Dr Clark speaks with Peter Bell on the Sons of Patriarchy podcast about the theological roots of the errors and abuses documented by the series and by others such as the CREC committee and by Rachel Shubin. The peculiar theology professed by Doug Wilson, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Randy Booth, Jeff Meyers, Tim Gallant, Ralph Smith, Mark Horne, Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, and Jim Jordan et al., (all but one of whom are ministers in the CREC) is called the Federal Vision (FV) theology. They adopted that name in the early 2000s to give the impression that they were just another stream, as Wilson says, of Reformed theology when, according to the orthodox, confessional Reformed churches, the FV is a serious distortion and corruption of Reformed theology much as the Remonstrant (Arminian) theology was a distortion and corruption of Reformed theology in the early 17th century. Just as the Synod of Dort soundly rejected those revisions (many of which resemble the FV) so too the Reformed churches have rejected the FV. The more recent roots of the theology are to be found in the work of Norman Shepherd, whose neonomian theology (as J. I. Packer called it) has also been rejected by the Reformed theology in the same way as orthodox rejected the neonomian theology of Richard Baxter. For more on this movement check out our resource pages below.
RESOURCES
- Resources On The Federal Vision Theology
- It Can Be Difficult But We Need To Open Our Eyes And Pay Attention To The Facts
- Resources On Physical, Sexual, And Spiritual Abuse In The Church
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- 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
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
Dr. Scott,
I am listening your episode and cannot wait to discuss something.
I am quite confused about one particular aspect of Lutheran theology. Specifically, I struggle with how Jordan Cooper’s teachings seem to align so closely with federal vision, yet he presents them as Lutheran. Is his interpretation representative of authentic Lutheran theology, or is there a different way to understand these teachings?
For instance, Cooper teaches that baptism saves regardless of faith and that baptism against a person’s will remains valid, baptismal efficacy without faith，but ineffective for those who resist. I feel like this is subtle wordplay.
https://youtu.be/f4kF0UuMV-w?si=0hEw1z5oxbOU86TB
Additionally, his model of justification feels identical to Kenneth Keathley’s “ambulance model”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdiFgdZlDF0&t=179s
I do appreciate that Cooper critiques Forde’s theology and upholds confessional Lutheranism. I also agree with his stance on divine simplicity. However, his view of justification seems to be a blend of Reformed and Roman Catholic concepts. While he avoids using the term “process,” he refers to it as ‘continual justification’. Is this from Luther？
I read your post about Luther on the Covenant of Works (CoW) and then studied the relevant chapter in Luther’s Genesis commentary. I can see that God did give Adam a commandment. However, Cooper seems to reject the idea of a covenant of works in a way very similar to Peter Leithart’s approach, as outlined in this article:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/there-is-no-covenant-of-works/
Because Lutheranism emphasizes universal grace, it will inevitably lead to a conflation of creation grace and redemption grace. Unfortunately, Robert Kolb also said “Adam and Eve did not have a probation period”, asked “How long is the probation period?”
Given Cooper’s relationship with Leithart and his apparent admiration for Douglas Wilson, I’m finding it difficult to reconcile what he teaches with what I understand to be traditional Lutheran theology. I am struggling with the “Federal Vision” influence that seems to overlap with Cooper’s teachings.
I would greatly appreciate your insights and any guidance you can provide to help me better understand this topic.
The problem is that after Luther the Lutheran church adopted a theology that supports the idea of grace that is resistible. So the grace of baptism can be resisted, in Lutheran teaching, unless the recipient does their part to keep it. Yes, it is a lot like FV teaching in that regard. It takes away all security from the believer, and puts them on the hook, to do whatever is necessary to keep their salvation!
Angela,
Unfortunately, it’s true. I wish they would correct us and show us how it isn’t true. That would be wonderful!
Hi Julia,
There are points of contact between the FV and aspects of Lutheran orthodox doctrine. I’ve tried to explain some of these in a few podcast episodes, which I can’t find right now. It’s on the Heidelcast page somewhere.
I am aware of Cooper’s work but I’ve not read much of it at all. I’m sorry to read that he’s a fan of Leithart and Wilson, who are no fans of the Protestant Reformation.
Yes, the Lutherans do confess that, in baptism, the gospel grants new life, true faith etc to all who do not resist it. See e.g., Kolb and Trueman, Between Wittenberg and Geneva, 152-54.
