A Working Federal Vision Summary from a 1689er
Posted 01-31-2008 at 02:03 PM by PuritanCovenanter
A Working Federal Vision Summary from a 1689er
I started working on a very small summary of the Federal Vison from my perspective. It is piece mealed together somewhat but here it is.
The main problem with the Federal Vision teaching for me is the distortion concerning the efficacy of the sacraments and soteriology. (ie. the covenants, baptism, and the Lord’s Table.) Not all FV people hold to the same view of sola fide. Some distort the view of sola fide but most problematic to me is that most of them deny some form or part of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or they redefine it. To say it another way, the Federal Vision seems to redefine the view that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works which Adam failed to fulfill. They want to make the Covenant between Adam and God one of Grace and therefore a covenant that Adam became apostate from. The Federal Visionist makes it easier to teach a Covenant member can fall from grace and become apostate. By doing this the Federal Vision proponents also make the Covenant of Grace a covenant that the New Covenant member can become apostate from. Thus the distorted teaching of efficacy in the sacraments and salvation. In the FV view, Baptism is salvific by bringing covenant children or any new Church member into the Covenant of Grace from which they can apostasize from. They make a running theme of Covenant cursing and blessing from Adam to the Apocalypse. The Federal Vision is more focused on Pastoral ministry through the means of grace in the sacraments and how the sacraments are effectual. The Theological implications are not discovered as easily as I have set them out here. I have read books and had many discussions on this topic trying to discover the roots of their theological understanding.
Hope I am making sense….
Here is what Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.
Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15
Here is what Dr. R. Scott Clark replied to me concernning my question about the Covenant of Works and the Federal Vision's (Steve Wilkin's) understanding of the prelapsarian view.
The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.
Works refers to the terms.
Life refers to the goal.
Nature refers to the setting.
It's not that complicated.
Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.
To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.
Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. (The truth is, Adam) He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.
Bible Presbyterian Church http://www.bpc.org/synod/2006/070_02.html
Presbyterian Church of America http://pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly...%205-11-07.pdf
Mid America Reformed Seminary http://www.midamerica.edu/pubs/errors.pdf
Orthodox Presbyerian Church Report http://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
Westminster Seminary California Statement http://69.59.173.95/faculty/wscwritings/testimonyjustification.php
I started working on a very small summary of the Federal Vison from my perspective. It is piece mealed together somewhat but here it is.
The main problem with the Federal Vision teaching for me is the distortion concerning the efficacy of the sacraments and soteriology. (ie. the covenants, baptism, and the Lord’s Table.) Not all FV people hold to the same view of sola fide. Some distort the view of sola fide but most problematic to me is that most of them deny some form or part of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or they redefine it. To say it another way, the Federal Vision seems to redefine the view that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works which Adam failed to fulfill. They want to make the Covenant between Adam and God one of Grace and therefore a covenant that Adam became apostate from. The Federal Visionist makes it easier to teach a Covenant member can fall from grace and become apostate. By doing this the Federal Vision proponents also make the Covenant of Grace a covenant that the New Covenant member can become apostate from. Thus the distorted teaching of efficacy in the sacraments and salvation. In the FV view, Baptism is salvific by bringing covenant children or any new Church member into the Covenant of Grace from which they can apostasize from. They make a running theme of Covenant cursing and blessing from Adam to the Apocalypse. The Federal Vision is more focused on Pastoral ministry through the means of grace in the sacraments and how the sacraments are effectual. The Theological implications are not discovered as easily as I have set them out here. I have read books and had many discussions on this topic trying to discover the roots of their theological understanding.
Hope I am making sense….
Here is what Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.
Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15
Here is what Dr. R. Scott Clark replied to me concernning my question about the Covenant of Works and the Federal Vision's (Steve Wilkin's) understanding of the prelapsarian view.
The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.
Works refers to the terms.
Life refers to the goal.
Nature refers to the setting.
It's not that complicated.
Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.
To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.
Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. (The truth is, Adam) He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.
Bible Presbyterian Church http://www.bpc.org/synod/2006/070_02.html
Presbyterian Church of America http://pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly...%205-11-07.pdf
Mid America Reformed Seminary http://www.midamerica.edu/pubs/errors.pdf
Orthodox Presbyerian Church Report http://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
Westminster Seminary California Statement http://69.59.173.95/faculty/wscwritings/testimonyjustification.php
Recent Blog Entries by PuritanCovenanter
- Circumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. Pink (06-26-2008)
- The Second Commandment and Pictures of Christ (06-15-2008)
- John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 (04-03-2008)
- Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? (02-01-2008)
- Post Christian, Post Modern Era? (01-31-2008)
