The Reformed soteriological system exists on the backdrop of the original relationship of God with man in creation. In this system, man was created righteous and in fellowship with God. In order to continue in life, gain eternal life, and be justified, he had to obey God perfectly. In addition, God chose to establish a covenant with Adam such that he would act in this way for himself and all his posterity.
The outcome of this original covenant was that man sinned against God and broke the covenant. He was condemned and with him the whole human race. Thus, all humanity is born in a state of sin and condemnation.
God, however, was pleased to make another covenant, the covenant of grace, wherein he would offer life and forgiveness freely on the basis of the obedience of a Mediator, the Son of God, who would assume a human nature and obey and suffer in the place of God’s elect. In addition, this covenant established in the Mediator would not only offer life but guarantee it for all whom the Son represented in that covenant, the elect.
Men and women would be saved when the Holy Spirit actually brought to them the preaching of the good news about the Savior, Jesus Christ, offering Him freely to sinners on the condition of faith and repentance. When that Gospel is preached to the elect, the Holy Spirit, in His own time, renews their hearts and minds so that they are willing to turn from their sin unto Christ for salvation and receive Him by faith. When this occurs, the elect receive a free justification and adoption. Then, they are sanctified, that is, made more and more able to die to sin and live unto righteousness. When this happens, they are not only united to Christ but also to His people. All who repent and believe the Gospel are part of the Church and will be forever. The Holy Spirit ensures that all those who have repented and believed and been justified will persevere in that faith, repentance, and justification and thereby attain eternal glory or glorification.
All those who are regenerate are part of the church and will be forever, but it is the Lord’s will that those who come to Christ for salvation should be gathered together under pastors and teachers for their mutual edification, encouragement, and instruction in the visible church. They are publicly welcomed into this community by receiving an outward seal and confirmation of God’s grace, baptism. God also includes the children of those who profess to repent and believe and promises that He also will work grace in their children in general.
The Reformed also recognize that this outward state can be imitated by those who appear to be sheep and believers but are not. They may also participate in the signs and even appear to themselves and others to participate in this salvation. However, in reality, they remain under condemnation and sin. They are never justified, forgiven of their sins, sanctified, or adopted. They remain children of the devil and sons of perdition. Even some of the elect may imitate the external state for a while before they are actually regenerated and justified.
Thus, there is the necessity of self-examination. Mere participation in the outward rites or some similarities to true believers cannot assure us that we have ever experienced the grace of God. Only when the true marks of grace are discerned can we be certain of our salvation and attain the joy and felicity that God has for believers.
The Federal Vision System
The Federal Visionists believe that God created Adam righteous and in a relationship (covenant) with God. Adam was righteous and justified by God by a living and obedient faith alone. God offered to man justification and eternal life and man would receive these gifts by the righteousness of obedient faith alone.
Man did not trust in God and thus did not obey. As a result, he fell out of covenant with God and lost his justification and right to eternal life. This affected all of Adam’s posterity so that they are all born in guilt and sin.
God sent His Son into the world to deal with the problem of the guilt of sin and the corruption of sin. By His death, Jesus pays for the guilt of sin and the Holy Spirit deals with the corruption of sin.
This forgiveness and new life is given in baptism. Baptism is the transition from death to life. The result is that all who are baptized experience at least some form of union with Christ, new life, adoption, and forgiveness.
For the eternally elect, baptism imparts an eternal forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, new life, and cleansing from sin. For the baptized reprobate, baptism imparts a temporary and lesser version of these benefits. Baptism does this by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The difference between the two is that some persevere in faith and repentance and others do not. Some continue in an obedient faith, living up to the grace shown them and thus are eternally justified. Others have only a temporary faith and thus lose the benefits obtained by baptism when they apostatize.
No one can tell the difference between these two benefits until someone actually falls away, since their chief difference is duration. Thus, there is no need for the baptized to examine themselves as to whether or not they actually possess those benefits. The question is only whether or not they will continue in them. Moreover, no one can know whether or not they are eternally elect until they get to heaven, since there is nothing in them by which they can distinguish themselves from the temporally elect.
Discovering the Ways in Which the Difference between These Two Systems is Obscured
The Federal Visionists will appropriate Confessional language that has been used to distinguish the Reformed system from other systems and use that language in a way consonant with their own system. However, it is often unclear that they are using these words in a different sense. The result is generally confusion and conflict.
This does not mean that we should suspect everyone of holding Federal Vision views who uses traditional language. Instead, when we hear things that sound like an affirmation of the Federal Vision system, we should not exonerate someone simply because they make use of the language that has traditionally been used to describe the Reformed system. Allow me to give a few examples.
- An “effectual call” is not wrought in all the baptized. The Reformed mean by a statement like this that not everyone who is baptized gets forgiveness of their sins and new life. Thus, the reprobate don’t get even a temporary salvation. The Federal Visionists use “effectual” in the sense of permanent. Thus, not everyone gets permanently saved by baptism.
