What is wrong with the FV and what is the difference between it and Lutheranism

[Rufus]

I understand that the Federal Vision is primarily wrong because it adds baptism and the Lords Supper in salvation (I'm correct on this analysis right?), can somebody explain more on this? And what is the difference between it and the way Lutherans view the Lords Supper and Baptism?

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

My very basic understanding was that there is primarily an issue of conditional v. unconditional election with the FV. However, I may have totally misunderstood.

 

[py3ak]

Here are some quotes from past discussions.

T.E. Wilder:

It is probably worth mentioning that there is a similarity and a contrast to Arminianism here.

The Federal Vision, at least in some exponents, is a covenant start and stop scheme. You break it, you renew it, you break it, you renew it....

Arminianism is a start stop scheme on top of a covenant replacement scheme. First there is a covenant replacment where Christ purchases for us an easier covenant. (And again I need to digress to point out that there are various covenant replacement schemes. The 17th century English moralists held to a replacment scheme where the replacement covenant required a lot of holy living but was still doable.) For the Arminians the replacement covenant comes down to there being only one condition, namely faith. That is all that is asked of you in the easier covenant Christ secured. But you do have to have the faith, and you can lose your faith and lose your salvation.

So for the Arminian the replacement covenant has to be reinitiated if you lose your faith, and then believe again. So the replacment covenant is start-stop.

This to an extent accounts for why the FV can sound like Arminians, as they are both start stoppers, but it is not the same covenant. For the Arminians the old covenant is gone and we are under the New Testament one. For the FV it is the same old covenant that is still going.

There are a lot of practical and psychological difficulties for start-stop schemes. How far do you have to go to break it? The English moralists held that only overt sins counted, not what was only some impulse of the heart. The Federal Visionaries distinguish between high-handed sins and ordinary sins. The RCs distinguish moral and venal sins. All these devices to deal with the problems of start-stop tend to diminish the actual, real nature of indwelling sin that keeps asserting itself.

But if the distinction in types of sin were not made, they could never get the covenant keeping phase going. A recognition of the reality of sin precludes start-stop schemes.

Here is a discussion that shows that there are issues with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Note especially posts 12, 16, and 18.

T.E. Wilder, again, has some very illuminating comments on the center and approach of FV theology here.

And finally, for now anyway, here are some good words from T.E. Wilder about the growth of error.

 

[jwright82]

I would say, and I am no expert on either topic, that they reach some of the same conclusions for different reasons. On the sacraments they both agree that every recipient of the sacrament receives the benefits of the sacrament, either to their own benefit or not. That is if I take the Lord's Supper as a non-christian than I eat and drink judgment on myself because I received the body and blood of Christ. The Reformed view says that only the elect who have been regenerated by God spiritually receive these benefits. So if an unbeleiver takes the Lord's Supper he or she receives no benefits but does receive judgment instead.

Where FV and Lutheranism disagree, possibly, is over whether or not the body and blood of Christ is physically received in the Lord's Supper, which is the Lutheran view. I do not know what FV's opinion in general would be on that one. They also disagree on how they come to these same conclusions. For FV it is their warped views on the covenant and for Luther (and Lutherans) it was his theology of the word of God.

They also both somewhat agree on apostasy. For them both a real christian can lose their salvation and leave the faith but if they are truly elect, and FV would make distinctions on different types of election, they will return to the faith and be saved. For Lutherans this is, it seems to me, because of their inability to handle the biblical evidence on election (not to mention Luther's personal opinion that it denied true comfort to beleivers) and their view on the law/gospel distinction. They choose to see election as withen the sphere of God's wisdom and counsel that we cannot comprehend. For FV it is again their warped views on the covenant.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Here is a short piece that I wrote on FV: New Horizons.

I have longer pieces but this might serve as a good introduction and it cites the OPC report on this (of which I was an author). Here is the OPC report: http://www.opc.org/GA/JustificationBook.pdf.

And here is a related article, one on justification, in which I mention the New Perspective on Paul: New Horizons.

