Most of the confessional Reformed denominations took formal positions or at least received study papers rejecting the self-described Federal Vision theology a little more than twelve years ago. Because the original debate is so far in the rear view mirror, it seems likely that the reader may not have heard of this movement or may be surprised to see that it is back again, at least in a form. What is the so-called, self-described Federal Vision theology? The proponents of this doctrine took the name at or about the time of a conference in Louisiana in the early 2000s. The doctrine, however, has been with us since about 1974 or so. The first notable proponent of this view was Norman Shepherd, who was a professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, in Philadelphia. Beginning in the mid-70s he began to teach that we are justified “through faith and works.” Later, after he was understandably criticized for using this language, he modified his language to justification through our faithfulness. He and others became convinced that Romans 2:13, which says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (ESV), teaches that this verse describes the Christian, that we are finally justified through faith and works. Like the proponents of the so-called New Perspective on Paul, and later the Federal Visionists, Shepherd was teaching that we, Christians, are the “doers of the law” who shall be justified at the judgment partly on the basis of our cooperation with grace, i.e., our Spirit-wrought sanctity and performance of the law. In Shepherd’s view, because we are united with Christ in our regeneration, both faith and works are co-instrumental in our justification.

But Wait, There’s More!

Underlying his teaching of justification by grace and cooperation with grace, through faithfulness, Shepherd taught that every baptized person is, in baptism, conditionally granted all the benefits of Christ, i.e., all those blessings we discuss under the heading “order of salvation” or under the “application of redemption.” Thus, according to Shepherd, election, regeneration, union with Christ, faith, adoption, and sanctification are given to the baptized person but they must cooperate with grace lest they apostatize and lose what they have been given. He says that this historical covenant is parallel to the unconditional divine decree so that when he speaks of the “the covenant” (he denies the covenant of works) he speaks like the Remonstrant theologians in the 17th century. Years ago Chris Gordon called this theology, “covenantal Arminianism” and rightly so.

This movement rocked the seminary and the local presbytery until 1981, when Shepherd was finally dismissed by the Board of Trustees. These doctrines, however, did not remain in the classroom.He taught these doctrines at Mid-America Reformed Seminary (Mid-America Reformed Seminary has formally rejected all associated errors here)  shortly after his dismissal and the recordings of that course circulated and the theology re-emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Finally, after one of the Auburn Avenue conferences in Louisiana, it was self-branded “The Federal Vision” theology. Shepherd himself contributed to the spread of this theology by publishing The Call of Grace: How The Covenant Illumines Salvation And Evangelism in 2002.

The Five Points Of Federal Visionism

By about 2005, the main lines of the Federal Vision theology were becoming clear:

1. There is no covenant of works before the fall.The covenant of grace was established before the fall and continues after the fall.
2. The conditions of the covenant with Adam are the conditions for Christians: faithfulness
3. Because there is no distinction between those who are in “the covenant” only externally and those who are also in the covenant internally, at baptism every baptized person is endowed with all that we need to persevere and retain what we have been given
4. Those who cooperate sufficiently with grace will finally persevere and shall have been elected.
5. It is possible for those who were truly united to Christ to fall away (apostatize).¹

To be sure, there is some diversity among the Federal Visionists. Following Shepherd, some of them deny the existence of merit of any kind. In this view, Adam could not have merited entrance into glory and Christ merited nothing for us. He merely qualified himself to make salvation possible for those who fulfill their part of “the covenant.” Others of them, however, have adopted the medieval and Roman doctrine of congruent merit whereby God is said to accept graciously our best efforts toward obedience and to impute to them a “covenantal merit.” Still others affirm that Christ actively obeyed for us (which Shepherd denies) and that active obedience is imputed to us, for our initial  justification by grace alone, through faith alone. In this scheme, there are two stages to justification and the final justification is said to be by grace and cooperation with grace. Another feature of the Federal Vision piety and practice is paedocommunion, i.e., the administration of holy communion to infants.²

The Reformed Churches Respond

My own federation of churches (United Reformed Churches in North America) began to confront this doctrine in 2004. The previous year a minister in our churches had preached the Federal Vision doctrine that, at the judgment we will be justified partly on the basis of our good works. In response, the URCs replied affirming the Reformation doctrine that justification is “by grace alone, through faith alone based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ alone.” They declared the sermon “unclear and confusing on the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone.” In 2007 the URCNA adopted “Nine Points of Pastoral Advice” rejecting the Federal Vision theology root and branch. In that same year, the Presbyterian Church in America received a report rejecting the Federal Vision. In 2004 the Orthodox Presbyterian Church reaffirmed justification by grace alone, through faith alone. In 2006 their General Assembly received a report rejecting the Federal Vision theology. In this period the Reformed Church in the United States also rejected the Federal Vision theology. In 2010, the United Reformed Churches reaffirmed their rejection of the Federal Vision by receiving a report explaining why they reject it.

