RCUS on the Federal Vision

dannyhyde · #1 (**permalink**) 05-24-2007, 03:40 PM

As a member of the URCNA's Committee on Ecumenical Relations and Church Unity, I just received from another committee member who represented us at the Synod of the Reformed Church in the U.S. the result of their study on the Federal Vision.

If you do not know, the RCUS finds its roots in the German Reformed Church in the United States that merged with the Evangelical Synod of North America in 1934. One classis, the Eureka Classis, declined to participate in the merger with its confessional compromise, and continues to this day as the Reformed Church in the United States. The RCUS counted 3,940 members in 49 congregations this year.

Here is the conclusion to the RCUS' report:

CONCLUSION
We believe this report as a whole leads us to no other conclusion than that the teachings of the Federal Vision herein reviewed and critiqued seriously undermine the testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and are substantially at odds with the Christian gospel. In particular we believe they promote serious error and represent a deviation from the teachings and doctrines of Scripture and the Reformed confessions and are another gospel in the following three areas:

1. In as far as proponents of Federal Vision so define baptism as to make it a saving ordinance that unites us to all the benefits of Christ, without distinguishing between those who have the inward washing of the Spirit and those who do not, we reject the errors of the Federal Vision. We affirm that while baptism is a sign of God’s saving work, the external sign should not be confused with its internal reality (Col. 2:11; Eph. 5:26; 1 John 1:7; 1 Cor. 6:11; B.C. Art. 34, H.C. Q.72-73).

2. In as far as proponents of Federal Vision teach that all those who are baptized bear the same relation to the covenant, without making a distinction between mere ecclesiastical membership and a vital union with Christ through faith in him alone, and that those in union with Christ can lose their position in Christ, we reject the errors of the Federal Vision. We affirm that those who are vitally joined to Christ by a living faith not only shall never be lost, but also can be certain they have been predestined to eternal glory, even though our faith is often weak and we continue to sin. All the regenerate in covenant with God, on account of the redemptive work of Christ effectually applied by the Spirit of God, receive the gift of perseverance (Jer. 32:40; John 10:28-29; Rom. 8:29-39; B.C. Art. 24; Canons of Dordt. V, 1-15).

3. In as far as proponents of Federal Vision teach that justification by faith is not a one time in history declaration of God by which we are accounted righteous solely on the basis of the imputation of Christ's merits which is received by faith alone, but that our justification is contingent upon our continued covenant faithfulness, we reject the errors of the Federal Vision. We affirm that justification is in no way based upon what we do, else there would be no hope that any would stand (Ps. 115:1; Rom. 3:20, 24-28; 4:2-5; 8:33; 10:3-4; 1 Cor. 4:7; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:16, Heb. 7:19; BC. Art. 22-23; HC. Q.62-64).

Concerning the above the following three motions were adopted by the synod:

1. That the conclusion of this report be adopted as our denomination’s position on the aberrant view of justification as promoted by men of the Federal Vision. Adopted.

2. That pastors and elders warn the members of their congregations about which men promote the Federal Vision and how the teachings of the Federal Vision are at odds with biblical teaching. Adopted.

3. That this report be sent to the denominations with which we are in fraternal relations as well as those which are members of NAPARC and the ICRC. Adopted.

Poimen · #2 (**permalink**) 05-24-2007, 03:43 PM

Thanks for the update. I imagine they will post this report on their website sometime in the near future.

Semper Fidelis · #3 (**permalink**) 05-24-2007, 06:39 PM

Thanks for sharing this. I appreciate its simplicity because it really captures the heart of the issue.

tewilder · #4 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Thanks for sharing this. I appreciate its simplicity because it really captures the heart of the issue.

But it doesn't. The heart of the issue is the covenant renewal ritual, in which an ongoing Levitical priesthood adds their priestly work to that of Christ by ascending to heaven every week and performing a covenant renewal so that the Covenant does not lapse.

Part of the reason that the FV theology can be so fluid, and why the exponents can back off their positions when under pressure, is that it is the ritual practice that matters, and the theology is only in service of the practice.

In a way analogous to how the Roman Catholic priesthood seeks to add to Christ's sacrifice by performing their own weekly sacrifice, the FV priests seek to add to Christ's work as high priest by adding their own priestly ritual and mediation to it every week.

This is the heart of the Federal Vision, and the real blasphemy, yet NONE of the committees of the various denominations has seen fit to even address it.

turmeric · #5 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tewilder

But it doesn't. The heart of the issue is the covenant renewal ritual, in which an ongoing Levitical priesthood adds their priestly work to that of Christ by ascending to heaven every week and performing a covenant renewal so that the Covenant does not lapse.

Have these people gone entirely mad?

