The Federal Vision

by Steve Wilkins (Editor), Duane Garner (Editor), Douglas Wilson

In this fresh and stimulating study of the nature of God's Covenant with man, several of today's most provocative Reformed theologians combine efforts to work toward a better understanding of the relationship between obedience and faith and the role of the Church and sacraments in our salvation. The Federal Vision communicates the importance of applying a more robust Covenant theology in our study of these things.

Steve Wilkins writes, "Covenant is the central teaching of the Word of God; it describes a relationship with the Triune God through Jesus Christ, His only Begotten Son. To be in covenant is to be in real communion with God, attendant with real privileges and real blessings. It is to be brought into the circle of the eternal fellowship that has always existed between Father, Son, and Spirit. It is to be made partaker of the divine nature. It is to be beloved of the Father for the sake of His Son and is founded upon union with Christ."

The ideas put forth in this collection of essays have been taught in every age of the Church - from the early fathers to the Medievals, from the Reformers to the Westminster divines, and on up to the present day. Rather than presenting a new novelty of doctrine, these writers together share the desire to stand full in the stream of classical Reformed Christianity, entirely submitted to the Holy Scriptures with the hope of promoting the growth and maturity of the Church.

Contributing authors: Steve Wilkins, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Peter Leithart, James B. Jordan, and Mark Horne.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Ecclesiology

302 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Steve Wilkins holds a Bachelor of Science degree (in Pre-Law) from the University of Alabama and a Masters of Divinity from the Reformed Theological Seminary of Jackson, Mississippi. He was ordained as a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in 1976. He served as the pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana from 1989 to 2018. On April 15, 2018, Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church began worshipping in a new location in West Monroe, LA. and changed its name to Church of the Redeemer.

Reviews

[Jeremy]

Steven Wedgeworth has written a series of posts on this topic.
Part 1 (general introduction)
Part 2 (various personalities)
Part 3 (FV theology)
Part 4 (FV theology)
Part 5 (FV theology)
Part 6 (overview and concluding thoughts on the issue's significance; Wilson responds briefly here, here, and here)

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I heard of the "Federal Vision" years ago, as most did, but I considered it an internecine debate within Presbyterian circles for many, man years and did not enter into the fray, not thinking it worth the while for a Baptist. I read this, fourteen years later simply to read James Jordan's chapter.

Most of the book is concerned with the nature of God's covenant, or covenants, depending on your perspective. What does it mean to be in or out of covenant with God? What does it mean to be an unbeliever within the church? Can the unbeliever participate and receive the grace of Christ by being within the church?

Naturally, as a Baptist, there is much I disagree with in the book. But I did find the discussions of nature of the covenant helpful. But it is Jordan's chapter, in the middle of the book that is the hidden gem.

Jordan's purpose in his essay is to clarify what is involved in the two stages of human existence--the"Adamic stage of human life and then a glorified stage, which Adam failed to attain." Jordan's primary thesis is "that what Adam was supposed to provide, and what Jesus provided for us, is maturity. That is to say, the new status that Jesus provides for us does not come about because He earned something Adam failed to earn, but because He persevered in faith toward the Father until He was mature, which Adam did not do."

The essay is an example of what good biblical theology can help us learn, by following themes in the beginning, throughout the Bible, and doing the glory-work of a king--"to search things out." As Jordan explains, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil "was not designed to teach Adam and Eve right from wrong."

Jordan argues that Adam was intended to eat from the Treet of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but not yet, and not on his own terms. Instead, through acting faithfully, when tempted by Satan, God would grant that he could ,"...come to the Tree of Knowledge and been enabled to perform an initial defeat of the serpent. But the full and final victory in the holy war would be accomplished by a descendant of Adam who would be the incarnate Son of God the Father."

Eating from the Tree of Knowledge would still entail death, but it would be a different kind of death and would, "...be raised to a more glorious existence on the other side of that death. We are now in a position to begin to understand the promise entailed in the Adamic Covenant. Many older Reformed theologians, not finding any particular promise in the text, have supposed that the Tree of Life was the promise. We can now understand that the temporary prohibition on the Tree of Knowledge was both a promise and a threat. It was a promise of “good-death” and resurrection, if Adam waited until God gave him permission to eat of it. It was a threat of “bad-death” if he seized the fruit prematurely.23 It is now clear what Adam was called to do. He was called to accept God’s gracious provisions. He was called to live by faith in God’s Word alone, for there was no obvious and visible reason for him to avoid the Tree of Knowledge. If Adam lived by sight and not by faith he would only see a special tree that was “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9; 3:6)."

