*This article is written from the Presbyterian point of view. A Baptist evaluation will be the final part of the series. 

The world is a dangerous place. Despite living in the most informed and protected era of human history, not a single day goes by where we are not made aware of things that could threaten our lives. By just having access to television and the internet, we can find out about what dangers we are exposed to in this world and how we can take every possible step to protect ourselves from those perils. From doctors creating new medicine, to politicians increasing gun control in America, to law enforcement being more strict in background checks and scholarly advancements being made in nearly every category that could ever be researched, one would think that living in 2020 would provide humanity with the peace, security and comfort that we all so desperately crave. 

Nevertheless, the world is still a very dangerous place. Despite all of humanity’s improvements in protecting ourselves, we still face an even greater danger that is the supreme threat that we will ever be exposed to, if left to ourselves. That danger is not cancer, a terrorist group or any climate issue that we are so often told will result in the destruction of planet Earth. That danger is not even Satan or his legion of demons who roam the earth and seek to tempt and destroy the church in any possible way (1 Pet. 5:8-10). Rather, mankind’s greatest danger is God Himself because we are sinners by nature and are declared at birth to be enemies of the Creator of all things (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). The very God who gave the universe its life is the same God who will one day destroy it after the Final Judgment, prior to creating the New Heavens and New Earth (2 Pet. 3:10-13; Rev. 21:1-22:21).  

The God who gave us life is the same God who has the power to take that life away and cast us into Hell forever as punishment for our sins (Ps. 68:20; Dan. 5:23). God is the clear and present danger facing sinful mankind today, and has been ever since the Garden. This is precisely why the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) is so precious to the redeemed and why the Gospel of Jesus Christ serves as sinful mankind’s only hope for being reconciled to God: God gives Himself in order to save sinners from Himself. 

A Brief Recap of the Series (So Far)

In this series’ introductory article, I surveyed the twentieth/twenty-first century development of Federal Vision Theology and discussed the overwhelmingly negative reception of that doctrine within Reformed Christendom. The central thesis to be proven throughout this series was also presented in that preliminary article: Federal Vision Theology espouses a “different Gospel” (Gal. 1:6) due to its (mis)understanding of the doctrine of justification and its incompatibility with the confessional standards of Reformed theology. In the second article of this series, I took time to carefully define how the Reformed tradition has been historically characterized, addressing what constitutes one being able to rightly identify as “Reformed.” 

I also presented how the doctrine of justification has been confessed by Reformed theologians for over 400 years, and proceeded to set the stage for what would be addressed throughout the remainder of this series. Moreover, in the previous article of this series, the Joint Federal Vision Profession 2007 (JFVP) was critically examined against the Reformed confessions in effort to demonstrate the chief ecclesiological (doctrine of the church) differences that exist between these two opposing systems of doctrine. 

It was proven from the JFVP’s convictions on baptism that Federal Vision Theology is a system that posits “God must do His part” (grace) and “man must do his part” (works) in order to enjoy a relationship with the triune God in this age and in the age to come. This aberrant view of baptism stems from Federal Vision’s failure to distinguish between the external (visible church) and internal (invisible church) administrations of the covenant of grace. Furthermore, when considering the JFVP’s stance on the Lord’s Supper, the defunct nature of Federal Vision’s covenant theology is put on vivid display through their practice of paedo-communion (infant communion). Each of these aforementioned ecclesiological deficiencies should raise considerable concern within American Christendom, but tragically, Federal Vision appears to be making a resurgence within conservative Baptistic circles. 

Nevertheless, up to this point in the series, it has been thoroughly evidenced that Federal Vision Theology’s claim to be “confessionally bound to the Three Forms of Unity [and] to the Westminster Confession of Faith” is completely untenable. Without question, Federal Vision Theology is diametrically opposed to Reformed theology, piety and practice. Throughout, the remainder of this article, the following concerns that are directly related to the defective soteriology of Federal Vision will be addressed: 1) A failure to mention the necessity of the active obedience of Jesus Christ for ensuring the salvation of God’s elect; 2) A denial of the Reformed doctrine of the “Perseverance of the Saints”; 3) A twofold scheme of election that grounds the Christian’s salvation in their faithfulness (works) to the Lord instead of the once for all finished work of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:24-28; 10:10-14).  

