FV and Lutheranism

[Ploutos]

The Federal Vision And The Reformed Hermeneutic - The Heidelblog

One of the most frequent claims made in defense of the self-described Federal Vision (hereafter FV) is the claim that they are “only following the Bible.” A corollary of that is the claim that Reformed confessionalists “have already decided in advance what the Bible can say.” This is an important…

heidelblog.net

I've read many threads on FV on here, and I've seen threads that discuss FV and its relation to credobaptism. But Dr. Clark's closing mention of confessional Lutheranism has me intrigued. Do confessional Lutherans hold to something akin to FV?

 

[EvanF]

I think he meant the issue of baptismal regeneration, not FV per se. But the two both hinge on an overwrought theory of sacramental efficacy.

 

[Ploutos]

Is FV overemphasizing sacramental efficacy or undermining salvific efficacy? And does Lutheranism make any analogous moves, given its distinctly synergistic view of salvation?

 

[jwright82]

No. Lutheranism affirms sola fide and sola gratia. Baptismal Regeneration may be the only thing they have in common and no doctrine of eternal security per se, that is falling from faith.

 

[EvanF]

Well, as the name is meant to imply, the federal vision is about salvation through covenantal/federal blessing, not works per se. The undermining of the salvific efficacy of Christ's work seems to be a logical consequence of the idea that the reprobate and elect children of believers are objectively part of the covenantal body of Christ through baptism in exactly the same way, not because of their own regeneration and faith, but because of their parents' faith. In order to explain why some covenant children persevere and others fall away, they turn to "covenant faithfulness" as the discriminator - this includes generational faithfulness of parents as well as personal faithfulness of children. But they absolutely treat the baptism of a believer's child as the definitive induction of that child into an objective covenantal relationship with God as real as that of any regenerate believer's.

Lutherans on the other hand believe that every baptized child is really regenerated and given faith at the time of baptism and that their perseverance within the covenant of salvation depends on continuing in that regenerate faith. Because they believe that God creates faith in every baptized child, the covenantal status of children can be hinged upon that personal faith from the start rather than the faith of parents, making their view of the covenant more individualistic. They also claim a much more robust distinction between faith and works than federal visionists.

 

[jwright82]

Well, as the name is meant to imply, the federal vision is about salvation through covenantal/federal blessing, not works per se. The undermining of the salvific efficacy of Christ's work seems to be a logical consequence of the idea that the reprobate and elect children of believers are objectively part of the covenantal body of Christ through baptism in exactly the same way, not because of their own regeneration and faith, but because of their parents' faith. In order to explain why some covenant children persevere and others fall away, they turn to "covenant faithfulness" as the discriminator - this includes generational faithfulness of parents as well as personal faithfulness of children. But they absolutely treat the baptism of a believer's child as the definitive induction of that child into an objective covenantal relationship with God as real as that of any regenerate believer's.

Lutherans on the other hand believe that every baptized child is really regenerated and given faith at the time of baptism and that their perseverance within the covenant of salvation depends on continuing in that regenerate faith. Because they believe that God creates faith in every baptized child, the covenantal status of children can be hinged upon that personal faith from the start rather than the faith of parents, making their view of the covenant more individualistic. They also claim a much more robust distinction between faith and works than federal visionists.

My only stickler here is that I don't think they have much of a "covenant theology". From what I've read medieval thinking, in their opinion, emphasized the covenant to bring in works righteousness. Could be wrong but I believe that's how it is.

 

[MW]

My only stickler here is that I don't think they have much of a "covenant theology". From what I've read medieval thinking, in their opinion, emphasized the covenant to bring in works righteousness. Could be wrong but I believe that's how it is.

They are wary of covenant theology because of its ability to reintroduce law and conditionality. They would rather live with paradoxical tensions. The Reformed tradition has worked out the tensions and used the federal theology to do so. The FV challenged some of the well defined fields of Reformed theology.

 

[jwright82]

They are wary of covenant theology because of its ability to reintroduce law and conditionality. They would rather live with paradoxical tensions. The Reformed tradition has worked out the tensions and used the federal theology to do so. The FV challenged some of the well defined fields of Reformed theology.

Good point I wonder if it's not deeper than that.

 

[MW]

Good point I wonder if it's not deeper than that.

It surely is. Prolegomena comes before theology in writing, but it follows it in formulation. There are a whole range of theological issues that have an internal connection and structure, and the tradition eventually formulates it so as to give common ground. But I think we have at least seen what is going on at surface level.