If you read Kolb on Luther’s Small Catechism you’ll see just what I say about the Lutheran reading of Luther on baptism vs the reading I’ve proposed. If you read the first part of the answers, it can sound like Lutheran orthodox (as Kolb quotes it) but if you read the second part of the answer, Luther turns to faith as the instrument through which Christ and his benefits are received. I do have a Heidelcast episode forthcoming on this topic. Is that all Luther ever said about baptism? No but there’s a reason the Reformed felt such kinship with the Small Catechism and even with the Augsburg Confession, as explained, as Calvin wrote, by its author (Melanchthon im 1540).
Though it is not spelled out very clearly, they also seem to confess (and they their ministers do teach) that grace is resistible. That is why they sided with the Remonstrants against the Reformed at the time of the Synod of Dort, a spectacularly bad decision. I doubt they understood just how bad the Remonstrant theology was. I suspect that a lot of Reformed folk do not still understand how bad the Remonstrant theology was.
Yes, the Lutherans have long rejected the covenant of works. They seem either not to understand that covenant of works is law and the covenant of grace is gospel (Ursinus, a former Lutheran theologian and long-time assistant to Melanchthon) and/or they don’t distinguish between the prelapsarian state and the postlapsarian state as we do. I think your point re the conflation of “creation grace” and “redemptive grace” is a fair.
It’s worth noting that the prelapsarian probation is an ancient, patristic doctrine. It’s not a Reformed novelty.
The test of what is authentically Lutheran is the Book of Concord just as the test of what is authentically Reformed is the Reformed confessions.
Why isn’t confessional Lutheran theology as bad as the FV?
The Lutherans distinguish law and gospel. The FV rejects that distinction. Several of their writers have done so in print and they do so in the Joint FV Profession.
They don’t confess two distinct kinds of election, as the FV do. The Lutherans confess unconditional election.
They don’t confess or teach final salvation through good works.
They don’t deny the imputation of the merit of Christ, which many of the FV do.
They confess and teach justification and salvation sola fide, which the FV denies.
They don’t confess social trinitarianism, which the FV does.
One under appreciated factor is that Lutheran ministers, though typically not well read in Reformed theology, are theologically trained. A number of the leading Federal Visionists are not theologically educated. This helps to keep them from some FV errors.
There are certainly tensions in Lutheran theology, which the Reformed resolved via covenant theology. The Lutherans don’t like to read that but it’s true. Our theology is more catholic (i.e., more deeply rooted in the fathers) than the Lutheran theology. That’s how Melanchthon came to change his view of the Lord’s Supper. That’s partly why Ursinus chose to become Reformed. We preserved the best parts of the Lutheran Reformation (the solas) and gave a better account of redemptive history but, as I say, a lot of what we say is identical to what it’s in Luther’s Genesis lectures.
Federal Visionist Jim (James B) Jordan was quoted in the Leithart trial documents (PCA). The following excerpt is from a piece written by Jordan to his fellow Federal Visionists:
“Oh, it’s true enough: We depart from the whole Reformation tradition at certain pretty basic points. It’s no good pretending otherwise. I think the PCA is perfectly within its rights to say no to all BH [Jordan’s FV Biblical Horizons website] types. We are NOT traditional presbyterians. The PCA suffers us within itself, but we are poison to traditional presbyterianism.”
Greg,
Thanks for this.
Apologies for the commercials. We have removed them (we hope).
Thank you, Dr. Clark for declaring the good news, especially at the end of this podcast. We’re starving for the Gospel. The FV folks are starving for it, too.
“Have you any good news for me? That is the question that I ask of you. I know your exhortations will not help me. But if anything has been done to save me, will you not tell me the facts?” asks Machen. Thank you for telling the facts. It is a blessing.
John 1:4-5 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Thank you for this. It brought tears to my eyes, because before I understood the terms Covenant, Redemption History, Grace by faith alone in Christ alone and his merit, I lived in a state of constant despair by churches that had the one goal of preaching that you can achieve perfection in this life if you do 40 days of this or three weeks of that. I never perfectly made it to the 40 days or the three weeks, which in my abused, misguided mind and soul, was proof that I needed to do more. I home schooled my kids on much of Wilson’s philosophy.
I’m so thankful I am out of that mess. Thank God for true churches like CURC in Santee and Westminster Seminary California and you Dr. Clark for exposing the Federal Vision. There are a lot of people who are damaged by those who put this burden on the people they are supposed to care for.
I still struggle with the issues of “Did I do enough to get God to love me?”
I get reminded every Sunday that Christ is mine and all his benefits are mine. Not because of anything I have done or will do to make myself right with God, but by everything Jesus has done for me to declare me righteous by his merit alone; not mine. What a relief.
Thank you, Angela! I’m very blessed by your comment!✝️📖🙏👍😊Dr Clark, too-always!