My life as a Christian was forever changed on an ordinary day off from work in early December (2019). As my wife left for her job at a local preschool, I trudged from our bedroom to the living room table to embark upon another lengthy day of homework. The Fall semester was nearing its conclusion, and as such, I eagerly desired to maximize my time off from work to complete a term paper due in the upcoming weeks. It wasn’t long after beginning to sift through the clutter of commentaries, systematic theology textbooks and required literature for my Practical Theology course that I found myself checking my Twitter account for updates in the world of (virtual) Christendom. At first glance, nothing on my timeline stood out. There were the usual motivational quotes from Dustin Benge and Steven Lawson, current event reports from Albert Mohler on The Briefing and daily podcast episodes provided by Ligonier Ministries. Yet, as I continued to progress through my timeline, my eyes beheld something that I instantly knew would create a frenzy across the landscape of “Christian Twitter”: Dr. James White had engaged in a recorded interview with Doug Wilson on the infamous subject of Federal Vision Theology.

Within hours, men and women from seemingly every Reformed denomination were sharing their opinions on the conversation. Given the fact that Dr. White and Mr. Wilson are two of the most polarizing figures in American Christendom, the vast majority of commentary on their dialogue appeared to fall on one of two ends on a spectrum. On the one hand, there were those who expressed hearty dissatisfaction in both the content of the conversation itself, as well as in regard to Dr. White even engaging in a charitable conversation with the most prominent proponent of Federal Vision Theology.[1] On the other hand, there were those who voiced emphatic approval of their conversation, even insinuating that Federal Vision is no longer a prevalent issue in our day.[2] At the time, I had very little knowledge of Federal Vision Theology and was likewise unaware of the decades of controversy that had been generated around that subject in the Reformed world. Nevertheless, in God’s providence, I had been recently invited to write for an online journal that sought to interact with current events/topics from a Christian worldview. After watching the interview between Dr. White and Mr. Wilson for myself and surveying the extensive commentary on Twitter, I texted my editor to see if he was interested in having me write a series on Federal Vision Theology from a Reformed perspective. If you have read any of the previous 5 installments in this series, you already know what his answer was to my inquiry.

A Brief Recap of the Series

Over the last 9 months, I have listened to hours of podcasts, as well as devoured countless primary and secondary sources on Federal Vision Theology. The fruit of those efforts has reached its climax with this sixth and final article. In this series’ introductory article,[3] 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,[4] 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,[5] 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.[6]

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.” In light of Federal Vision’s erroneous understanding of how sinners are reconciled to God, the fifth article of this series offered three practical reasons as to why this system of doctrine ought to be universally rejected as heresy within broader Christendom.[7] As alluded to above, each of the five previous articles were written from a Reformed theological framework at the request of a former editor who is pursuing membership in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Over the past several months, the Covenant Confessions team kindly offered me the privilege of having this series re-posted through their website, and it has been a joy to engage in various interactions through social media on the contours of Federal Vision Theology as this series has progressed.

A Particular Baptist Critique of Federal Vision Theology

It is only fitting to devote the final installment of this series to providing a critique of Federal Vision Theology from a Particular Baptist perspective. I am a Pastor in the Southern Baptist denomination and I personally subscribe to the doctrine expressed in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2LBCF). Like the founders and the other regular contributors of Covenant Confessions, I desire to “equip God’s people with content that informs and encourages from a [Particular Baptist] perspective.”[8] While we are grateful for our Presbyterian brethren and are indebted to much of the Biblical scholarship that has been produced by that theological tradition, there are certainly some areas of doctrine within that branch of Christianity that we firmly disagree with. Given the purposes and scope of this article, I am going to suggest three ways in which a Particular Baptist (1689 Federalism) framework provides a more robust critique of Federal Vision Theology than the Reformed tradition has to offer.

1. 1689 Federalism Offers a More Consistent Application of New Testament Interpretive Priority 

Both 1689 Federalism and the Reformed tradition affirm the progressive nature of God’s special revelation, and as such, affirm the necessity of interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. Consider the following quotes from Dr. Michael J. Glodo (Padeobaptist) and Dr. Tom Hicks (Credobaptist) which demonstrate how both theological traditions subscribe to this principle of Biblical interpretation.