To many, this may sound entirely speculative, but Jordan makes a strong case here, and it is not as much of a stretch as some may initially think. Jordan's work here is important because understanding what God first required of Adam, and what Jesus performed at Calvary are central to understanding our own story. Jordan connects a proper understanding of the Garden to the covenant when he writes, "The whole emphasis is that faithfulness results in continuance, not in the reward of something new and better. The arrival of new and better things is always a free gift from God, not something earned."

I cannot wholly endorse all the essays in this book. Jordan's is outstanding and worth the price of the book. There are several other good essays as well, but Jordan's is not to be missed.

[Zack · Rating 1 out of 5]

Completely bonkers stuff - especially their rejection of the covenant of works, merit as a theological/soteriological category, and the active obedience of Christ. Way beyond the Reformed tradition, and more importantly - at odds with biblical doctrine.

[Courtney Carlson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating read, whether one agrees with them or not. James Jordan's essay especially....

[Tim Dehne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great stuff.

[Kevin Godinho · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Federal Vision was a Reformed conference held in the early 2000s. Because of the topics discussed (i.e. baptismal efficacy, covenantal election, covenantal faithfulness, apostasy) the conference became controversial among the Reformed, and those who partook in these discussions were essentially ostracized by the Reformed church; namely Presbyterians. A few of these FV pastors were "investigated" by either the PCA or the CREC and have since been acquitted of any heresy charges, but that doesn't remove the incredible amount of slander that has been posted across the internet, never to be removed, or the countless number of Christians who now avoid these men like the plague because of others not carefully listening to the conversations these men were having. Charitable conversations with a heart of unity is what we really need today, across all denominations. I think Rich Lusk calls out the major issue on why this divide happened and was so sharp. There are some theologians on one side of the argument having discussions from a biblical-theological/redemptive-historical fashion, while others are conversing in a more systematic/dogmatic fashion. That's not to say one is better than the other or that they aren't compatible, it just seems to be a decent way of viewing why the disagreements erupted the way they did.

I found this book refreshing. Finally, some Calvinists that are willing to deal with apostasy passages more honestly, unlike most modern Calvinists. The contributors to this book pull from Church history, in many cases from Calvin himself, or Puritans such as John Murray, to show that the developments we're seeing in regards to Reformed theology in our modern day are actually quite unorthodox and departing from the historic faith. I mean, if you get in some Presbyterian circles today, you can't even really affirm out loud what the Westminister Confession of Faith teaches about baptismal efficacy; namely baptismal regeneration.

Viewing absolutely everything through a predestinary lens is a modern development. Only considering God's decretal elect individuals as the true "invisible" Church is a modern development. The original terms used for visible and invisible were in the words of Augustine: Church militant and Church triumphant. The visible, historical Church has always and everywhere, up until recent history, been the true Church. Those who fall away after being grafted in through baptism, really were sanctified, underwent the waters of regeneration, and apostatized. This books helps to bring out historic conversations that have taken place in the Reformed camp before us and also show that modern Calvinists have departed from what reformers historically believed. The Church is riddled with Gnostic tendencies today. It is high time for the damage that Greek philosophy has done to the Church to be undone. It's time for us to start thinking like Hebrews again.

---------------------------

Follow!
www.laymansprogress.com
https://www.instagram.com/laymansprog...

[Caleb Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not Presbyterian, so I'm in a certain sense not a part of the Federal Vision controversy, though I do much tend to like FV writers. In any case, there is much to love and appreciate in this book. Not everything will be convincing, and some of the essays are way better than others, but the whole thing is worth a read. It might be helpful for anti-FV people to actually read FV writers, which often doesn't happen, but I think it would actually be most helpful for regular folk who aren't really into the controversy but want to learn stuff about the Bible and Reformed theology.