Federal Vision Theology Does Not Emphasize The Active Obedience Of Jesus Christ 

The first area of concern with regards to the soteriological distinctives of the JFVP pertains to the section on “Justification by Faith Alone.” In this portion of the doctrinal statement, there is not any mention of how the active obedience of Jesus Christ factors into a sinner’s ability to be declared righteous (justified) before God. The “active obedience” of Christ can be defined as “His whole life of [perfectly] obeying the Law of God whereby He qualifies to be the Savior [of God’s elect].” Although interconnected in His Messianic work, the active obedience of Christ is to be distinguished from His “passive obedience,” referring to “[Christ’s] willingness to submit to the pain that is inflicted upon Him by the Father on the cross in [His substitutionary] atonement.”  As noted by Louis Berkhof in his systematic theology, “Jesus Christ’s active and passive obedience should be regarded as complementary parts of an organic whole.” [1] That is to say, affirming both of these Biblically grounded realities are of absolute necessity in accounting for how sinners can be justified (declared righteous) before God. In the Reformed tradition, the justification of all Believers is described as,

“Not [on the basis of anything] wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them (Jer. 23:6; Rom. 3:22-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; 1 Cor. 1:30-31; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Eph. 1:7; Titus 3:5, 7), they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (John 1:12; 6:44-45, 65; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 1:29; 3:9)” (WCF 11.1). 

After thoroughly examining many additional theological resources that have been developed by the 11 initial framers of the JFVP, at least six Reformed denominations have determined that the denial of Christ’s active obedience is one of the most often observable errors of Federal Vision Theology (URCNA; OPC; PCA; RCUS; RPCNA; ARPC). Conversely, when canvassing what the historic Reformed confessions teach on the doctrine of justification, the active obedience of Christ is prominently taught and clearly emphasized. The doctrine of the active obedience of Jesus Christ is a foundational tenet of a Reformed soteriology, and the absence of this central distinctive in the JFVP is troubling. It is difficult to seriously consider a theological system as being “Reformed” if it does not stand in continuity with what the Reformed tradition has confessed about this vital aspect of the doctrine of justification for over 400 years.

Federal Vision Theology Denies The “Perseverance of the Saints”  

The inherent craftiness of Federal Vision Theology is sharply manifested when analyzing the JFVP’s excerpts on “Assurance of Salvation” and “Apostasy.” At first glance, the statement’s articulation of the “Assurance of Salvation” does not appear problematic when analyzed as its own unit of thought. However, when harmonized with the contents of the subsequent section on “Apostasy,” it becomes apparent that Federal Vision eradicates the ability for a Christian to have assurance of salvation and/or confidence that they will persevere in their faith until the Lord returns or calls them home. In the affirmation section on “Apostasy,” the statement teaches that  

“All who are baptized into the triune Name [of God] are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace. The branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away from someone, cut out of a living covenant body. The connection that an apostate had to Christ was not merely external.”  

This fragment from the “Apostasy” section of the JFVP may be the most troubling doctrine that is encapsulated within the entire document. At this point in the corpus of Federal Vision Theology, there is absolutely no continuity with Reformed Christianity. In fact, one has to wonder how the adherent to Federal Vision can enjoy any assurance of salvation when evaluating the JFVP on its own terms. The notion that one can “fall away from grace,” “[be] cut away from Christ, [be] cut out of a living covenant body,” and lose a relationship with Jesus Christ that was “not merely external” is terrifying to consider. As was discussed at length in this series’ previous article, perhaps the fundamental reason behind this theological anomaly is that Federal Vision does not see a true distinction between the external (visible church) and internal (invisible church) administrations of the covenant of grace. As a result of blurring this crucial ecclesiological distinction, Federal Vision teaches that unregenerate sinners enter into true (temporal) union with Jesus Christ at the moment of their baptism and can potentially lose such union if they do not exhibit “a growing and living faith.” Needless to say, these glaring ecclesiological inconsistencies inevitably result in monumental soteriological consequences for this faulty doctrinal system. 

On the other hand, the Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Standards have much to say on the perseverance of the saints and how Christians can obtain assurance of salvation. The Westminster Divines recognized the inseparability between these two facets of doctrine, as evidenced by the section on the assurance of salvation (chapter 18) building off of the preceding section on the perseverance of the saints (chapter 17) in the Westminster Confession of Faith. According to the Reformed tradition, these two doctrines can be distinguished from each other, but they must not be separated from each other. They are divine truths that are inextricably linked together, as if two sides of the same coin. Therefore, if one’s understanding is in error on any aspect of these doctrines, it is likely that they will be in error in another place concerning the other. When reflecting on our own mortality and where we will eternally reside following our earthly death, there are few doctrines more personally relevant than our security of salvation in Christ and our assurance that we ourselves are actually secure in Christ (saved). In his studies on John 17, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones rightly stresses that “above all, there is nothing more important than that we should know for certain that we are the objects of God’s special care and interest.” (Page 255, The Assurance of Our Salvation: Exploring the Depth of Jesus’ Prayer for His Own). 