Dr. Glodo:

We look at the New Testament as the full revelation of what the Old Testament anticipated. We interpret the Old Testament in light of the New, but we also interpret the New Testament against the background of the Old Testament. They inform each other and shed light on one another because these things tell us that the Bible is about one story and about one plan of God and ultimately about one people of God. The hermeneutic that the Bible supplies leads us not only to that conclusion, but also to that methodology.[9]

Dr. Hicks:

The interpretive principle of New Testament priority is derived from an examination of the Scriptures themselves. As we read the Bible, we notice that earlier texts never explicitly interpret later texts. Earlier texts provide the interpretive context for later texts, but earlier texts never cite later texts and explain them directly. Rather, what we find is that later texts make explicit reference to earlier texts and provide explanations of them. Moreover, the later portion of any book always makes clear the earlier portion. When you just begin to read a novel, for example, you’re still learning the characters, the setting, the context, etc., but later on, as the story progresses, things that happened earlier in the book make more sense and take on new meaning. Mysteries are resolved. Earlier conversations between characters gain new significance as the novel unfolds. Later parts of the story have primary explanatory power over the earlier parts. The hermeneutical principle of New Testament priority simply recognizes these facts. Following the Bible’s own example, interpreters should allow later revelation in the Bible to explain earlier revelation, rather than insisting on their own uninspired interpretations of earlier revelation without reference to the authoritative explanations of later revelation.[10]

As signified in both of the aforementioned citations, at least in principle, 1689 Federalism and the Reformed tradition agree on the interpretive priority of the New Testament. However, the consistent application of this hermeneutical principle is found wanting within the Reformed tradition when examining its covenant theology and ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). These principles will be fleshed out further in this article’s subsequent sections, but in the meantime, it’s important to note a vital point of critique towards the Reformed tradition. A failure to consistently apply a New Testament interpretive priority could logically lead one to embrace core ideas promoted in Dispensationalism and/or Federal Vision Theology. An appropriate case study to examine that poignantly illustrates a lack of consistently applying a New Testament interpretive priority is Dr. R. Scott Clark. Regarding Dispensationalism, Dr. Clark rightly recognizes the system’s failure to adequately account for the nature of God’s progressive revelation in history and in Scripture. Dr. Clark helpfully observes,

For those within Dispensationalism, there are two peoples of God, an earthly people (Israel) and a heavenly people. As they read Scripture, there is a genuine sense in which God’s promises to national Israel are the center of Scripture. In this view it is held that God intends to restore national Israel, including the temple and the sacrificial system. Thus, according to most forms of Dispensationalism, those promises of an earthly kingdom are thought to be the norm by which all the rest of Scripture must be understood… We might call [Dispensationalism’s hermeneutic] an Israeleo-centric way of reading Scripture. This is a theological system that has been popular since the early part of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, it is not the historic Christian approach to reading Scripture. For most of the church prior to the rise of Dispensationalism, such an approach would have been described as ‘Judaizing.’ Indeed, those approaches that did seek to restore the types and shadows (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1) of the Old Testament were regarded as Judaizing in the sense that they did not properly recognize the progress of redemptive history and revelation.[11]