The best essays by far as James Jordan's "Merit and Maturity" and Rich Lusk's "Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy." They are both well-written and, in my judgment, quite convincing with respect to their theses. I would encourage getting a copy of the book just for those essays, to be honest. Of course, Leithart's essay on justification is also pretty good, but I honestly get a little weary of neologism after neologism. Probably my least favorite was Steve Schlissel's, not primarily because of disagreement (there was some

[J. Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic series of essays. FV was blown out of proportion. Just men who wanted to stay true to the scriptures and say what the Word says. Not staying boxed into a systematic but they address the tough issues regarding what the Word says, in its entirety, on various topics such as apostasy, covenant, baptism, justification and more. They do not let post-enlightenment rationalism shape their view of what the text says and how the recipients would have understood Gods word. I don’t agree with everything in every essay but it certainly allowed for a lot of room for thought without leaving reformed orthodoxy. I truly think the various authors intended to start a good challenging discussion within the reformed circles and ended up getting hammered and blacklisted for it. Perhaps some of the authors swerved toward the ditch on one side of the road but the naysayers and critics who are unwilling to discuss these issues swerved into the ditch on the other side of the road years ago. Again, they certainly do not have the final word on any of these matters but stir up some good grounded discussion.

[Hannah C. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though frequently involved in seeming minutia (ex: it took Doug Wilson 4 pages to express what took other authors 35 pages) also known as the occasional "theological gnat strangling," I can agree with an RUF friend that 'That's not controversial, that's just Christianity."

Final note: the gift of writing is not universal.

[William Schrecengost · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays by FV advocates about FV issues. Overall, I found this book interesting and helpful. I think the FV controversy was largely overblown by trigger happy TRs. I do think that there were genuine concerns of the ideas propounded by the advocates, but unfortunately these concerns were drowned out by erroneous, misunderstood, or blatantly dishonest criticisms. My thoughts on the essays below:

Covenant and Election (Barach) and Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation (Wilkins) -
I thought these covered a similar topic of the view and use of covenantal election. This topic is covered by Barach in his conference lectures. They're further expounded here. Basically, he argues that we should not be afraid to call those in the church elect because of the way Paul talks to the church in the NT and God to Israel in the OT (my Chosen people, etc). He isn't arguing against decretal election, but argues that since we don't know God's decrees, we should call those in the church by what the Bible calls them. I did like these generally. I don't know if we should use the word election since it carries such theological meaning. I can see why it caused a debauchal.

Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy (Lusk) -
The decline of paedobaptism in America and the history of baptismal efficacy doctrine. This essay seems to be based off of Wilkins conference lecture as it covers the same topic. It shows how American Christians gradually reduced the meaning of the sacraments to the current baptistic understanding. He referenced Nevin and Mercersburg papers a lot throughout the essay. He also argues for baptismal efficacy in this paper, what would've been considered baptismal regeneration historically. I was surprised that this is actually not that uncommon a view in protestant theology, it certainly takes the minority position (at least in Reformed circles) though it does boast Calvin's support. This view is not to be confused with the RCCs baptismal regeneration doctrine as their's saves by nature of the water itself, but is then maintained by penance. It should also not be thought of in the tradional reformed systematic theological understanding of Regeneration, that it is a change of natures. The view posited here is that of a covenantal regeneration or new life. We pass into a new creation through the waters, a new covenant by baptism, a new life in the burial and resurrection of Christ. A lot more can be said here. It is difficult to understand this position due to confusion around terms. This seems to be a recurring problem with the FV controversy, terminological confusion and seeing the passages from different perspectives.

What's for dinner? (Horne) -
A discussion of the presence of Christ in Communion. Basically a discussion of Nevin's Mystical Presence. Very good, a little rabbly at times.

Merit vs Maturity (Jordan) -
Expanding on John Murray, Jordan seeks to show that the covenant of works with Adam was gracious and not meritorious. He also expands on the idea that Adam (and the church) was meant to mature and take on more authority and responsibilities over time. He also discussed reasons why he believed Adam to be only temporarily restricted from the Tree of Knowledge. He sites others historically who've held this view (it seems to me that CS Lewis may have also held this view based off of how he ended Perelandra). I thought this essay the most interesting of them and one I'd likely reread. It's also the one many people claim is worth the book in itself. The one thing that I didn't like was his blending of Christ's active and passive obedience. This seems to be where the critics find that concern. I don't think that viewing the covenant of works as a meritorious covenant makes much sense, however, I also don't think we need to sacrifice Christ's active obedience for it either.

