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

How should the broader Christian community interact with Federal Vision Theology? Asking such a question will elicit diverse responses within American Christendom. Many self-identifying evangelicals have likely never heard of Federal Vision Theology.[1] In Baptist circles that affirm the doctrines of grace, some have insinuated that the entire controversy surrounding Federal Vision Theology has been much ado about nothing.[2] Over the past few years, there has even been a debate within the confessionally Reformed community as to whether or not Federal Vision Theology is alive and well.[3] Is this system of doctrine even a threat in the current Christian landscape? Aren’t there more pressing issues for the church to invest her time and energy towards rectifying, such as the “woke church movement”[4] or the revisionism of classical Christian theism?[5]

Is this so-called doctrinal error really that big of a deal? Fundamentally, whether at the macro or micro level, doctrinal purity should matter to the body of Christ because it matters immensely to the triune God (John 4:24). For the church to be the pillar and support of God’s truth (1 Tim. 3:15), it must be adequately equipped to both articulate the faith that has been once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 1:3) and always be ready to protect the faith from gross error (1 Pet. 3:15). Despite the plethora of opinions that exist on the subject of Federal Vision Theology and the lack of popularity that this subject has enjoyed in “Big Eva” over the past 15-20 years, it is vitally important for those who are aware of this heresy to alert the church of its danger.

A Brief Recap of the Series

In this series’ introductory article,[6] 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,[7] 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. In this series’ third article,[8] 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) 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 paedocommunion (infant communion). Each of these aforementioned ecclesiological deficiencies should raise considerable concern within American Christendom, as should the soteriological (doctrine of salvation) abnormalities that were highlighted in the fourth article of this series.[9]

When canvassing the JFVP on soteriology, it was discovered that there is no mention of how the active obedience of Jesus Christ factors into a sinner’s ability to be declared righteous (justified) before God. Furthermore, the JFVP blatantly denies the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, a byproduct of Federal Vision’s two-fold scheme of election: decretal and covenantal election. Further reflection upon the idea of decretal and covenantal election highlighted how 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). This alarming distinctive proves 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 an altogether “different Gospel.”

A Survey of 3 Practical Reasons to Denounce Federal Vision Theology

The byproduct of Federal Vision Theology’s deviation from the Reformed tradition has resulted in a system that undermines the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Although myriads of practical implications could be deduced from thoroughly analyzing the faults of Federal Vision Theology, I believe that there are at least three necessary reasons why this doctrinal system should be denounced as heresy throughout the universal church. As can be seen below, each of these three reasons are interconnected and ought to be at the forefront of our minds as Christians seeking to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

1. Federal Vision Theology Is Not Monolithic 

First and foremost, it must be reiterated to the reader that there is not a “one size fits all” model of Federal Vision Theology. This reality is clearly stated by the 11 framers of the JFVP:

“the Federal Vision is not a monolithic movement. It has been variously described as a conversation, a broad school of thought, a series of similar questions, and so on… There are a number of common themes held by those who signed this statement. But there are also important areas of disagreement or ongoing discussion among those who are identified as Federal Vision advocates.”[10]

It is routinely acknowledged by Reformed Christians and parachurch ministries who have been most critical of Federal Vision Theology that there is a vast diversity of convictions embraced by the 11 preliminary adherents to this doctrinal framework. Thus, when engaging with the material produced by adherents to Federal Vision Theology, Reformed and Evangelical Christians must employ patience and methodical researching tactics to ensure that they accurately understand those who they are interacting with on any given theological subject. As this series was being developed, I was overwhelmed by how little doctrinal continuity actually exists between the 11 initial framers of the JFVP on matters not explicitly delineated in their statement of faith. In fact, even on the issues covered in the JFVP, the concluding section entitled “Some Points of Intramural Disagreement” lists several significant points of doctrine that the 11 preliminary signers of this statement of faith have “disagreement or ongoing discussion” about.

Why do I belabor this point to the reader? Because Reformed and Evangelical Christians need to be aware that the unstable and scattered characteristics of this theological system stem from the fact that the 11 preliminary signers of this statement of faith are all over the map with regards to their own theological convictions. Would it be expected that a coherent, consistent or clear articulation of where a group stands on a system of doctrine be produced if the framers of that system of doctrine are not themselves coherent, consistent or clear on where they stand on the issues they are seeking to address? The developers of the JFVP profess to be “confessionally bound to the Three Forms of Unity or to the Westminster Confession of Faith,” but on issues touching the most foundational doctrine that those historic confessions espouse—justification by faith alone—it is clear that these men are far removed from the theological clarity that is elucidated in those ancient creeds.