Semper Fidelis · #6 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 09:10 AM

Perhaps you're right. I always thought the fundamental issue was replacing faith with Covenant membership as the instrument of union with Christ and ascribing benefits of that union to those who are not elect.

tewilder · #7 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Perhaps you're right. I always thought the fundamental issue was replacing faith with Covenant membership as the instrument of union with Christ and ascribing benefits of that union to those who are not elect.

Perhaps I should say "the heart of the theology". The center of FV theology is not the same as the center of Reformed theology. The result is that the FV is analyzed by Reformed people as though the centers were the same, ignoring the points that wouldn't normally occur to a Reformed person rehearsing the vital points of theology.

Gryphonette · #8 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tewilder

Perhaps I should say "the heart of the theology". The center of FV theology is not the same as the center of Reformed theology. The result is that the FV is analyzed by Reformed people as though the centers were the same, ignoring the points that wouldn't normally occur to a Reformed person rehearsing the vital points of theology.

What's strange is that Reformed theology is - WRT people, in any case - centered around those whom Christ came to save so as to be with Him in glory, whereas the FV tends to put a fair amount of emphasis on the "covenantal reprobate", to coin a phrase.

And an odd emphasis it is, too.

tewilder · #9 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

What's strange is that Reformed theology is - WRT people, in any case - centered around those whom Christ came to save so as to be with Him in glory, whereas the FV tends to put a fair amount of emphasis on the "covenantal reprobate", to coin a phrase.

And an odd emphasis it is, too.

It's one of those FV contradictions. On the one hand, the FV claims it solves the problem of assurance. They claim that there is this big problem of assurance, with "morbidly introspective" people doubting their salvation. I always ran into that among Arminians, never in a Calvinist, but I supposed experience varies.

On the other hand, the FV people want to grab hold of the man in the pew with all those admonitions about how you have to remain faithful and not fall away, which they say refers to those who are really united to Christ, but could lose it, just in case they don't have that undetectable grace of perserverance. So that have to attack assurance and take it away! This is so that people can be scolded and told not to be so sinful.

But even this does not get them anywhere, as you can only fall away if you lack that special grace of perserverance (while possessing all the others) and if you don't have the special grace of perserverance you will inevitably fall away anyhow. So at the end of the analysis, no improvement has been made over the doctrine of decretal election that the FV people find so unpastoral.

Gryphonette · #10 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 11:07 AM

Your assessment of the FV "assurance" from a traditional Reformed perspective is spot on. It gives with one hand what it takes away with another.

Here, however, is what I think is the FV rationale for increased assurance, so as to soothe the fears and worries of the "morbid introspection" people.

If I've goofed up, I'm confidant I'll be alerted to this at Greenbaggins or the like. ;^)

Just as, in the FV dictionary, there are varying types or levels of justification, election, sanctification, etc. the same applies to "holy" and "righteous" when applied to us.

When the traditional Reformed speak of the demand in God's Word that we "be holy", the assumption is the LORD meant be by-jingoed HOLY, just like He is.

IOW, very holy. Perfectly holy. Impeccably holy. Ditto with "righteousness". This is what drove Luther up a tree, of course...his strong, vibrant awareness he wasn't ever, at his best moment, even within shouting distance of such a standard. He had no peace until he realized precisely how a just God justifies the unjust, that is, through the imputation of Christ's perfect holiness and righteousness to His people.

To the FV, this is not how Christians are expected to be holy and righteous. We obviously cannot meet such an implacable, unforgiving standard, so "being holy/righteous" is viewed as being essentially the same as "walking with the LORD" in the OT. Now, lots of OT saints were said to have "walked with the LORD" while still clearly being very imperfect indeed.

So. In the FV economy, what's needful is to be in the covenant (via baptism), never actively reject or repudiate Christ, stay connected to the Church, and generally move forward, spiritually speaking. As far as works go, this is a pretty darn low bar, easy to step over. As long as we meet this not-especially-demanding standard, we're okay.

Mind, this possesses a powerful allure, as I've more than one family member about whom I could rest easy in my mind, were this to be accurate. They've been baptized, never actively rejected Christ, and in fact do a fair amount of good works. In the FV schematic they should be alright. Maybe in the cheap seats in heaven, but still....alright.

I'd love it to be so! Were the LORD to ask my opinion, I'm all in favor.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's what Scripture teaches. I think we must worship the Christ who is, not a Christ of our own devising, and the "Jesus Christ" worshiped by my relatives bears no resemblance to the Christ of the Bible. Heck, they don't even own bibles, considering it to be outdated and without much relevance to modern times and our "increased" understanding of God.