1689 Federalists can offer a hearty “Amen” to all of these concerns raised by Dr. Clark in reflecting upon the faulty hermeneutic of Dispensationalism. However, it’s ironic to simultaneously see how Dr. Clark fails to see the logical implications of his critique of the Dispensationalist’s approach to reading Scripture. On the one hand, Dr. Clark chastises the Dispensationalist for not “properly recognizing the progress of redemptive history and revelation,” but on the other hand, his adherence to infant baptism is established on the “Abrahamic paradigm” described in Genesis 17:7, not the New Testament.[12] Dr. Clark rightly acknowledges that “baptism has replaced circumcision” as a sign of the current (new) covenant epoch in redemptive history (Col. 2:11-12), but he does not see baptism as a sign of anything fundamentally better than circumcision. For Dr. Clark and others in the Reformed tradition, baptism is the New Covenant sign of initiation into the covenant of grace; a covenant that began with Abraham in Genesis 15/17.[13] As such, despite the absence of any positive New Testament command for doing so, the Reformed tradition insists that “we [are to] regard covenant children (before profession of faith) and all who make a credible profession of faith as Christians until they prove otherwise.”[14] One is left to wonder how such logic enables the Reformed tradition to affirm the visible/invisible church distinction and in doing so, be prevented from falling victim to Federal Vision Theology’s doctrine of Padeocommunion. Moreover, this theological inconsistency implies the “seed of faith” (presumptive regeneration) premise that many Reformers embraced during the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries.[15]

These inconsistencies observable in Dr. Clark’s theology are also shared by many Godly and intelligent Reformed Christians. I have the highest level of respect for Dr. Clark and consider him a mentor in the faith. Nevertheless, these flawed doctrinal conclusions are necessary consequences of the Reformed tradition’s inability to consistently apply a New Testament interpretive priority. 1689 Federalism exceeds the Reformed tradition by consistently applying New Testament interpretive priority in practice. 1689 Federalism recognizes that whereas “[God’s] moral laws (written on the heart of all human beings) endure throughout all [redemptive-historical] covenants, God’s positive laws do not. [Rather], positive laws are given in a particular redemptive-historical setting and in a particular covenantal [context]. Positive laws only apply to the covenantal context in which they are given. This is why [for example,] we are no longer obligated to follow the ceremonial/civil laws of the Old Testament.”[16] Thus, 1689 Federalists administer the New Covenant signs of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the New Testament explicitly instructs us to do so: exclusively to those who have made a credible profession of faith, as external signs of what should be the internal reality of regeneration (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:37-41; 1 Cor. 11:27-29). 1689 Federalism provides a more well-rounded framework to critically interact with Federal Vision Theology than the Reformed tradition. As will be seen in this article’s next section, the fruit of Reformed theology’s inconsistent application of New Testament interpretive priority is an inconsistent covenant theology.

2. 1689 Federalism Offers a More Consistent Covenant Theology 

Both the Reformed and Particular Baptist traditions embrace distinct systems of covenant theology.[17] Each of these traditions’ respective systems of covenant theology have direct implications as to how they understand significant aspects of soteriology and ecclesiology. Broadly speaking, there is great overlap between 1689 Federalism and Reformed theology when examining their convictions on the covenants of redemption and works. Listed below are excerpts from theologians within the Reformed and Particular Baptist traditions on the covenants of redemption and works. As can be seen in these citations, both covenants are perceived in very similar ways by proponents of each respective theological framework.

Covenant of Redemption

Rev. Michael G. Brown (Padeobaptist):

The covenant of redemption is a pact between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with the purpose of redeeming God’s elect. The Father gave to the Son those whom he chose to save and required him to accomplish their salvation though his obedient life and atoning death as the second Adam. He also promised the Son a reward on the completion of his work. The Son accepted the Father’s gift, agreed to the conditions of this covenant, and submitted himself to the Father’s will. The Holy Spirit promised to apply the benefits earned by the Son to the elect and unite them with the Son forever. Thus, we say the covenant of redemption is an ‘intratrinitarian’ covenant between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… The covenant of redemption was made in eternity, before the foundation of the world and all things temporal. Thus, we say that it is also a ‘pretemporal’ covenant.[18]

Dr. Fred Malone (Credobaptist):

The third paragraph [of chapter 7 in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith] sails back on the seas of eternity beyond the horizon of creation and takes us into the hallowed counsels of the Father and the Son and into that eternal covenant transaction for the redemption of God’s elect people before the foundation of the world. This is often called the Covenant of Redemption or the Counsel of Peace. There we find the eternal ignition of grace in the heart of God to send His only begotten Son to be the effectual Savior of His elect people (2 Timothy 2:9; Titus 1:2; Ephesians 1:4–11). He is, literally, the only Savior the world has.[19]

