Proponents of the Federal Vision (FV) and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) can continue be found in any church whether Reformed or Presbyterian, and among Baptistic and Fundamentalist churches. Both FV and NPP seem appealing until the core theological principles that underline these theological perspectives are carefully examined. Their errors have propagated confusion and misguided many.
FV and NPP theological persuasions cover a wide spectrum. Some deny the Reformed and biblical view of law and gospel, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. They may in subtle ways deny the Reformed and biblical view of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone. This cannot be universally asserted but it is true for some. To do justice in responding to the errors of FV and NPP proponents it is necessary to listen attentively, and to dissect their presuppositions very carefully. If you wish to avoid their errors, weigh and measure their assertions against the Scriptures and the confessional standards of Reformed and Presbyterian churches.
Federal Vision (FV) theology asserts tenets of understanding and application of the Scriptures that are contrary to Reformed covenant theology. FV theology challenges historic Reformed theology in these areas (more will be covered in the next article):
Denial or deprecation of the theology of the two great covenants – the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.The FV understanding of the covenant of grace may have presuppositions of a works-oriented righteousness.
Denial of the imputation of Christ’s work of active obedience imputed to his elect by way of forensic justification. This leads to a defective view of the law and the gospel with a resulting bias that leads to a type of legalism absent the imperative of personal holiness.
Misunderstandings regarding a supposed merit of good works, rather than good works being non-meritorious expressions out of gratitude unto the Lord.
FV advocates reject the meritorious nature of the covenant of works. In its place they generally assert that there is but a single covenant framework across redemptive history. Many question the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to his elect. Note that men like Doug Wilson strongly affirm the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us in our justification. Thus we must be careful not to presume upon FV theologians gross generalities as if the differences among them do not matter.
A misunderstanding of or an errant view of the pre-fall covenant is a serious matter. Some altogether deny the pre-fall covenant. Both errors ultimately lead to distortions in understanding of the covenant of grace and of the adoption of the elect as out of the free grace of God. These errors are serious because they result in compromise of, or denial of, salvation coming through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers by faith alone.
Justification is forensic in nature. Our confession and catechisms speak of justification as emerging “out of His mere free grace and love” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, Article V), rather than as a “work of God’s grace” as asserted by some FV advocates. The catechisms describe effectual calling, justification, and sanctification (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 66-81, Heidelberg Catechism Q. 16-21). Dr. Alan Strange (New Horizons, Feb 2007) notes the following errors of FV proponents:
Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins. (Federal Vision).
The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion. (some Federal Vision).
A defective view of sanctification negating the call to holiness in walk of life. (Arminian error and Federal Vision tenet).
A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification. (Federal Vision).
A denial of the work of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification of the believer. (Federal Vision, Arminianism).
Arminians and FV followers misunderstand free-will (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter IX). This results in particular from a denial of the Covenant of Works (see “The Federal Vision and the Covenant of Works”, Dr. J.V. Fesko, Introduction) , a misunderstanding of the full extent of the depravity of man (Heidelberg Catechism Q.6-15, Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 22-30), and the resulting bondage to sin that necessitates the over-abundant work of the Holy Spirit in changing the will of man through the life-long process of sanctification. While recognizing the Divine act of justification of the sinner through the blood of the Lamb of God, they may deny the need for personal holiness of walk. Many deny the ongoing life-transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification of the believer that results in an increasing piety in holiness. Such will often dismiss talk of holiness as just being an irrelevant pursuit of piety that makes men useless in building God’s kingdom on earth. At the extreme end, FV advocates may assert that the church is corrupt and needs to be done away with. They may assert that the church should speak to the world at large, not to people sitting in pews.
FV errors are particularly demonstrated through a deference to man's free will, (also called man's free agency) also cited from Dr. Strange’s article in New Horizons, extended to include reference to Arminian influences:
Arminian tendencies holding that God would not violate man's free will, or the personal choice of men. (also held by some Federal Vision holders).
A denial of the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying, watching over, guiding, protecting, and comforting believers. (Arminianism, Federal Vision).
Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance of the saints and the indefectibility of grace. (Federal Vision).
The failure to distinguish the visible/invisible nature of the church (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, see also: Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 60-69, Belgic Confession of Faith Article 27) results from the failure to rightfully comprehend the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. This results in:
Denying the confessional concept of the invisible church. (Federal Vision).
A logical consequence of this is a failure to apprehend the importance of and nature of church membership. (Baptistic and Arminian).
Church Sessions sometimes receive requests from members to have their names erased from the church membership roll. This comes out of a view that the church does not hold the keys of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. (Baptistic, Arminian, and Federal Vision).
Having now painted the backdrop of deviant theological persuasions that may enter the Reformed or Presbyterian church the next article will consider these further.
For further information regarding Auburn Avenue theology, Federal Vision concerns the following list of resources may be helpful:
Older
Top