But they WERE baptized, and they have never actively repudiated Christ, and at least one of them regularly attends a ECUSA (and thinks the new prez, Schori, is just fine, thankyouverymuch, and the crabby conservatives should get off her back) church, and are very, very kind people.

I can't think how an FV'er could do aught but assure me those relatives are saved.

Sadly, I'm not as sanguine.

Anyway, unless I've misunderstood them (moi? Misunderstand the FV? May it never be!), this is how the "morbidly introspective" are reassured....were you baptized? Yes? Are you connected to the Church? Yes? Have you rejected Christ? No?

Then you're all set. Just keep doing what you're doing.

It's certainly a comforting theory.

tewilder · #11 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

So. In the FV economy, what's needful is to be in the covenant (via baptism), never actively reject or repudiate Christ, stay connected to the Church, and generally move forward, spiritually speaking. As far as works go, this is a pretty darn low bar, easy to step over. As long as we meet this not-especially-demanding standard, we're okay.

It is important to be plugged into the ritual system. The weekly covenant renewal, especially. To the FV, if you don't approach God via physical, bodily doings and takings, then you are a gnostic.

Poimen · #12 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tewilder

But even this does not get them anywhere, as you can only fall away if you lack that special grace of perserverance (while possessing all the others) and if you don't have the special grace of perserverance you will inevitably fall away anyhow. So at the end of the analysis, no improvement has been made over the doctrine of decretal election that the FV people find so unpastoral.

Exactly. So what do you end up with in order to find absolute assurance? The very 'problem' that they started with: eternal election.

dannyhyde · #13 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tewilder

It is important to be plugged into the ritual system. The weekly covenant renewal, especially.

T.E.,

I appreciate your perception into what is happening in FV circles. For those of us who grew up Roman Catholic, we can see the trajectory of these men as I believe they will end up moving towards Anglo-Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yet, the term and idea of covenant renewal itself is not the issue, it is what they have imputed to it. Even before the FVists were touting "covenant renewal" worship, my professors in seminary used this language (Joey Pipa, Bob Godfrey, Mike Horton). In Reformed worship, with our emphasis on preaching to create faith and the sacraments to confirm that faith (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 65), God comes to us through these means of words, water, bread, and wine to renew his covenant with us, while we respond in renewing our covenant with him in repentance and faith. This is why Calvin spoke of the Supper as a mutual and reciprocal pledge of the covenant.

Anyways, this baby should not be thrown out with the bath water.

tewilder · #14 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

T.E.,

I appreciate your perception into what is happening in FV circles. For those of us who grew up Roman Catholic, we can see the trajectory of these men as I believe they will end up moving towards Anglo-Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yet, the term and idea of covenant renewal itself is not the issue, it is what they have imputed to it. Even before the FVists were touting "covenant renewal" worship, my professors in seminary used this language (Joey Pipa, Bob Godfrey, Mike Horton). In Reformed worship, with our emphasis on preaching to create faith and the sacraments to confirm that faith (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 65), God comes to us through these means of words, water, bread, and wine to renew his covenant with us, while we respond in renewing our covenant with him in repentance and faith. This is why Calvin spoke of the Supper as a mutual and reciprocal pledge of the covenant.

Anyways, this baby should not be thrown out with the bath water.

What the FV has is a whole theology of ritual. The Trinity is seen as a perpetual mutual sacrifice (an "insight" of Meyers back in the 1990s). Man, made in the image of God, is thus creationally a sacrificer, homo sacrificans. The FV goes back to the Old Testament looking for creational symbolism in terms of which to interpret ritual, sacraments, etc. It was Liethart who proposed a program of interpreting the sacraments in terms of the priority of this symbolism. These are seen as more basic than the Fall and Redemption cycle. Therefore the levitical priesthood that oversees and performs ritual becomes liberated from obsolescence as a shadow of a future redemptive work, and becomes an ongoing necessity of our relation to God.

For this ritual symbolism, the FV turns to Meredith Kline, with improvements by Jordan, Meyers and Leithart.

Taken piece by piece, the Federal Vision is not all that new.

John Murray attacked the covenant of works language, the visible/invisible church distinction, absolute decretalism (with his well meant offer ideas), etc.

Cornelius Van Til put forward Arminian exegesis to promote paradox in theology (read Hoeksema's critique of this), irrationality in theology (used to justify holding "objective covenant" ideas by Canadian Reformed people long before the FV), employed the used of terminology in a personal, undisclosed sense in church controversies, and advocated the identity of faith and works in his defense of Norman Shepherd.

Meredith Kline provided the symbolic theology that underlies the FV, along with the example of successful and admired speculation and recklessness in theology.