Covenant of Works  

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (Padeobaptist):

Although the term ‘covenant of works’ does not appear in the creation account, all of the elements of such a covenant are clearly present in Eden. First, there are two parties involved (Adam and his creator), with God sovereignly imposing the terms of this covenant upon Adam and his descendants. Second, there is a condition set forth by God as spelled out in Genesis 2:17. Although this condition comes in the form of a specific prohibition (if you eat from the tree you will die), it can also be framed as a positive theological principle which describes the very essence of this covenant: ‘Do this [i.e., obey by not eating] and live.’ Third, there is a blessing promised upon perfect obedience (eternal life) as well as a threatened curse (death) for any act of disobedience. If Adam obeys his creator and does not eat from the tree, then he will receive God’s promised blessing–eternal life. But should Adam eat from the tree, then he will come under the covenant curse–which is death. All three of these elements are present in the creation account, and in light of the declaration in Hosea 6:7, there can be little question that such a covenant exists and that it is founded upon a blessing/curse principle.[20]

Pascal Denault (Credobaptist):

The goal of God’s covenant is to bring eternal life to man. The first covenant would bring man to life by works. God gave Adam ‘a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it’ (LBC 6:1). Adam, by accomplishing the covenant of works, was to earn eternal life, i.e. he was to seal his communion bond with God (John 17:3) in righteousness by his obedience in order to attain incorruptibility and immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53–54). But could a finite and natural creature really merit eternal life before an infinite and eternal God? The first paragraph of chapter 7 [in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith] explains how this could be so… The distinction and distance is so great [between God and man] that it is impossible for man to merit anything from God. The confession backs this view of the impossibility for man in his natural standing before God to merit anything by two biblical passages: Luke 17:10 and Job 35:7–8. God owes nothing to man and man owes everything to God. But by way of a covenant, God condescends to remunerate the obedience of man by eternal life. This is what paragraph 1 refers to by recalling the covenant of works that was presented in chapter 6 [of the confession).[21]

As demonstrated by the aforementioned quotations, there is great continuity between 1689 Federalism and the Reformed tradition’s conception of the covenants of redemption and works. However, upon considering the nature of the covenant of grace, each of these theological camps quickly depart on their own unique path. In the third installment of this series,[22] the Reformed tradition’s covenant theology was referenced on several occasions in order to account for their doctrine of the church and understanding of the New Covenant ordinances. In that article, it was stated that “the covenant of grace refers to the one plan of redemption that is manifested throughout the Bible: God saves sinners by His grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Gen. 3:15; 12:1-3; Ex. 34:28; Jer. 31:31-37; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).”[23] As such and as embraced within the Reformed tradition, the covenant of grace was historically present and temporally administered prior to the first advent of Jesus Christ, throughout Old Testament history.[24]

It is important to note that there are Reformed theologians who believe that the covenant of grace was historically inaugurated in the Garden of Eden,[25] while there are others who don’t see the formal establishment of the covenant of grace until Abraham.[26] When evaluating each of these Reformed perspectives, it is clear that both of these convictions differ substantially from the 1689 Federalism understanding of the covenant of grace. For the Particular Baptist, the covenant of grace was not historically established until the inauguration of the New Covenant.[27] Although the promise of the covenant of grace was progressively revealed throughout Old Testament history, the covenant of grace was not formally inaugurated in history until the death of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:15). Nevertheless, despite its later historical establishment, the saving benefits of the covenant of grace was retroactively applied to all of God’s elect throughout every stage of history prior to its formal inauguration. According to 1689 Federalism, the covenant of grace (New Covenant) alone brings salvation to God’s people and functions in two, efficacious ways: 1) Believers who lived prior to the cross were saved through faith in the Messiah who was to come, and in doing so, the benefits of what Christ would eventually accomplish in the future were retroactively applied to them (similar to how a person can receive a cash advance on their paycheck prior to payday)[28]; 2) Believers who live after the cross are saved through faith in the Messiah who did come, and in doing so, the benefits of what Christ accomplished in the past are prospectively applied to them.[29]