- The reprobate get no saving benefits. The Reformed mean that the reprobate do not get justification, new life, adoption, and union with Christ. The Federal Visionists use saving in the sense of eternal life. Thus, the FVist means that the reprobate do not get any benefits that last forever.
- The rite of baptism does nothing. The Reformed take this as an affirmation that no one ever gets saved by their baptism. The FVist mean simply that the water doesn’t have the power to effect a temporary or eternal salvation by itself without the work of the Spirit in the water.
- We affirm justification by faith alone. The Reformed think that this means that new obedience is excluded from our justification. The FVist can say faith alone because they include obedience in faith. Thus, they mean justified by faith and obedience alone.
- We affirm the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards. This seems to affirm the law/Gospel antithesis. However, all that they mean is that there is a difference between the pre- and post-fall situation and covenant. The important question of the actual difference is not addressed.
- We affirm the visible/invisible church distinction. The Reformed mean by this that only true believers are truly part of the church, the bride of Christ, and the body of Christ and thus possess the benefits of acceptance with God, new life, and adoption. The Federal Visionists mean simply that there are those in the invisible church who will not be part of the church forever. The invisible church is the eschatological church.
The Sad Result
There are many people within the PCA who hold to this different system of doctrine. They know how to use the above words to avert suspicion. However, sometimes someone will hear them speaking and recognize that what they are saying is not in accord with the Reformed system of doctrine and is a different system of doctrine. The result will be that the FVist will deny that he is heterodox. Because of the bad connotation that the label Federal Vision now has, he will generally deny that label.
The general ethos of the PCA is that we do not press people very hard, especially ordained ministers. When a Federal Visionist is initially called out, he will respond with indignation. Then, he will affirm his orthodoxy by saying that he affirms that no saving benefits go to the reprobate, that he affirms the bi-covenantal structure of the standards, and that he affirms the visible/invisible church distinction. Oh yes, and they will also affirm the General Assembly’s nine declarations on the Federal Vision, as Steve Wilkins did. The result is that many in the presbytery are very relieved and quickly move to exonerate them.
However, some within the Presbytery are still concerned. Many of them are not sure why. Some feel the need to press further but are rebuked as being Pharisees and witch hunters.
The result will be that eventually those who continue to press these matters (in whatever forum they may do so) will be disciplined as compromising the peace and purity of the church. The more power the Federal Visionists have, the more they will do this.
This is exactly what Machen talked about in Christianity & Liberalism:
By withdrawing from the confessional churches — those churches that are founded upon a creed derived from Scripture — the liberal preacher would indeed sacrifice the opportunity, almost within his grasp, of so obtaining control of those confessional churches as to change their fundamental character.
The sacrifice of that opportunity would mean that the hope of turning the resources of the evangelical churches into the propagation of liberalism would be gone.
The present time is not for ease or pleasure, but for earnest and prayerful work. A terrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of those who reject the gospel of Christ.
By the equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only differences about the interpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith!
Sadly, I think that this is what is happening in our Reformed Churches. There are those who hold this system of doctrine. There are those who are willing to defend it. There are those who hold to it inconsistently. There are those who teach that the differences are unimportant. The longer that this goes on, the harder it will be to deal with it. The more likely it will be that it will be so accepted that those who oppose it will actually be disciplined for opposing the Federal Vision system of doctrine.
Great stuff, Wes!
I ardently agree with brother White’s succinct assessment and warning, a clarion call if you will, for some time now deserving of being nailed to some manner of PCA (or indeed, Reformed) wall or door, and no doubt the hall reverberates with a loving steady hammering. FV is a theological pickle on several fronts, and not a recent one (I’m fond of throwing back at least as far as the Clark/Van Till Controversy of my early years, while Machen is well hailed), but as with many a theological controversy (and as Wes also notes) sometimes the main players in the debate become not simply the theologies at all, but other communal affiliations of loyalties, latitudes, machinations, nomenclatures, personalities, procedures, professional posturing, or psychological pastoring and pasturing. There usually is an abundance of smoke-and-mirror theatrics natural to the human condition, and some very real meat and heart of person, belief, and faithfulness beyond and even above the valid import of cerebral theology. There’s no question purity and well-being of the one affects purity and well-being of the others, but it’s rarely enough to challenge errant theology, warn of it, or shackle it’s voice. The peopleness of it must also be lovingly engaged, and I think we’re mindful of this.