These are the three drunken uncles of American Reformed theology. We are not going to get away from the FV and other things like it--that will come along later--unless the churches and seminaries repudiate the American "contributions" to Reformed theology, especially the aberrations of the 20th century. I would be especially cautious of anything coming from the Three Drunken Uncles seminary of Escondido, CA. The FV did not have too much extra to do beyond taking the ideas of those guys and rearranging them into a new system.

dannyhyde · #15 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tewilder

I would be especially cautious of anything coming from the Three Drunken Uncles seminary of Escondido, CA. The FV did not have too much extra to do beyond taking the ideas of those guys and rearranging them into a new system.

Heidelberg Catechism
105. What does God require in the sixth Commandment?
That I do not revile...insult...my neighbor either in thought, word...

107. But is this all that is required: that we do not kill our neighbor?
No...God requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and kindness toward him, and to prevent his hurt as much as possible...

112. What does the ninth Commandment require?
That I...be no backbiter or slanderer, join in condemning no one unheard or rashly; and that in matters of judgment and justice and in all other affairs, I love, speak honestly, and confess the truth; also, insofar as I can, defend and promote my neighbor’s good name.

Bro. Wilder,

Unless you are willing to retract your slander of Westminster Seminary California's professors as "Three Drunken Uncles," refrain from using that slanderous language, and to repent and apologize, I see no need to interact with you.

Blessings.

nominalist747 · #16 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 05:03 PM

I see the PB is still its old, fair, charitable self. But I would like to say that, as a WSC grad, I found a great deal of what I read in some of the FV writers congenial, specifically because of what I was taught at WSC! For example, it was fortunate that I had the date on my first theological paper (Fall 2000), because it read almost exactly like Wilson's chapter on the Supper in "Reformed" is Not Enough (from Fall of 2002). And Horton's take on my "Wilsonite" position? A serious call into his office to discuss my latent heterodoxy? Nope: an A, and a suggestion that I look at Kline's work on baptism for a similar perspective. So, Wilder is right, WSC is similar at some points to the FV--but of course I approve of both, and of the three men Wilder mentions.

Theoretical · #17 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nominalist747

I see the PB is still its old, fair, charitable self. But I would like to say that, as a WSC grad, I found a great deal of what I read in some of the FV writers congenial, specifically because of what I was taught at WSC! For example, it was fortunate that I had the date on my first theological paper (Fall 2000), because it read almost exactly like Wilson's chapter on the Supper in "Reformed" is Not Enough (from Fall of 2002). And Horton's take on my "Wilsonite" position? A serious call into his office to discuss my latent heterodoxy? Nope: an A, and a suggestion that I look at Kline's work on baptism for a similar perspective. So, Wilder is right, WSC is similar at some points to the FV--but of course I approve of both, and of the three men Wilder mentions [my emphasis].

Umm...

Quote:

Requirements for Membership

3. Federal Vision. The Puritan Board forbids the the membership of "Federal Vision" proponents on this board. The RPCGA has ruled the Federal Vision to be heretical position propagating the academic deviancy of the New Perspectives on Paul in a pastoral setting. Those who are proponents of this doctrine should refrain from registering and any members who embrace this doctrine should have the integrity to forfeit their membership privileges. Members who violate this rule will be suspended or banned.

nominalist747 · #18 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 06:23 PM

Very well, then. I applied for membership back in October--is this a recent requirement? Please go ahead and terminate my membership in this forum.

Theoretical · #19 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 06:36 PM

It's been in as long as I've been here (May '06), and was in place before that time, plus there have been several recent controversies where it was reiterated.

Poimen · #20 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nominalist747

I see the PB is still its old, fair, charitable self. But I would like to say that, as a WSC grad, I found a great deal of what I read in some of the FV writers congenial, specifically because of what I was taught at WSC! For example, it was fortunate that I had the date on my first theological paper (Fall 2000), because it read almost exactly like Wilson's chapter on the Supper in "Reformed" is Not Enough (from Fall of 2002). And Horton's take on my "Wilsonite" position? A serious call into his office to discuss my latent heterodoxy? Nope: an A, and a suggestion that I look at Kline's work on baptism for a similar perspective. So, Wilder is right, WSC is similar at some points to the FV--but of course I approve of both, and of the three men Wilder mentions.

Yes the better critics of the FV find some aspects of their theology helpful (or at least their concerns about the present state of evangelicalism in North America). For example in the Auburn Avenue Theology book Pipa notes: “I agree with him (ed. Wilkins) on the importance of the covenant and the church’s relative misunderstanding of covenant theology.” (page 270) Other such quotations could be multipled.

However, as the discussion has developed, or even as it was expounded in the book, the trajectory of the FV movement is all wrong and will lead men back to Rome slowly but surely. As others have pointed out, those who don't will most certainly remain inconsistent in their theology.