If this be the case on arguably the most basic doctrinal truths to be found in those historical Reformed confessions, how much more so is it likely that they differ substantially in other areas? Thus, Reformed and Evangelical Christians must tread carefully in their interactions with adherents to Federal Vision and be overly intentional in striving to clarify what is precisely meant when Federal Vision proponents use certain terms and/or categories in dialogue. It is not always easy to nail down what is commonly embraced as true by all who subscribe to the JFVP and where those subscribers personally differ on doctrine not explicitly set forth in their own confession.

2. The Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) is Outside the Bounds of Reformed Orthodoxy

Federal Vision Theology, as embodied in the JFVP, undermines and/or negates key traits of Reformed theology; most significantly, the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This series has suggested to the reader that 1) Federal Vision Theology is not compatible with the Reformed tradition’s doctrine of justification by faith alone 2) Federal Vision Theology is not compatible and should not be identified with the Reformed theological tradition whatsoever and 3) the necessary implications of Federal Vision Theology leads its adherents to embrace an altogether “different Gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). For the purpose of clarity and by way of concluding this series, it is necessary to devote some space to unpacking each of these three contentions. To cite a relevant example, the Synod 2007 Report of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) convincingly summarizes how key tenets of Federal Vision Theology contribute to the undermining of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.[11] In their denominational report, the URCNA critically examines the JFVP’s convictions on:

• Baptism

Critique: “[Federal Vision teaches] that the sacrament of baptism effectively incorporates all of its recipients into Christ and puts them in possession of all the benefits of His saving work, including justification.”

• How membership in God’s covenant of grace is attained

Critique: “[Federal Vision blends the concepts of] election and covenant, which leads to the unqualified claim that all members of the covenant community enjoy the gospel blessing of justification in Christ.”

• The absence of the active obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to all Believers for their justification

Critique: “[Federal Vision denies that] the meritorious character of Christ’s work as Mediator… fulfills all the obligations of the law on behalf of His people and secures their inheritance of eternal life… Federal Vision’s tendency [is] to reduce justification to the forgiveness of sins, which is based upon the imputation of Christ’s passive obedience alone.”

• The undermining of the doctrine of assurance of salvation

Critique: “[Federal Vision claims] that all members of the church are savingly united to Christ, even though some do not persevere in the way of faith and obedience and lose the grace of justification through apostasy.”

• The negating of the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints

Critique: “[Federal Vision attempts] to resolve the problem of assurance by an appeal to the ‘objectivity’ of church membership and the sacrament of baptism, while insisting that some believers may lose their salvation because of a non-persevering faith.”

Each of these critiques presented by the URCNA and echoed by several other Reformed denominations indicate that Federal Vision Theology—when taken to its logical and practical conclusions—necessitates embracing a different Gospel. This doctrinal system is incompatible with the Reformed tradition and should be firmly rejected as orthodox throughout broader Evangelicalism. As helpfully notated by Dr. R. Scott Clark in his preserved copy of the JFVP, “the Federal Vision Theology is an aberrant doctrine, which has been rightly rejected by the orthodox and confessional Reformed churches as a corruption of the gospel.”[12] Therefore, it is the responsibility of Reformed and Evangelical Christians alike to charitably but firmly inform other Believers about the unbiblical nature of Federal Vision Theology, as well as call all willful adherents to this faulty doctrinal system to repentance from their erroneous views. The Christian’s responsibility to rightly divide the Word of truth includes publicly and purposively safeguarding God’s self-disclosure against error at all costs (2 Tim. 2:15).

3. To Willfully Embrace Federal Vision Theology, is to Willfully Embrace Significant Theological Error 

Federal Vision Theology is an erroneous system of doctrine, and to willfully embrace it is to willfully embrace error. The Lord Jesus Christ was absolutely clear when He declared to the Samaritan woman at the well that true worshippers of God (I.e.- Christians) will worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24). True worshippers of God will ascribe worship to Him that is directed by the indwelling Holy Spirit and is in agreement with His own self-disclosure as contained in Scripture. Thus, true worship of God cannot be reduced to subjective ideals wherein one claims to merely “follow the leading of the Holy Spirit” at the expense of being informed by the very words that the Holy Spirit inspired in Scripture itself. On the other hand, true worship of God cannot be reduced to dry academic externalism wherein the focus of worship is to simply gain head knowledge about the Bible. True worship of God must necessarily encapsulate a focus on rightly understanding the Bible and a willingness to be obedient to the Holy Spirit’s direction of how Biblical truth is to be applied to one’s individual life. When it comes to evaluating Federal Vision Theology on its own terms, both the truth of God’s Word and the application of Biblical truth to one’s life is in serious jeopardy.

