An X post from 8/8/24:
Since discussions of the so-called Federal Vision are heating back up, I figured I’d give a quick, short summary of the key emphases of FV:
1. Creation is gift. This means there is no nature/grace dualism in the Bible and no merit theology in the Bible. Everything is grace. Grace is always already there. There was no covenant merit in the Garden of Eden; even if Adam had obeyed God and received further exaltation, he would have been obligated to say “Thank you” to God. This does not mean we cannot make distinctions, eg, common grace vs redemptive grace. But everything is gift. That’s the starting point.
2. Union with Christ is the gospel. This has implications for how we understand imputation (transfer vs shared verdict), ecclesiology (to get the benefits of the head you must be part of his body), and sacraments (since baptism and the Eucharist have to do with union and communion with Christ), etc. There are no benefits apart from union with the Benefactor. We cannot have any of Christ’s redemptive blessings without having Christ himself. Our whole salvation is contained in him. Of course, we are united to Christ by faith alone.
3. The covenant promises mean the children of Christians are Christian and should be treated accordingly. God says, “I will be a God to you and to your children.” The covenant promise determines our children’s identity, how we educate them, how we discipline them, how we nurture them, how we include them in the life of the church. FV was all about the children.
More could be said about liturgy, typology, and other particulars, but these three things are the gist of it, especially against the backdrop of the way Reformed theology is done in America today.
—
RELATED POSTS:
No theologian in the history of the church has argued every baptized person is eternally saved. FV doesn’t teach that – neither does anyone else I know of. So that’s not the issue here.
Here’s the issue:
Are there 2 kinds of baptisms, one for the elect (which is an effectual sign/means) and another for the non-elect (which is an empty sign)?
Or Are there 2 kinds of recipients of baptism, those who receive what is given/offered in baptism with a persevering faith, and those who reject the gifts God offers in baptism, thus becoming covenant breakers and intensifying their judgment?
The former is the view (at best) of most modern American Reformed churches. It makes baptism useless as a means of assurance because the only way you know which kind of baptism you received is if you have *already* attained assurance of your election by some other means. The latter view is that of Calvin, FV, etc. It treats baptism as a genuine means of grace and means of assurance to those who mix the waters of baptism with a living faith. The latter views maintains the objective-subjective dynamic found in Calvin and other Reformed greats. Baptism is always what God says it is; objectively, it is what it is. But we can only subjectively receive what is offered and given in baptism by faith.
In short: Are there two types of baptism, one with a promise attached (for the elect) and the other a counterfeit (for the non-elect)? Or there is one baptism, received in two ways, either with faith that keeps the covenant or unbelief that breaks the covenant? The “one baptism with two possible responses view” is much more Reformed, historically speaking.
—
According to Reformed orthodoxy, what must we do to be saved? How do we escape the wrath we deserve because of our sin? The answer is NOT “faith alone” because true faith is never alone.
Three things are required if we are to be saved: faith, repentance, and use of the outward means of grace through which God gives his salvation.
This is the Shorter Catechism: Q. 85. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.
1/3
The brilliance of this catechism answer has rarely been appreciated. The three things required each counter a significant heresy:
1. Faith – this counters any form of legalism that suggests we can earn or merit salvation
2. Repentance – this counters any form of antinomianism, which would suggest that because salvation is a free gift of grace, how we live does not matter
3. Outward means – this counters individualism, which suggests we can be saved in isolation from the church, and gnosticism, which disconnects salvation from the objective gifts of Word and sacrament as the places where Christ gives himself to us.
Everything you need to know about salvation is present in seed form in WSC 85 – its gracious nature, its transformative nature, and its ecclesial nature.
2/3
Everything wrong with American evangelicalism could be fixed with WSC 85. And, to be frank, WSC 85 is also the core of what the FV controversy was about.
3/3
—
A one sentence summary of FV: All the baptized are saved except those who apostatize.
—
FV was always a treasures old, treasures new thing. It was recovering aspects of the tradition that had been lost as well as breaking new ground, especially in biblical theology. The FV men interacted with plenty of existing scholarship in both aspects of the project. A better question is whether or not scholars have interacted responsibly with FV…
—
Arguably FV is more in line with Westminster on key points than those NAPARC denominations that criticized/rejected FV. That’s certainly true on the issue of sacramental efficacy where most conservative Presbyterian pastors do not uphold the teaching of their own catechism. The same is likely true on the issue of a future dimension of justification. Other issues, like apostasy or the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, are arguably not confessional issues at all – or FV views fall well within what the Confession was designed to allow, even if modern American Presbyterians have constricted allowed views on those issues.
—
The “federal vision” was largely a retrieval project, recovering dimensions of historic Reformed theology that have been lost in modern popularizations. FV views on baptism, ecclesiology, justification, faith, and even apostasy can find solid precedent in the Reformed tradition. Even the thing considered most novel about FV, paedocommunion, has some precedent in the tradition (Musculus) and obviously an ancient pre-Reformation pedigree ( Augustine, Cyprian, etc.). The Reformed tradition in the past allowed for quite a bit of variety in expression and even substance on many of these questions; FV was just picking up on threads of conversations that existed in the tradition in earlier generations.
TPC Pastor's Page 