My colleague Dr. Cornel Venema has written extensively on the New Perspective on Paul if that is also of interest. And finally, here is a testimony concerning such doctrinal errors, adopted almost five years ago by Mid-America Reformed Seminary: http://www.midamerica.edu/pubs/errors.pdf.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Rufus]

I would say, and I am no expert on either topic, that they reach some of the same conclusions for different reasons. On the sacraments they both agree that every recipient of the sacrament receives the benefits of the sacrament, either to their own benefit or not. That is if I take the Lord's Supper as a non-christian than I eat and drink judgment on myself because I received the body and blood of Christ. The Reformed view says that only the elect who have been regenerated by God spiritually receive these benefits. So if an unbeleiver takes the Lord's Supper he or she receives no benefits but does receive judgment instead.

Where FV and Lutheranism disagree, possibly, is over whether or not the body and blood of Christ is physically received in the Lord's Supper, which is the Lutheran view. I do not know what FV's opinion in general would be on that one. They also disagree on how they come to these same conclusions. For FV it is their warped views on the covenant and for Luther (and Lutherans) it was his theology of the word of God.

They also both somewhat agree on apostasy. For them both a real christian can lose their salvation and leave the faith but if they are truly elect, and FV would make distinctions on different types of election, they will return to the faith and be saved. For Lutherans this is, it seems to me, because of their inability to handle the biblical evidence on election (not to mention Luther's personal opinion that it denied true comfort to beleivers) and their view on the law/gospel distinction. They choose to see election as withen the sphere of God's wisdom and counsel that we cannot comprehend. For FV it is again their warped views on the covenant.

I was thinking more in terms of the relation of baptism and the Lord's Supper in relation to salvation, obviously Lutherans will not deny justification by faith alone but baptism is a big part of it for them. I might contact a Lutheran if I need too (for clarification).

 

[Scott1]

One of the ways for a layman or someone new to this is to look at the PCA study report declarations and "work backwards," to see the combination of errors that are being refuted.

Keep in mind 'federal vision' is really an offshoot of the earlier 'new perspectives,' and that it is not monolithic, i.e. some are teaching only one (of the nine) serious error doctrine, others several of them, some all of them. The descriptor is just that, to help categorize the errors, in part or in whole.

Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
Study Committee

'Federal Vision'


IV. Declarations
2
3 In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful
4 study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:
5
6 1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the
7 Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology,
8 but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
9
10 2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church;
11 and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this
12 individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the
13 Westminster Standards.
14
15 3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience
16 and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the
17 Westminster Standards.
18
19 4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the
20 claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the
21 Westminster Standards.
22
23 5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all
24 of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to
25 the Westminster Standards.
26
27 6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which
28 each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including
29 regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological
30 system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the
31 Westminster Standards.
32
33 7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s
34 mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster
35 Standards.
36
37 8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as
38 regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the
39 Westminster Standards.
40
41 9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final
42 verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and
43 satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster
44 Standards.

 

[jwright82]

I was thinking more in terms of the relation of baptism and the Lord's Supper in relation to salvation, obviously Lutherans will not deny justification by faith alone but baptism is a big part of it for them. I might contact a Lutheran if I need too (for clarification).

Than the only agreement would be baptismal regeneration. Both parties endorse it, again I would say that they arive there from different theologies. As far as the Lord's Supper, again what I said before covers this. I am not aware of any connection per se between the Lord's Supper and salvation. But this post is hardly fair to either Lutheran's or (yes I'll say it) FV on baptism. It gets a little more complicated than that, I think they are both wrong but it is a complicted error.

 

[J. Dean]

So is the Federal Vision a core heresy, or is it a significant (but not damning) error?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Here are some articles that Dr. Clark wrote:

Westminster Seminary California

Westminster Seminary California

Westminster Seminary California

 

[J. Dean]

Here are some articles that Dr. Clark wrote:

Westminster Seminary California

Westminster Seminary California

Westminster Seminary California

I just read through the "For those just tuning in" link (Thank you, Rich!). Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but this looks like semi-Pelagianism, plain and simple. Anybody taking faith to mean "Faith + works" is undermining Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al. Looks like a step back to Rome.

How can this NOT be denounced as a core error?

 

[Romans922]

Isn't the core problem which leads to all the other problems is that they do away with the Cov. of Works? Then justification becomes sanctification; so perseverance of the saints is gone, invisible church distinction is gone, visible is all there is so salvation is based largely on baptism and Lord's Supper and staying in the church; and saving benefits are applied to those who are not 'finally' saved.

 

[J. Dean]

It's works righteousness/legalism on the installment plan. It changes the definition of grace and faith, and in so doing changes the essence of the gospel itself.