In light of these brief comparisons between 1689 Federalism and the Reformed tradition’s convictions on covenant theology, we now come full circle back to this section’s overarching question: how can it be argued that 1689 Federalism offers a more consistent covenant theology than the Reformed alternative? When analyzing the intramural debates on the timing of the historical solidification of the covenant of grace, a glaring weakness arises in the Reformed tradition’s covenant theology. Ironically, Reformed theologians who argue that the covenant of grace was not established until Abraham operate under the same presupposition that 1689 Federalism does in espousing that the New Covenant alone is the covenant of grace. For example, in his highly esteemed systematic theology, consider how Louis Berkhof believes that the covenant of grace should be understood within the Reformed tradition:

The first revelation of the covenant [of grace] is found in the protevangel, Genesis 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant. Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace (emphasis mine). While Genesis 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established (emphasis mine). It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church.[30]

The aforementioned citation from Berkhof’s systematic theology represents a popular Reformed conception of the covenant of grace. In Berkhof’s reasoning, the covenant of grace was not historically enacted until the Abrahamic Covenant, and as such, every person who was saved prior to the historical establishment of that covenant was saved through its retroactive application. This is exactly what 1689 Federalism argues about the New Covenant’s ability to save Old Testament Believers retroactively by virtue of it being the covenant of grace proper. A common Reformed critique of 1689 Federalism is that “[1689 Federalism wrongly teaches that] the types and shadows [of the Old Testament] witness to and reveal the coming redemption [through the person and work of Jesus Christ], which the Old Testament Believers have only by anticipation, but God the Son is not actually present [in those types and shadows found throughout the Old Testament].”[31] Based on the popular Reformed argumentation that the covenant of grace was not historically inaugurated until Abraham, Particular Baptists can point out that this position essentially reasons the same way. That is, until Abraham, all Believers who lived were saved and partook of all spiritual benefits by anticipation of the covenant of grace that was to come at a later point in redemptive history. Given this inconsistency, it appears to be far more cogent for Reformed theologians to argue that the covenant of grace was historically enacted in Genesis 3:15 instead of Genesis 15/17, and even this point can be vigorously debated due to its inconclusivity as to whether or not Genesis 3:15 ought to be regarded as a promise or as a covenant. Of course, I submit to the reader that it would be most consistent for Reformed theologians to apply New Testament interpretive priority to the totality of Scripture and in doing so, regard the New Covenant alone as the covenant of grace. By rejecting this point, both Federal Vision and Reformed covenant theology are found to be severely wanting.

3. 1689 Federalism Offers a More Consistent Ecclesiology

In the third and final section of this article, it will be demonstrated how the Reformed tradition’s failure to consistently apply New Testament interpretive priority, and regard the New Covenant alone as the covenant of grace, inevitably leads to significant ecclesiological inconsistencies. As will be seen, these ecclesiological inconsistencies even create some difficulties for the Reformed tradition to critique Federal Vision Theology on this subject. Moreover, 1689 Federalism offers a more desirable system to critique Federal Vision Theology than the Reformed alternative and offers a more Biblically informed doctrine of the church. The doctrine of the church flows organically out of one’s covenant theology, and one’s covenant theology flows organically out of one’s hermeneutic methodology. If one consistently applies New Testament interpretive priority, then one will necessarily recognize that the New Covenant alone can be the covenant of grace. Brandon Adams provides helpful clarification in describing the logical connectedness of how the New Covenant alone can be regarded as the covenant of grace.