Internet bullying, for example, has come under scrutiny in recent years, especially with headlines of teen suicide associations. Now, I don’t think a moon or carpenter are likely candidates of self-destruction, and theological history is ripe with far more bloody a conflict than true of FV, even if the blood be sacramental or some holy supernatural ectoplasmic baptismal water. It’s almost a universal stamp of Great theologians that bloody and even embarrassing scuffles will ensue, with men incurring some harm; but it should come as no surprise to us that ‘birds of a feather flock together’, even where the occasional Babe wants to be a sheep-pig instead of Thanksgiving dinner for the family he loves.
I’ll babble vaguely on to say I know of an early graduate from a seminary respected by the PCA who, while trained as a PCA minister, knew and practiced little of theology in his ministry, and wandered from Presbyterian to General Baptist congregation, to politics and beyond, causing undue ruckus, conflict, splintering, and worse wherever he went, and never over theology. The PCA was nonetheless very protective of him, with he and his biological family well cared for. God’s providence withstanding, he and his inner-circle of friends were sheltered, even coddled by PCA shepherds, despite his obvious failings and harms. Now, as he was not vigorous of theological orientation, he was not vigorous of theological ill, and he was not without some tearfulness of the harms in his wake; but those harms reverberate to this day, even as he was to the last well-tended as a pastor in good-standing with the PCA. Yes, he was investigated more than once, and surrounded by rumour, but he was a clever fellow who knew how to work a crowd, and no one wanted to see him out of work and unable to provide for his family. I tell the tale because whether for a moon up in the sky or a carpenter at the wood rasp or a white man in the Dakotas, there are significant issues of the FV having nothing at all to do with theology, and just as needful of getting right.
Thanks again, Wes, for your beacon of light.
- grit
I think it is also helpful to recall what Machen wrote in his article "A True Presbyterian Church at Last" in Vol 2. No. 6 of The Presbyterian Guardian Pg.110
What a fearful sin of omission it was,for example, that an effort was not made in 1924, in every single presbytery in which any of us stood, to bring the Auburn Affirmationists to trial!
Don't let any slide.
What is the general ethos within the Reformed Communities to exercise disciplinary action against those suspected of being Federal Visionists?
One problem I am grappling with is the idea that Christ is sitting back and doing nothing about this sort of bad tree operating within His forests of well cared for good trees?
It just doesn't seem like Jesus would sit back and do nothing about this problem, especially as it has been framed in this thread?
Maybe it's time to step back and revisit charism?
After all, wasn't it a word of Knowledge the Apostles were given to eliminate Ananias and Sapphira? Or how about Simon who wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit from Peter and John or Elymas Apostle Paul blinded with the Word who was trying to interfere with Paul and Barnabas preaching the Word to Sergius Paulas?
Also, when I read both John 10 and Acts 20 I get a sense that "the just shall live by Faith" regardless of the fact that there are wolves and those who will rise up and draw away the unsuspecting if possible operating in our midst?
Just to note a portion of Acts 20:
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.
This sort of reality has existed since the serpent deceived Eve.
What remedy is there then besides vigilance and sobriety among those called to shepherd, feed, tend and touch the Lord's disciples with the Anointed Word?
Christ is the builder of the Church. He adds daily those being saved.
To have a similar indictment as the one the Ephesian Elders were getting from Paul seems to be part of the Work of Grace and Truth as we all grow up into Him among the sheepfolds excised out of the world and gathering into Holy Communions of fellowship daily and weekly, at a minimum until we pass to True Glory??
And I will also agree, messages like this one are also helpful in keeping the eyes clear and clean so as to look for the tell tell signs of what is false among Light shining Truth bearers!
Hmmmmm?
Pastor White,
Excellent summary and contrast of the systems.
It also seems that the FVers want to define the FV as consisting of the sum total of all positions A-Z affirmed or denied by all FVers. This strategy provides plausible deniability because a man who is challenged will simply say that he does not affirm or deny positions D,G,P, and T. Another will say he denies positions E,Q, and Z and has a nuanced view of L. Presto, neither guy is FV!
It appears that Machen was prescient regarding the FV situation, or perhaps the Enemy of the gospel is just an excellent re-brander of the same old Lie.
Wes, how is this summary of the soteriological system of the FV different from the Romanist view? The two summaries you have stated are diametrically opposed to one another. In reading the FV system I thought I was reading something out of The New Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thank you TE White for this excellent work!
When I used to point out the "obscuring language" of the FVists to the FV fans in our congregation, they thought I was grinding an axe and being uncharitable. Sadly these FV fans were not interested in seeing evidence to the contrary — their minds were already thoroughly made up. It was a very rough time in our congregation, but Christ has graciously sustained us through it.
There are a number of things about the views expressed by Mr White which concern me. I have spent time talking with those who are willing to call themselves Federal Visionists and I have to admit that, as I understand their concerns, they do not seem to be saying the precisely as Mr White implies. These, are those who have left the Presbyterian Church to become members of a group of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches which are free to practice and teach without persecution because of their views.
