as the normal means of entering the covenant community. Auburnites baptize infants (and may or may not believe in a sort of baptismal regeneration... which would be another similarity to Lutheranism) but they only baptize infants who are born into the covenant community. Lutherans are much more open in whom they will baptize; all it takes in the LCMS is a commitment from an adult in the child's life to teach the child the ways of the Lord. The difference, I suppose, is that while both may or may not allow for a sort of regeneration in one who will not finally persevere, Lutherans differ from Calvinism in a desire to make grace more universally effective. Auburnites are in no way attempting to alter the plain sense of predestination, but they are simply playing around with the definition of regeneration. They are just expanding _additional_ covenant benefits to those that the rest of the Reformed consider part of the covenant community, while Lutherans would tend more to relax the boundaries of who is considered a member of the covenant community, besides denying a consistent doctrine of election. Their doctrine of election is, by their own admission, contradictory:
> ...



Evie,

You are on the right track. I don't know if you have read "Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons" but if you haven't you should. You will get a better feel for FV straight from the proponents. Regarding Lutheranism, in Steve Wilkins chapter of the above book, he goes into his view of baptism, salvation and union with Christ. Joe Pipa gave the response and noted that Wilkins view of Baptismal Regeneration was not RCC, as most are familiar with, but Lutheran. The key is how some of the FV proponents view "Union with Christ" in there sacramentology, which is Lutheran.

As you have noted, terminology and definitions are key to understanding FV. They will use standard reformed terminology but not define it the same way as in the term "regeneration". They seem to flip back and forth saying "yes regeneration means this but it also means that". They will site the use of the word by Calvin, who used the word as synonomous with repentance and sanctification. So it can get quite tricky. But personally, I think the men who have supported FV have made themselves very clear and understandable. These men are not stupid and know how to communicate quite well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



And here is something I didn't realize until this summer when I talked to some of the people at Auburn Avenue in person. I didn't realize that they do not, nor do quite a few in the Federal Vision, practice paedocommunion. Now, they believe in it but they do not practice it. Nor does S. Schlissel for that matter.

[Edited on 7--21-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

> And here is something I didn't realize until this summer when I talked to some of the people at Auburn Avenue in person. I didn't realize that they do not, nor do quite a few in the Federal Vision, practice paedocommunion. Now, they believe in it but they do not practice it. Nor does S. Schlissel for that matter.



Jacob,

You are right that they don't practice peadocommunion at AAPC. The PCA would not allow it. But, as I understand it, they will allow a very, very young child to be examined by the Session. Schlissel is very much against peadocommunion, that's why they don't practice it at Messiah.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > And here is something I didn't realize until this summer when I talked to some of the people at Auburn Avenue in person. I didn't realize that they do not, nor do quite a few in the Federal Vision, practice paedocommunion. Now, they believe in it but they do not practice it. Nor does S. Schlissel for that matter.
> ...



That is correct. They do let some wee lads approach the table (or the table approaches them, rather). If I understand it, the traditional reformed view has the elders determining when the Child is ready. at AAPC the father determines when the child is ready, no?


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

I do think that when it comes to an issue like perseverance, FV and Lutheranism have a similar approach. I also think some FV advocates seem to be putting forth a theology of baptism that sounds to me like Lutheranism, but much of their material, especially dealing with baptism is so filled with nuances and qualifications that it is darn near impossible to get a clear picture of it. I also think their approach to worship in terms of things like a strong focus on the church calendar, vestments and formal liturgy is closer to Lutheranism than it is to the Puritan/Westminster tradition of simple worship (I am not saying that you can't find a precedent for high church liturgical worship in Presbyterianism, but that it generally comes from streams other then Puritanism.) However, I do think there are also some very significant differences in other areas too.

The FV advocates would reject a sharp law/gospel distinction, which forms the core of Lutheran theology. FV advocates would also reject the two kingdom theology that is another very important principle of Lutheranism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> The FV advocates would reject a sharp law/gospel distinction, which forms the core of Lutheran theology. FV advocates would also reject the two kingdom theology that is another very important principle of Lutheranism.



Good observations, but is a rejection of the two-kingdom view unique to FV?


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



That is my understanding as well. I believe Wilson's Church in Moscow takes the same approach. But in order for AAPC to stay within the guidelines of the PCA, the father takes the child to the Session for examination, though its pretty much a formality.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

> Good observations, but is a rejection of the two-kingdom view unique to FV?