It is appropriate to briefly address how a Christian can come to the point of enjoying assurance of salvation in light of the fact that all Believers are eternally secure in Christ. The Canons of Dort (1618-1619) deal extensively with the perseverance of the saints and the direct relationship that assurance of salvation has with the Believer’s union with Christ. Namely, in the fifth head of doctrine, the Canons of Dort summarize that the Believer’s assurance of salvation is solidified through 1) trusting the objective promises of God as recorded in Scripture (5.1-5.5), 2) receiving the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit declaring to the spirits of Christians that they are children of God (5.6-5.9), 3) and a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works (i.e. sanctification) (5.10). In commenting on this portion of the Canons of Dort, Dr. Kevin DeYoung helpfully clarifies that 

“As precious as assurance [of salvation] is for the Believer, it is not itself a requirement of true faith. Believers contend with doubts in this life and do not always experience the full assurance of faith. But assurance [of salvation] is the goal [for all Christians]. God wants us to have confidence [that we belong to Him]… in order that… we may maintain the assurance of our perseverance [in the Christian life].”  

Echoing the insights provided by Dr. DeYoung, Reformed theologians have historically distinguished between the objective assurance of salvation and the subjective assurance of salvation: Believers can possess objective assurance of salvation by virtue of what Jesus Christ has accomplished on their behalf in His Messianic ministry. However, not all Believers will experience an unflappable assurance of their salvation at every point in their spiritual pilgrimage. Subjectively, Christians can, and do, occasionally struggle with doubts about whether they have truly come to saving faith in Christ. Question and Answer 81 of the Westminster Larger Catechism highlights this reality when it states,   

“True Believers may wait long before they obtain [subjective assurance of salvation] (Isa. 50:10; Ps. 88:1-15); and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions (Ps. 22:1; 31:22; 51:8, 12; 77:1-12; Luke 22:31-34; Eph. 4:30); yet they are never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as [He] keeps them from sinking into utter despair (Ps. 73:15, 23; Isa. 54:7-10; 1 Pet. 4:12-14; 1 John 3:9).”  

As God continues to demonstrate His faithfulness to His people, blessing them with every good gift they receive and preserving them through the hardships of this life, the Believer will likewise continue to progress into a deeper (subjective) assurance of their salvation. As they are further conformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ (sanctified) and attend to the ordinary means of grace, Christians will thereby come to a greater apprehension of their calling and election (2 Pet. 1:10). There is no greater joy for Believers than knowing experientially that they possess a living hope in Heaven that has been prepared from eternity past, is being preserved in the present by the infinite power of the triune God and will be protected by God for eternity future (1 Pet. 1:3-9). This blessed promise is championed throughout the Biblical record and has been confessed within the Reformed tradition for over 400 years. Contrary to Federal Vision Theology, the salvation of God’s people does not hinge upon their own efforts to resist “falling from [saving] grace,” but upon the impeccable ability of the High King of Heaven to redeem those He has loved from before the foundation of the world (Rom. 8:26-39). 

Federal Vision Theology Grounds the Christian’s Salvation In Their Own Faithfulness (Works)

The soteriological concerns acknowledged up to this point reach an apex when one encounters the wording contained in the denial portion of the “Apostasy” section in the JFVP: “we deny that any person who is chosen by God for final salvation before the foundation of the world can fall away and be finally lost. The decretally elect cannot apostatize.” 

Without having any previous interaction with Federal Vision Theology, the wording embedded in the aforementioned quote will likely lead to confusion. This idea of the “decretally elect” not apostatizing, against the backdrop of “baptized Christians… falling from grace,” seems to be a contradiction at a surface level reading. However, when one studies the various Reformed ecclesiastical reports that have been published against Federal Vision Theology, what is meant in this section of the JFVP becomes abundantly more clear. Federal Vision theology teaches two types of election: “decretal election” and “covenantal election.” Those who are “covenantally elect” are said to be those who enter into the visible church by baptism, and as a result, enter into a true (temporal) union with Jesus Christ. As previously emphasized when considering the JFVP’s statement on baptism, this union with Christ can be forfeited due to a failure to exhibit “a growing and living faith.” On the other hand, those who are “decretally elect” are said to be the ones who will be saved by virtue of persevering in their faith . Whereas the “covenantally elect” can apostatize and lose the union with Jesus Christ that they once enjoyed, the JFVP is clear in stating that the “decretally elect cannot apostatize.” 