Why Does The Federal Theology Persist?

The principal reason it persists is the deep commitment among American evangelicals and fundamentalists on the Christian political and cultural right to the “culture war.” There is a great (and not unreasonable) fear among conservative Christians about the state of American culture and the place of Christians and Christianity in a post-Christian America. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage, Christian business people find themselves being sued and fined for refusing to cooperate with same-sex weddings. Public libraries seem to be recruiting children for the revolution via the “Drag Queen Story Hour” program. The harder the sexual revolutionaries press their case in the mass media and in the courts, the more conservative Christians of all sorts look for heroes and advocates. This pressure seems to push some Reformed, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians into the open arms of the theonomists.

A second reason it persists is that the FV theology is favored by many (not all) theonomists and Reconstructionists, i.e., those who 1) advocate the imposition, by the civil government, of the Mosaic judicial laws; 2) who anticipate a future collapse of society out of which shall emerge a Christian society reconstructed along the theonomic lines. This movement has been around, in some form, since the 1950s. Whatever one thinks of theonomy and Reconstructionism they are nothing if not industrious and optimistic about the future. Typically, the advocates of these views are postmillennial in their eschatology. They anticipate that the gospel will spread across the earth and much if not most of the earth will be converted to Christ before his return. The Federal Vision is the theological and ecclesiastical side of the program to rebuild the medieval world (including the medieval doctrine of salvation through grace and cooperation with grace), and the medieval state-church complex. They anticipate being in charge of the state-church. They mock as “defeatist” or “quietist” anyone who questions their glorious plan for the future. Frightened evangelicals and fundamentalists seem to be attracted to their vision of a glorious Christian future on the earth. People are attracted to their aggressive defense of the faith (apologetics) and particularly their punchy response to the cultural crises of the age. These theonomic/reconstructionist Federal Visionists market themselves as those who have the answer to what ails the West. This is attractive to laity who feel besieged on every side by an aggressive form of intolerant, even tyrannical cultural agenda that demands that Christians conform to the new social-sexual order or else.

How Does The FV Persist?

The FV theology never went away. Much of the rest of the Reformed world turned its attention to other issues after 2010 but those who are dissatisfied with the Reformation seem never to go away. After their theology was rejected there seems to have been an attempt to develop formal and informal networks and alliances. They are following the same strategy followed by the theonomists, a sister movement to the Federal Theology movement (most Federal Visionists are either theonomists or sympathetic to theonomy), who, after their theology was largely rejected by the confessional Reformed churches in the 1980s also went underground.

Social media (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube et al) has been a boon to the spread of the Federal Vision ideas even as its proponents, advocates, and allies increasingly deny that they are Federal Visionists or ask not to be called Federal Visionists any longer, e.g., Doug Wilson (even though he explicitly affirms the federal vision in the same article). Through social media (E.g., Twitter and Facebook) Federal Visionists are able to recruit evangelicals and fundamentalists on their way into the Reformed world. The Federal Visionists do not tend to announce that they too are dissatisfied with what the Reformed churches confess.

The Federal Vision theology has persisted, in part, by means of confusion. Even after the Reformed Churches read, considered, and rejected the Federal Vision theology, it has a frequent tactic of FV advocates to assert that no one knows what the FV doctrine is or that there are so many varieties that there really is no such thing. This comment from a FV ally (ostensibly a former Federal Visionist) Steven Wedgeworth, claimed that there really never was a Federal Vision theology. He writes, “Federal Vision was always a ‘vision.’ It was a project in process. A hope. A dream. It continues on through Peter Leithart, but it has changed a lot since then. More pan academic ecumenical. I would wager that less than 25 churches self-apply that label.”

It is a remarkable thing for a PCA Teaching Elder to assert that the FV never really existed, since his own General Assembly voted in 2007 to reject the FV doctrine. The PCA General Assembly received a report about a movement that Wedgeworth claims never existed. Both views cannot be true at the same time but his observation that it has become ecumenical, after a fashion, is probably true and there are elements of the movement seeking to give it a more academically respectable face. It has spread beyond the walls of the confessional Reformed and Presbyterian Churches in North America.

Perhaps it persists because, when confronted directly with the Federal Vision theology in their midst, local and regional ecclesiastical assemblies have been unwilling to exercise discipline. Peter Leithart’s presbytery was unwilling to convict him at trial, despite the evidence against him. The Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was unwilling to convict Norman Shepherd. There are other cases to which we might point, e.g., the case of Joshua Moon in the Siouxlands Presbytery.

Baptists and Federal Visionists Together?