If the Covenant of Grace was ‘in effect’ since Genesis 3:15, then how can we say it was not established until the death of Christ (the historical establishment of the New Covenant)? First, because it’s legal effectiveness as a covenant is entirely rooted in the death of Christ. Second, because the ‘establishment’ of the New Covenant refers also to its being reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance – to its being made visible. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, was then made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church. When the New Covenant was given out only in the way of a promise (Gen 3:15, etc), it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was then brought to light, and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was then solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, were all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church, [the historically established, visible entity of the New Covenant].[32]

In following Adams’ train of thought regarding the New Covenant being the covenant of grace and in keeping with a consistent application of New Testament interpretive priority, one arrives at the conclusion that the church must be composed exclusively of those who receive the saving benefits of the covenant of grace: Believers. Thus, all of God’s elect, from the Garden until the return of Jesus Christ, comprise the substance of His New Covenant church in the sense that they have received the saving benefits of Christ through faith (Rom. 8:29-30). All of God’s elect are true partakers and benefactors of the covenant of grace by His grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Eph. 2:1-10). However, it must likewise be affirmed that the church was not a historically established institution/entity until the present epoch of redemptive history: “the fullness of times” (Gal. 4:4) and the “Last Days” (Heb. 1:1-2). As such, all who come to saving faith in Jesus Christ after His life, death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven are called to join local churches and receive the New Covenant ordinances for themselves (Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-34; Heb. 10:23-25). Thus, a New Testament interpretive priority necessitates a Particular Baptist covenant theology, resulting in the New Covenant ordinances being administered exclusively to those who have made credible professions of faith: those who most likely comprise God’s true church, which is exclusively comprised of His elect (Heb. 8:6-12).

Although 1689 Federalism affirms the visible/invisible church distinction along with the Reformed tradition,[33] Particular Baptists differ from their Reformed brethren by insisting that unregenerate members of the visible church are not associated to the covenant of grace in any respect (1 John 2:19). For the Particular Baptist, unbelievers are never united to Christ in any external (non-saving) sense and are to only be viewed as those who dwell within the visible church (Matt. 13:24-30). Only those who are truly regenerate are members of the covenant of grace and as such, it is only those who are regenerate that can be identified as the sinners for whom Christ died and intercedes for at the right hand of God the Father (John 17:9; Heb. 7:25-27). Because of this distinctive of 1689 Federalism, the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper must only be given to those who demonstrate through their lives that they are born again.[34] 1689 Federalism insists that this is the consistent application of the doctrine of limited atonement and is the most faithful understanding of the explicit references documented throughout the New Testament record as to who are baptized, partake of the Lord’s Supper and are considered Christians (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:37-41; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34). As much as is possible on this side of glory, the visible church should correspond with the invisible church, and the ordinances of the New Covenant are to be administered accordingly.[35] For those who walk in unrepentant sin, they are to be subject to the church disciplinary steps as outlined within the New Testament in effort to cultivate repentance or demonstrate that their profession of faith was false through excommunication from the covenant community (Matt. 18:15-20).

In previous articles, while writing from a Reformed perspective, I was critical of Federal Vision Theology’s position on baptism, the Lord’s Supper and the nature of apostasy. The third and fourth installments of this series offer a Reformed critique of Federal Vision’s unsound convictions on those important tenets of ecclesiology. By way of drawing this section of the article to a conclusion, I submit to the reader that 1689 Federalism offers Federal Vision’s ecclesiology a more compelling and Biblically consistent critique than Reformed theology. As stressed above, the Reformed tradition perceives the children of Believers and those within the visible church as truly partaking of the external administration of the covenant of grace. Therefore, the baptized children of Believers are to be regarded as Christians until proven otherwise, regardless of if they have ever made a profession of faith (as is the case with infants). To account for these so-called Christians who later apostatize from the faith they were once identified with, the Reformed tradition must rely on difficult passages in Hebrews to justify how they could be true partakers of the covenant of grace (externally), and yet, not be truly counted amongst God’s elect as evidenced by their falling away (Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-39). Federal Vision Theology certainly goes too far in regarding baptized infants as being truly united to Christ, administering the Lord’s Supper to baptized infants and regarding those who apostatize as losing a union with Christ that was “not merely external” (which implies a rejection of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints).[36] However, one can only wonder how proponents of Reformed theology don’t inevitably reach the same conclusions given the tensions that exist within their own ecclesiological convictions.