The severe problems that can be observed when surveying the corpus of Federal Vision Theology stem from a posture of intellectual pride exhibited by the initial framers of the JFVP and those who continue to staunchly endorse this theological framework. In the preface to this statement of faith, it is claimed by the initial signers of the JFVP that they “want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to refine [their] formulations as critics point out ambiguities, confusions, or errors.” On the surface, this expressed aspiration in the JFVP is remarkably noble and should be the posture of all Christians who strive to better understand how God’s Word fits together. Nevertheless, actions always speak louder than words. In the aftermath of the voluminous content that has been produced in an effort to demonstrate the various ways in which the JFVP is in error and incompatible with Reformed theology, there has yet to be any publicly verifiable evidence of the 11 initial framers of the JFVP recanting from the doctrine espoused in that document. Why should this be a cause for concern? Most significantly, because this conversation has not been transpiring in an obscure vacuum! There have been thorough ecclesiastical assessments in confessionally Reformed denominations and seminaries that clearly reveal the heterodox doctrine championed by adherents to the JFVP.

I understand that the men who have most extensively developed the JFVP are genuinely convinced that they are merely trying to accurately relay what they believe the Bible teaches. Nevertheless, it appears to be the height of arrogance when unbiblical and historically novel conclusions are drawn, systematically pointed out as fallacious by reputable critics, and yet, are continued to be embraced as true despite having ample cause for being proven false. While it is certainly true that there are difficult passages and teachings in the Bible to understand (2 Pet. 3:16), the Reformed have always confessed that the most basic truths to the Christian faith are plainly set forth in the Bible so as not to be misunderstood.[13] How much more so would the doctrine of justification by faith alone—the very doctrine that teaches sinners how they can enjoy a personal, saving relationship with their holy Creator—be clearly presented across the totality of Holy Writ?

When it comes to worshipping God “in spirit,” Christians should naturally desire to emulate a teachable disposition in an effort to ensure that their theological commitments aren’t overtly out of step with the faith that has been once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 1:3). Furthermore, when it comes to worshipping God “in truth,” Christians should be vigilant in safeguarding theological orthodoxy across the local and universal church dimensions. As Dr. JV Fesko rightly notes, “The church must always… be prepared both to teach the truth of Scripture and to reclaim heretical brothers and sisters through church discipline.”[14] At least six confessionally Reformed denominations and two confessionally Reformed seminaries have done their due diligence over the past decade in an effort to sound the alarm throughout American Christendom that Federal Vision Theology is both outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy and ultimately, can lead to one embracing a different Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Readers be warned: if you choose to willfully embrace Federal Vision Theology despite having adequate awareness as to the various contours of this doctrinal system, you are in a very dangerous situation. To quote Dr. R.C. Sproul: “I can’t fathom why there’s any hesitancy about [rejecting Federal Vision]… There’s too much at stake—this is the gospel we’re talking about.”[15] In the years to come, may God bring about greater theological clarity and instill within His people a boldness to declare the unadulterated truth of His Word against the heresy known as Federal Vision Theology.

Soli Deo Gloria!

[1] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-federal-vision/

[2] https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/12/03/federal-vision-baptists/

[3] https://heidelblog.net/2019/11/just-in-time-for-reformation-day-the-return-of-the-federal-visionists-and-their-allies/

[4] https://founders.org/reviews/you-dont-need-to-be-woke-to-be-biblical-a-review-of-eric-masons-woke-church/

[5]https://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/submission_in_the_trinity_a_quick_guide_to_the_debate

[6] https://covenantconfessions.com/federal-vision-pt-i-how-good-intentions-corrupt-gods-gospel/

[7] https://covenantconfessions.com/federal-vision-pt-ii-incompatible-with-justification-by-faith-alone/

[8] https://covenantconfessions.com/federal-vision-pt-iii-undermining-the-doctrine-of-the-church/

[9] https://covenantconfessions.com/federal-vision-pt-iv-a-different-gospel/

[10] https://rscottclark.org/a-joint-federal-vision-profession-2007/

[11]https://www.urcna.org/urcna/StudyCommittees/FederalVision/Federal_Vision_Study_Committee_Report.pdf- Pages 72-73

[12] https://rscottclark.org/a-joint-federal-vision-profession-2007/

[13] https://www.monergism.com/perspicuity-scriptures-right-private-judgment

[14]https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/12/the-new-adventures-of-old-trinitarian-heresies/

[15] https://byfaithonline.com/federal-vision-the-issue-for-this-generation/