Finally, there seems to be emerging an alliance between conservative Baptists and Federal Visionists. This alliance actually began within the Communion of Reformed Evangelicals, the de facto ecclesiastical home of the Federal Vision, since some of the CREC congregations are Baptist in their theology and confession. At least some of those congregations would seem to be FV or sympathetic to the FV. We may say with certainty that they are all tolerant of the FV since they remain in formal ecclesiastical affiliation with a number of congregations that formally affirm and actively teach the Federal Vision theology.

More recently, the ReformCon, held in Mesa, AZ (October 24-25, 2019), hosted by Apologia Church, featured several speakers closely associated with Doug Wilson, Christ Church Moscow, and Federal Vision theology. On Twitter, Christine Pack has a long thread tracing the connections between Wilson, the CrossPolitic podcast (based in Moscow, out of Christ Church and hosted by a Christ Church elder, pastor, and deacon), Jeff Durbin, pastor of Apologia Church, who promotes Doug Wilson, James White (of the Alpha and Omega podcast), and even the (Baptist) Founders Ministry, who apparently hired the CrossPolitic team to produce a highly controversial video trailer, in which an orthodox Baptist layperson was portrayed as “demonic.”

In response to this thread observing these (and other) connections, James White objected in two ways: 1) that the FV theology is an indifferent matter and 2) Baptists cannot be Federal Visionists. This second objection is not true logically or actually. There is no reason a Baptist could not affirm all of the five points listed above. In fact, some Baptists have taught part or all of the FV theology, e.g., John Armstrong was a Baptist when he affirmed Norman Shepherd’s doctrine of justification.³ Don Garlington has long affirmed something like the Federal Vision theology.⁴ The same is true for Daniel Fuller, who has strongly influenced John Piper.⁵ The latter is actively teaching a two-stage doctrine of salvation in which the final stage of salvation is “by works.”⁶

For Reformed Christians, who are wholly, confessionally, committed to the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, the Federal Vision theology is not a matter indifferent (adiaphora).  White, who is an elder at Apologia Church, is entitled to his personal opinion but the Presbyterian Church in America, the United Reformed Churches in North America, the study committee of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Church in the U. S., among others have all formally come to the opposite conclusion. Further, at least three confessional Reformed seminaries have studied the Federal Vision theology and rejected it (See Doctrinal Testimony of Recent Errors of Mid-America Reformed Seminary).

The FV theology is still here. It is still gaining adherents and those adherents, allies, and enablers are not all within the walls of NAPARC. Baptist culture warriors seem to have formed theological and personal alliances with Federal Visionists out of a common commitment on certain cultural issues.

Confessionally Reformed Christians and every Christian committed to the gospel of salvation sola gratia, sola fide and the Reformation rejection of the two-stage doctrine of salvation will want to take note.

Below is a comprehensive library of those rejections and other criticisms of Federal Vision theology and movement.⁷

NOTES

1. These five points are a summary of a number of publications by Federal Vision writers. Some of the more well-known advocates of this view published a “Joint Federal Vision Profession” in 2007 summarizing their views.

2. The Reformed Churches reject the doctrine and practice of paedocommunion in Heidelberg Catechism 81. See this review of Cornel Venema’s book, Children At The Lord’s Table. See also Children and the Lord’s Supper for a Reformed reply to infant communion (paedocommunion).

3. Armstrong was still a Baptist when he affirmed Norman Shepherd’s doctrine of justification his chapter, “The Obedience of Faith,” in Don Kistler, ed., Trust and Obey: Obedience and the Christian (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996). He also affirmed this view in a 1999 article published under the auspices of Reformation and Revival Ministries in 1999. More recently, even as his theology and ecclesiology has evolved, he has continued to affirm Shepherd’s orthodoxy, despite the judgment of the Reformed Churches. Christine Pack notes that Doug Wilson’s daughter is speaking at the G3 conference with Baptists. The Federal Visionist Doug Wilson argues that Baptists can, indeed, be Federal Visionists in their theology.

4. E.g., See this review of Piper’s critique of N. T. Wright. See also his essay “Future Justification: Some Theological and Exegetical Proposals” in P. Andrew Sandlin, ed. A Faith That Is Never Alone: A Response to Westminster Seminary California (La Grange, CA: Kerygma Press, 2007). This volume is a collection of essays by Federal Visionists responding to criticisms of the FV.

5. Denny Burk, Daniel Fuller’s Doctrine of Justification Is Antithetical to the Reformation. Here is more background on Daniel Fuller’s theology.

6. Piper’s two-stage doctrine of salvation is documented here: Resources On The Controversy Over Final Salvation Through Works.

7. Here is a comprehensive library of resources on the Federal Vision theology, including the responses of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Resources

• • How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
  • The Heidelblog Resource Page
  • Heidelmedia Resources
  • The Ecumenical Creeds
  • The Reformed Confessions
  • The Heidelberg Catechism
  • Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
  • Why I Am A Christian
  • Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button