Reply to the Joint FV Profession — Introduction

I have decided to write a reply to the Joint Federal Vision Profession. This is a summary of Federal Vision beliefs signed by the most prominent proponents of this Federal Vision theology, including PCA Pastors Jeff Meyers and Peter Leithart.

In this reply I want to both address the concerns of the Federal Vision and point out where and how I believe that this profession is contrary to Scripture. As with nearly all heresies, there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. I hope to address those in this series.

Now, some may wonder why I am doing this. Why worry about the Federal Vision? There are two reasons. First, I think the Federal Vision is a serious departure from the Biblical faith and Gospel. It introduces a sacramentalist system along the lines of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The result is described well by our General Assembly’s FV Report:

The Committee views the FV position as ultimately leading to presumption or despair, not assurance. At the heart of their belief is the view that water baptism serves as the means for uniting each participant to Jesus; those baptized receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation except final perseverance. Our concern is that some of those who are baptized will simply presume on God’s grace, “continuing in the covenant” without “apostatizing” but also without justifying faith (cf. Matthew 22:1–14); others will be driven to despair, working for a salvation out of “covenant faithfulness” instead of resting and receiving Jesus alone for their salvation.

The FV represents a completely different doctrinal system contrary to the Biblical system of doctrine summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Many people thought that we were done with the FV when the committee of the General Assembly reported condemning the Federal Vision theology. Many other denominations joined with the PCA in condemning the FV errors. Many thought that this was enough.

It is not enough. The Federal Vision theology is alive and well and entrenched on Planet PCA. It is clear to me that this problem will only be dealt with when those who love the truth stand up, act like men, and literally remove the men who are teaching these errors from the PCA. Evangelicals have loved to make statements throughout the past 150 years, but they have hated the idea of actually kicking anyone out.

The Apostle Paul is clear on what happens when we tolerate such awful errors. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). “Their message will spread like cancer” (2 Tim. 2:17).

But we don’t believe this can happen in the PCA. I have heard several prominent leaders in the PCA speak as if the battle for Biblical orthodoxy is over in the PCA. They have spoken as if these are not great problems for us.

But every denomination in the 20th century had to deal with liberalism, sacramentlism, feminism, and many other problems. Most of them failed. What makes us think that we are immune to these things? What gives us such great confidence that we will stand?

Now, I would like to give a few anecdotes to demonstrate that FV is alive and well on Planet PCA.

  1. I would point to my own Presbytery. We have been dealing with Federal Vision issues for over four years now.
  2. There is the Peter Leithart case in Pacific Northwest Presbytery. After the GA FV Report, Peter Leithart reported his views to the Presbytery, and the Presbytery, led by TE Rob Rayburn of Tacoma, Washington, stated that his views were acceptable. A series of appeals followed. This finally resulted in a panel of the SJC declaring that there was a strong presumption of guilt. However, TE Leithart is still in the PCA and another round of appeals and complaints is sure to follow.
  3. Then, there is the case of Jeffrey Meyers. Jeffrey Myers is an open Federal Vision advocate. He signed the Joint Federal Vision Profession that we are going to consider on these pages. TE Meyers has a unique place of influence. He is a Pastor in St. Louis, and he is very active in reaching out to seminary students from Covenant Seminary. You can see in this post on his Church’s web site that he holds retreats for seminary students. From his point of view, I think this is very wise. That’s what I would do if I was in his place. However, since I consider the FV to be an aberrant theology, I am alarmed. TE Meyers is on record as having said that he believes that our whole system of doctrines needs to be revised:

    I do think the latest scholarly work in biblical theology demands that we go back and redo a great deal of the Westminster standards. They were written when people still thought of the covenant as a contract and believed that “merit” had some role to play in our covenantal relations with God. The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go. And if that goes, the whole ‘system’ must be reworked.

  4. TE John Piper has done many good things for the evangelical world. I have appreciated his stand on many points. However, he has done incalculable damage by asking Doug Wilson to speak at his Pastor’s conference and then digging in his heels when he was called out on it.

    To give an example of the problems that this creates, I was speaking with a Calvinistic Baptist friend the other day. He brought up John Piper. I said that I was disappointed about him inviting Doug Wilson to his conference. He said, “Well, John Piper says that Doug Wilson is orthodox.” And that was the end of that. Never mind that all sorts of other Reformed theologians have condemned him as heterodox, including entire denominations. (By the way, check out a good critique of Wilson here).

  5. Many in the PCA like N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul. They might not be specifically linked to the Federal Vision, but they are promoting similar tendencies through the advocacy of the New Perspective. Interestingly, the so-called flagship of the PCA, Redeemer PCA in NYC is having N.T. Wright come and speak at one of their conferences, as you can see here.
  6. No doubt there are many others who hold to FV or are generally sympathetic within the PCA. James Jordan, who should know, based on his secret Federal Vision email list called Biblical Horizons, said this:

    Some men remain in the PCA because God has told them they have a duty to help the 7000 who have not yet bowed the knee to antichrist. They hatred of the Kingship of Jesus, which characterizes so much of the PCA, is with fighting. The Reformed faith is that faith includes fiducia, and this is still worth fighting for, regardless of how many antinominian blogs hate it (All spelling errors in original).

What you will find, though, is that many who defended the FV in the past have gone silent. You won’t find many people besides Mark Horne openly defending the Federal Vision. The Federal Vision is not a badge that people want to wear in the PCA. So, what would you do if you were pro-FV? You would not defend it publicly. You would bide your time. Eventually, you can come back with the same views under a different name, and the debate will once again open up. (This has been done in the past. Shepherdism simply morphed into Federal Vision.) This time, however, you will be much better prepared to withstand the onslaught of your opponents.