After all, Reformed theology believes that 1) the baptized children of Believers are to be regarded as Christians until proven otherwise (how can this be reconciled with the doctrine of justification by faith alone and not imply a type of presumptive regeneration?); 2) those in the visible church are true partakers of the covenant of grace and as such, are somehow in an external, non-saving relationship with Jesus Christ (how can one be in a “relationship” with Jesus Christ that is non-salvific?); 3) all people who apostatize were not truly of God’s people to begin with (1 John 2:19), but at the same time, were truly part of the external administration of the covenant of grace (Heb. 6:4-8). These are three of the most troubling ecclesiological inconsistencies observable within the Reformed tradition and when evaluated as a theological system to offer critique of Federal Vision Theology, one is left to wonder why anybody would prefer it over 1689 Federalism. Again, I cannot stress enough to the reader how much I appreciate, respect and cherish my Reformed brethren. Nevertheless, it is my prayer that more Christians would be awakened to the Biblically rich, theologically robust and logically coherent system that has been championed by Particular Baptists over the past 400 years. It has been a pleasure and a privilege devoting the past 9 months to an intensive study of Federal Vision Theology and to learning how that system of doctrine falls far short of Protestant orthodoxy. May God use this series and others like it to stimulate edifying conversations amongst His people, to facilitate growth in their ability to accurately divide the Word of truth and most importantly, to be further conformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ; to the praise of His glorious grace.

Soli Deo Gloria!

[1] https://heidelblog.net/2019/12/heidelcast-134-a-federal-vision-primer/

[2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/calvinistinternational.com/2019/11/08/giving-up-the-ghost-what-to-think-of-the-federal-vision-after-all-these-years/amp/

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

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

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

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

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

[8] https://covenantconfessions.com/about/

[9] https://rts.edu/resources/wisdom-wednesday-with-rev-michael-glodo

[10] https://founders.org/2016/05/26/hermeneutics-new-testament-priority/

[11] https://agradio.org/what-preaching-christ-from-all-of-scripture-does-and-does-not-mean

[12] https://heidelblog.net/2019/05/video-the-abraham-paradigm

[13] Richard Muller “How Many Points?” Calvin Theological Journal 28, no. 2 (1993), 427

[14] https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/history-covenant-theology/

[15]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cprc.co.uk/quotes/infantbaptism/&source=gmail&ust=1597350582275000&usg=AFQjCNGQrm7ih_HN4R1pUYt6NxT8mk4ddw&rct=i)

[16] https://thelogcollege.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rb-cov-theo-renihans.pdf

[17] https://www.1689federalism.com

[18] https://agradio.org/the-covenant-of-redemption-gods-blueprint-for-our-salvation

[19] https://founders.org/2017/04/28/of-gods-covenant/

[20] https://www.wscal.edu/blog/basics-of-the-reformed-faith-the-covenant-of-works

[21] https://founders.org/2017/04/26/from-the-covenant-of-works-to-the-covenant-of-grace/

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

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

[24] https://rscottclark.org/2015/12/what-is-the-substance-of-the-covenant-of-grace/

[25] https://www.alliancenet.org/placefortruth/column/theology-on-the-go/the-covenant-of-grace

[26] https://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.iv.iii.v.html

[27] https://founders.org/2017/04/26/from-the-covenant-of-works-to-the-covenant-of-grace/

[28] https://www.1689federalism.com/faq2

[29] https://founders.org/2017/04/26/from-the-covenant-of-works-to-the-covenant-of-grace/

[30] https://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.iv.iii.v.html

[31] https://heidelblog.net/2020/03/one-important-difference-between-the-reformed-and-some-particular-baptists-god-the-son-was-in-with-and-under-the-types-and-shadows/

[32] http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/

[33] http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/do-you-deny-the-visibleinvisible-church-distinction/

[34] https://founders.org/library/1689-confession/chapter-28-baptism-and-the-lords-supper/

[35] https://covenantconfessions.com/book-review-the-mystery-of-christ-his-covenant-and-his-kingdom-by-samuel-renihan/

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