In my discussions I have never heard anyone say they believed baptism saves anyone without the working of the Holy Spirit in the persons heart – not through the water. Nor do they say that the distinction between the covenant with Adam and (say) Abraham is obscured, in spite of the fact that they believe it was gracious of God to deal with Adam as he did in allowing him access to the Tree of Life as long as he was obedient and claim the “orthodox” do not give sufficient credence to that fact.
It seems to me that the major problem is to do with what the Bible teaches about the reprobate. There are passages which seem to indicate that the reprobate do receive some of the benefits the elect do in spite of not truly being born again. And, certainly, the parable of the four soils would indicate a seeming conversion on the part of those who eventual fall away through persecution or the seduction of the world.
Then too, there is the parable of the tares and the wheat. If Jesus had intended us to believe we would be able to tell easily who is or is not reprobate, would he have structured his story so that the solution offered by the farmer was to let both grow till harvest and then take the tares first? It seems the ability to tell that difference is only clear at the last day. The reprobate is not so easy to discern.
Those who held to Federal Vision views when it first arose in the Church, wanted the denomination to discuss and clarify the Confession on the matter of the reprobate. Perhaps they were unable to make their concerns clear or perhaps they were misunderstood or perhaps they WERE wrong but now that opportunity has passed – for them.
But what really bothers me about Mr White’s post here is this statement:
“This does not mean that we should suspect everyone of holding Federal Vision views who uses traditional language. Instead, when we hear things that sound like an affirmation of the Federal Vision system, we should not exonerate someone simply because they make use of the language that has traditionally been used to describe the Reformed system.”
Note the viewpoint here – we should not suspect someone of Federal Vision views (that is “heresy”) who uses traditional language. If they use traditional language they MAY be truthful.
Yet, when they say something that sounds like affirming Federal Vision system, WE SHOULD NOT EXONERATE THEM simply because they use traditional language. In other words they are guilty until we have proven them to be innocent! The difficulty is that there are some statements in Scripture which actually say some of the things that Federal vision people use to explain their viewpoints. And the texts they quote are often used correctly in the context.
So, now if I come to one of the PCA Churches and I quote this passage and use it as the Bible does – and someone hears this and recognizes FV people do this too; I now have to prove I am not a member of a heretical sect? And, if I explain what I believe in language that I know is Reformed (even quoting the Confession) I am still not to be exonerated? How long before being orthodox but slightly innovative becomes a cause for suspicion?
People, this is setting things up for witch hunting. Perhaps there will be some like Mr White who is prepared to be objective and careful in his evaluation but why should anyone believe me when (according to this post) one thing the marks the FV people is that they lie and are out to drag the Church into Liberalism (OK, I’m sorry – that was not what he said though that is what many will believe).
It was a matter of great distress to Paul that there would arise elders who would lead people astray from the midst of the very group he spoke to at Miletus. He had discernment, why not point them out? Could it be there is a purpose for allowing different opinions in the Church? Maybe we need to have our cherished ideas tested every now and again in order to see if they are (in fact) Biblical. Federal Vision claimed some of our views are not and showed us Scripture which seemed to make that clear. That a number found support for their views in NT scholarship we might not agree with does not mean the question should be dismissed without more careful examination.
Our Churches do not always allow for the possibility that numbers of those who faithfully attend the worship services are most likely reprobates and the preaching is not designed to challenge them to repentance. It may well be the FV (as described above) is not the only heresy in our midst and we need to deal with legalism and anti-nomianism as well. The best way to do that is tackle the actual heresy (baptismal regeneration, the safety of those who have a formal religion, the assumed unimportance of self-examination and so on) rather than label it as Federal Vision. That way, everyone benefits – because they can’t avoid the message by saying “but I’m not a Federal Visionist; that doesn’t apply to me.” And we don’t have to treat members of the Church of Christ with suspicion – even when they sound orthodox.
Hone, I would like to say several things in reply.
1. Why not simply say that the Federal Visionists assert their orthodoxy and so we should just accept that?
2. You assume that the issue of the benefits received by the reprobate is not a settled question. It is, and I’m satisfied with it. I think it is abundantly clear that the Reformed Church has rejected the idea that all the baptized are united to Christ, forgiven, born to new life, children of God.
3. The reason why we should not treat these things as isolated issues is because they are not isolated issues. They are a system.
4. As for the so-called witch hunt, I’m sure that Queen Grimhilde is just as opposed to them as you are. I imagine, though, that what I’m suggesting here is nothing less than what the GA stated in 2007. The Federal Vision Report also notes that “many Federal Vision proponents affirm loyalty to the Westminster Standards and frequently appeal to the Standards when arguing their views.” (FV – 2202) Despite the affirmation of loyalty to the Standards, The Federal Vision Report concludes many of these commonly held perspectives of proponents are indeed still contrary to those same Standards.