Essentially, this two-fold scheme of election functions in a similar way to the recently popularized “final justification” view embraced by proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP) as well as prominent evangelical leaders such as Dr. John Piper. “Final justification” is said to be “salvation from God’s judgment on the Last Day.” Thus, one’s so-called “initial justification” is said to be by faith alone, but Christians do not experience their “final justification” until God validates them at the Bema Seat Judgment, on the basis of their works and obedience (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). In his controversial article, “Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone?,” Dr. Piper argues

“In justification, faith receives the finished work of Christ performed outside of us and counted as ours — imputed to us… In final salvation (final justification), at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and [through] that faith.” 

This line of reasoning espoused by Dr. Piper, tantamount to the Roman Catholic scheme that one is only as justified before God as they are sanctified, is eerily similar to what is embraced by Dr. N.T. Wright in his book, “What Saint Paul Really Said.” Dr. Wright insists that “present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly on the basis of the entire life” (Page 129). When commenting on the scope of what “final justification” insinuates, Dr. Ligon Duncan was right to observe, 

“On this language [embedded in the teaching of final justification], it is rather hard to avoid the idea of justification as involving faith and works in a way that does not match Paul’s teaching on grace and the justification of the ungodly (Rom. 4:1-5). It seems dangerously close to teaching a dual instrumentality of faith and works as held by traditional Roman Catholicism, especially if it is said, ‘God gets us into His covenant but we keep ourselves there by non-meritorious works through the Spirit’s enabling.’” 

The doctrinal similarities between the novel “final justification” ideology and Federal Vision’s two-dimensional framework of election are shocking. Yet, the practical implications associated with Federal Vision Theology’s distinguishing between covenantal and decretal election are, perhaps, even more problematic. In a church governed by the JFVP, one can be said to be a “Christian” in that they have been engrafted into the covenant of grace through their baptism, and are deemed “covenantally elect,” insofar as they are now members of God’s covenant people. However, even after being baptized as an infant, adolescent or adult, Federal Vision Theology teaches that there remains a yet future, “final justification” where one is ultimately proven to be decretally elect by virtue of their faithfulness to God as exhibited throughout their Christian life. In this schema, one’s works are unquestionably commingled with faith as an instrument whereby God imputes the perfect merits of Christ to the Believer and declares them righteous (justified) in His sight. Herein lies the reason why Federal Vision Theology teaches a “different Gospel,” has been regarded as contrary to Reformed theology, and must be denounced by Christians across all denominational lines. 

On the one hand, a person can achieve internal membership in the covenant of grace, true union with Jesus Christ, and all of the promised benefits that flow out of that union with Christ through baptism. On these points, according to Federal Vision Theology, membership in the covenant of grace and union with Jesus Christ begins on the basis of God’s grace. But on the other hand, baptism obligates the one baptized to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God. So long as they persevere in their own faithfulness to the Lord, they will someday prove themselves to be of God’s “decretally elect,” and as a result, receive their “final justification.” This is to say,  Federal Vision Theology posits that membership in the covenant of grace and union with Jesus Christ is only maintained on the basis of one’s faithfulness to the Lord (works). Accordingly, works are not regarded as the fruit or evidence of one’s saving faith. Rather, works and faith are considered the necessary means through which one can ultimately receive “final justification” (salvation) in the future. This is not good news for needy, perishing sinners whose only hope for escaping the righteous judgment of God rests exclusively upon His sovereign grace for refuge (salvation). As Dr. R. Scott Clark punctuates, 

“The Scriptures teach and the Reformed churches confess that believers are definitively, finally, once-for-all justified before God. They will not be re-tried. They cannot be re-tried. To suggest such a thing is to insult the perfect righteousness of our Savior and to deny the once-for-all declaration of God. Christ did not become incarnate for his people, obey on their behalf, die, nor was he raised that we might be only provisionally justified only to be retried at the last day partly on the basis of Spirit-wrought sanctity or our good works issuing from the justification wrought for us and sanctification gradually and gracious wrought in us… We do not do good works in order to be justified. It is the doctrine of the Roman [Catholic] communion, rejected in the Reformation 500 years ago, that we are sanctified in order that we may be eventually justified. It is the Protestant doctrine that we are justified and saved that we might be sanctified. We do good works because we have been justified and because we have been saved. These are the reasons we do good works. We are neither justified nor saved through our faithfulness. Against the Remonstrants, the Synod of Dort asserted the same doctrine. This is basic Reformed theology.” 

It is drastically important that we understand that Federal Vision Theology is not compatible with the Reformed tradition’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, should not be identified with the Reformed theological tradition whatsoever, and advances a “different Gospel.” In the forthcoming and final article of this series, I will set forth some practical instruction as to how the broader Christian community should interact with Federal Vision Theology and with those who continue to heartily endorse this heretical system of doctrine. 

*Check out the complete Joint Federal Vision Profession here