It’s a good strategy, if you’re Federal Vision. If you think Federal Vision is a harmful and erroneous system of doctrine, you should be concerned. Once they have consolidated their position, they will not be in a mood to tolerate confessionalists. The sacramentalist system and the Gospel of justification by faith alone cannot co-exist in the same denomination. One or the other will have to give.

Tags: , , ,

16 comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Wow. This article brings greatly needed clarity to the grave threat that is truly presented by FV, and FV-ish doctrines. Nothing less than the true Gospel, once and for all delivered to the saints, is at stake – or rather, at least now there is a serious question of whether or not it will ultimately survive in our own "conservative" evangelical denomination. Most incredible.

    Please, please wake up!, PCA Elders, and especially those within the Presbyteries that need to deal decisively with these issues as they continue to fester inside of your own ranks.

    I plead with you, as a brother in Christ, either come out with – that is, publish for people such as myself to actually see and condider; and perhaps the comment section of this website is as good a place as any to at least begin doing so – some clear statements as to why you believe FV teachings like those that have specifically been identifed (quoted!) by TE White here, and by others elsewhere, are somehow tolerable, and not a real threat to the true Gospel; OR ELSE BY ALL MEANS ROOT THEM OUT.

    One side or the other here HAS to be in grave error. Surely those on both sides are familir with the issues involved. The case against FV has been compellingly made. Yet where are you, who would apparently take the other side? Stand up and make your case publicly known! I make this plea sincerely and in great seriousness. Am I being emotional about it? Certainly! How can I not be, when the truth and honor of my Lord and Saviour is at stake?

    Listen to how the Apostle Paul dealt with this sort of thing: "To them [those preaching 'a different gospel'; 1:6] we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." (Galatians 2:5) Thank God that he did so.

    To all the Elders in the PCA who thankfully will go and fight this same hard, most unpleasant, but obviously necessary battle as well: May you go with God, and may you endure to the end in His strength.

    "Please help us, gracious Heavenly Father, in this hour of great peril. Amen."

  2. Andrew B. says:

    Rev. Matthew Paul Buccheri who you link to saying his blog has gone silent, is and has been a minister at Redeemer NYC. He seems from his writing to support FV and NPP. Interesting to say the least.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Under Christian Orthodoxy and classical Reformed theology, Federal Vision isn't a problem. Wes, are you treating it like it's not Christian Orthodoxy?

  4. Wes White says:

    What classic Reformed theology are you talking about? You've been misinformed. FV is completely contrary to classic Reformed theology.

    I've demonstrated that in a hundred different ways on these pages, and I shall do so again.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I think the SJC panel erred in saying that Peter Leithart was within the bounds of the broader Reformed community, and that his only problem is that he is out of step with the Westminster Standards. He is not Reformed. At best he is Lutheran. At worst he's a closet papist.

  6. RubeRad says:

    I have also noticed the FV "going silent". I had previously just assumed that certain individuals had just gotten tired of fighting and being fought, and decided to keep their views to themselves. But now you make me wonder if there's a more concerted conspiracy to go underground, as it were.

  7. Wes White says:

    Last anonymous comment, I would agree with your statement.

  8. Wes White says:

    RubeRad,

    Why don't you send James Jordan a note and ask if you can get on the super-secret Biblical Horizons list? That would probably confirm what I am saying here.

    Wes

  9. RubeRad says:

    I don't think Jordan would let me into his secret club.

  10. Mark Thompson says:

    Hi Wes,

    Thanks for this. If it is of any interest (since I am both a foreigner [Australian] and an Anglican) I put four postings together on the Federal Vision a year or so ago. They are an attempt to outline aspects of the Federal Vision without caricature and then critique them on the basis of biblical teaching. See what you think at http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/search/label/Federal%20Vision

  11. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for your link Mark, you have done a better job in explaining the Federal Vision than this blog and that it's been part of Reformed Theologies history.

  12. Robin says:

    ly on, I thought all this groundwork was being laid simply to justify paedocommunion in the PCA. While I sympathize with proponents of paedocommunion, I am not willing to turn the Reformation on its head in order to justify it.

    But it seemed quickly to move from being simply some argument for paedocommunion into a call back to Rome or something. FV followers will flatly deny believing in "salvation by sacrament," accusing naysayers of "having a low view of the Church."

    If proponents of FV do indeed have a high view of the Church, why do they wish to amend or rewrite her judgements and confessions?

    The most disturbing thing about the debate to me was the use of familiar theological terms like "justification by faith," but changing the meaning of those terms without saying so. When they use terms like "saving faith" and "justification" in a sentence, they can make it sound completely orthodox – as long as their meaning of those terms remains hidden.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I take it mate that you don't like N.T. Wright? "Many in the PCA like N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul. "

  14. Wes White says:

    What makes you think that?

    You know the best thing about him is that he's a real gas, which makes him much easier to pass around a courtroom.

  15. Anonymous says:

    there is always something interesting on this blog

  16. [...] Entries1 Reply to the Joint FV Profession Reply to the Joint FV Profession, Part 2 Reply to the Joint FV Profession, Part 3 Reply to the [...]

COMMENTS

Comments are welcome. However, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I reserve the right to reject any comment, especially those that —
  1. are rude or offensive in tone;
  2. do not stay on the topic;
  3. merely make assertions and do not offer argumentation.
If you leave an anonymous comment without a legitimate email address, expect me to delete it.