No jacob, I don't think a rejection of the two-kingdom view is unique to the FV. I think most Reformed would reject the two-kingdom view as it worked out in Lutheranism. I just used it as an example of an issue where the FV and Lutheranism would be at odds. 

I think another important point of discontinuity would be on the corporal presecence of Christ at the LS. I have not read any FV advocate arguing for the local real presecence and to a Lutheran, anything short of real local corporal presence is known as real absence in their circles today.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

They also seem to reject, for the most part, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and adopt a more Roman Catholic (Lutheran, Evangelical, etc.) view of worship. Would you agree?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> They also seem to reject, for the most part, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and adopt a more Roman Catholic (Lutheran, Evangelical, etc.) view of worship. Would you agree?



Episcopal is the word you are looking for. Think "low-church" episcopalian. At least, that is how AAPC's services are conducted.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Well, I would lump all forms of worship into the Roman Catholic category. You're either Reformed or you didn't get the memo.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, I would lump all forms of worship into the Roman Catholic category. You're either Reformed or you didn't get the memo.



While I dislike Evangelicalism as much s the next guy, you would lump evanjellyfish worship in the same category as Rome? Yes, I know that a denial or RPW opens the door for other stuff, but it kind of caught me off guard.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I would at this point. Heard several sermons lately on worship in the OT and what God considered an abomination and profaning of worship. Malachi 1 and 2.


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

Jacob: I think it would be misleading to characterize any evangelical as essentially the same as Roman Catholic. Whatever their errors, they do not worship the bread and wine, pray to / worship the saints, etc. The highpoint of a Catholic mass is the eucharist. Some evangelical churches have the eucharist only annually and have a Zwinglian view of it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Jacob: I think it would be misleading to characterize any evangelical as essentially the same as Roman Catholic. Whatever their errors, they do not worship the bread and wine, pray to / worship the saints, etc. The highpoint of a Catholic mass is the eucharist. Some evangelical churches have the eucharist only annually and have a Zwinglian view of it.



Right, I didn't characterize that way, though. That was Gabriel


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

I know and I was in agreement with your surprise. I was trying to say that I think it would be misleading for someone to compare evangelical worship to Roman worship.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

What I mean is, either you have worship based on "the traditions of men" or you have worship based on God's Word. In this sense, Rome and Evangelicalism/Lutheranism are in the same camp, although with different emphases. In the same way, Rome and Evangelicals are laregly both Semi-Pelagian, but their views of salvation seem a lot different on paper and in practice.


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

Gabriel - that is true. The weird thing is that whereas Roman worship might center on the sacrament of communion (distorted as it is), which is in the Bible, modern evangelical worship might center on the skit (nowhere in the Bible). 

I know that Lutherans don't embrace the RPW, but what do they actually do that contradicts it?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> They also seem to reject, for the most part, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and adopt a more Roman Catholic (Lutheran, Evangelical, etc.) view of worship. Would you agree?



They do sing hymns, so from an EP perspective, yes. I suppose whether or not AAPC violates the RPW just depends on how strict your view of the RPW is...

Jacob, do you have an AAPC program anywhere around? 

It doesn't seem that they have a Roman Catholic _view_ on worship, but Jacob is right--it feels rather like an Episcopal service, but without any images of Christ or candles or anything like that.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



I will look into finding a copy.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Schlissel outright rejects the RPW, he doesn't just NOT advocate EP or non-instrumental worship.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Schlissel outright rejects the RPW, he doesn't just NOT advocate EP or non-instrumental worship.



Schlissel is also more honest about it, if that means anything.


----------



## raderag (Jul 22, 2005)

They are very different paradigms.

Lutherans would insist that FV mix law and gospel. For example, Lutheran's insist a very strong distinction between the two, believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed, and believe that justification is purely forensic. In fact, this is where all Protestants confessions agree, and where FV doesn't.

You cannot compare two systems without understanding the foundations for each.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> They are very different paradigms.
> 
> Lutherans would insist that FV mix law and gospel. For example, Lutheran's insist a very strong distinction between the two, believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed, and believe that justification is purely forensic. In fact, this is where all Protestants confessions agree, and where FV doesn't.
> ...



SOME FVisionists deny the traditional formulation for Christ's imputation (ie, Lusk). I have not seen in writing others deny it.


----------

