Chad,
two things.
1. The quote below belongs to Rich, not me.
2. I'm sorry that, being new to the discussion, you received some pointed replies. I've been at this (arguing with and about the Federal Vision) since 1999 and the FV boys play this game frequently: take some quotations out of context and say, "See, you disagree with Calvin!" or whatever.
That's why you weren't given the benefit of the doubt.
I've been asked before about the relations between Lutherans and Reformed and why am I "soft" on the Lutherans but so critical of the FV, especially when the FV has such a "Lutheran" view of baptismal union with Christ/baptismal regeneration?
Yes, there are real similarities between the Lutherans and the Reformed, particularly on justification. If you'll read the pamphlet I linked above, you'll see that I deal with the relations between the Lutherans and the Reformed on baptism. There are similarities and genuine differences.
Lutheran orthodoxy abandoned Luther on certain key issues. LO was much clearer on baptism than Luther, so that where Reformed folk could agree with L's small catechism on baptism that agreement was impossible with the Book of Concord.
The Lutherans do have a view of baptism that is similar to the FV, but there are real differences. The Lutheran view of baptism comes in the context of an unequivocal doctrine of depravity and grace (e.g., the LCMS view is quite "Calvinist" in certain respects) and an unequivocal doctrine of justification and clear distinction between law and gospel. All of which is missing from the FV.
Yes, in the Reformed view, the Lutherans go off the rails when they teach that we can resist grace. The Lutherans were wrong to support Arminius. Their view is just rationalist, which is ironic. They think they can save God from being the author of evil by their doctrine of reprobation. Seems to me that Lutherans ought to rejoice in the paradox of divine sovereignty, including reprobation, and our stout denial that God is not morally liable for sin and evil. How can that be? Ask God. That's more Luther that the Lutherans!
Is baptism efficacious? Yes, for the elect. This is the part that some Lutherans and all Federal Visionists ignore. I have a forthcoming essay on Calvin's doctrine of predestination (in a handbook on the Institutes) that works through some of these issues.
Yes, many modern Reformed folk have been more Zwinglian than Calvinist. No question about that, but denying baptismal regeneration does not make one Zwinglian.
I can't repeat all the material from the sources linked about, but the effect of your post is to ask us to re-hash 8-9 years of discussion all over again.
Here are some additional resources:
Westminster Seminary California clark Westminster Seminary California clark Westminster Seminary California clark
rsc