Judge Me, O God (Leithart) -
Proposes a wider view of Justification based on a study of the words related to justification and righteousness. This does not exclude the legal view of justification, but expands it to include nonlegal interpersonal interactions and judgments. I found it pretty interesting, though it also was probably the essay that caused me the greatest concern. Near the end he ties our being declared righteous to Christ's resurrection and the resurrection to our baptism. It seems like a really shady place to end up with lean towards a kind of justification by baptism. He does affirm justification by faith in the end of the essay, but it doesn't relieve my concerns.

Justification and the Gentiles (Schlissel) -
Paul's language regarding justification and Gentiles should be understood according to their historic and cultural situation. This one was similar to what he spoke on at the conference. It had a bit of an NPP lean to it in my opinion.

The Church: Visible or Invisible? (Wilson) -
A discussion of the use of visible vs invisible distinction. Same as what he said in the conferences. Based primarily off of John Murray's work.

New Life and Apostasy (Lusk) -
An exposition of Hebrews 6:4-6 and discussion of apostasy. It seems to be an expansion of what Wilson talked about in one of his conference lectures. It also expands on the previous essays in this book by Barach, Wilkins and Lusk. It's a rejection of the idea that those who apostatize weren't really in the covenant. He posits that apostates were truly brought into the church and the covenant and received covenant blessings, but consequently fell away and incurred covenant curses due to their breaking of the covenant. It keeps the seriousness of the apostasy warnings in the NT as well as the covenant curses passages in the OT.


The FV controversy seems to have been caused mainly by misunderstood terms and a "talking past one another" due to different perspectives on the same subject. The FV advocates' use of words like "election" and "regeneration" in ways different from the typical usage understandably causing confusion. The advocates also attempted to see covenantal issues from the perspective of the man within the covenant while the critics see the issues from a systematic, decretal perspective. This also caused understandable confusion. Unfortunately, many chose to condemn the movement wholesale based on their initial impression of the movement and had trouble regaining a proper, charitable standing in order to properly engage the FV positions. This lead to poorly argued anti-FV resolutions written and adopted by several denominations. On the other hand, there were several legitimate concerns that were ignored for the most part by the advocates because they were lumped in with the poorer critics.
One of the helpful things I found in these essays were the historical references. I was glad to see that these ideas were not novel and were actually held by some rather prominent individuals in the Reformed tradition. These included Calvin, Augustine, Nevin, John Murray, and Richard Gaffin (also some members of the Westminster Assembly, though I do not recall the names). I also thought it was interesting how they referenced Murray and Gaffin far more often than Norman Shepherd. Critics like to accuse the advocates of holding to Shepherd's views of the covenant, though they rely far more of those whom critics enjoy the company of.
In the end, I wish there was more (charitable) engagement with these ideas. As it stands, it's pretty difficult to sift through what happened and to try to figure out where legitimate concerns were.

[Joe Jewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

The various writers offer some great insights on Reformed Theology, the sacrements, election, sanctification, justification, the church, and apostasy!

[Kerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

My leaning is definitely toward the Federal Vision position, and has been for probably ten years now. When it first became an issue of controversy, I had already been studying the issues related to it for some time. I soon became burned out on it, though, and my study on the matter has been spotty ever since. My own assessment now, though, is that while my leanings are definitely this way, there are many questions unanswered that I find troubling. The fact that the authors have written these essays, and still find themselves with unanswered questions, still probing to make sense of it all, is more than a bit dissatisfying. I'm still mostly in agreement. But there has to be more, and I'm not fully pleased with what is provided here. Perhaps this is just a reflection of where I currently am in my own life. I do not know. But the fact that the authors often point out areas of ambiguity in their own thought on the matter, and the fact that they see their work as being just the beginning of a full examination of the topics presented here, leaves me wanting more answers.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't quite know how to write this. The memories are too painful and there is still too much blood on the floor. I said things at the time I shouldn't have. But things (and time) have changed since then. I am removed from the situation a bit.

There really isn't a coherent theme to the Federal Vision because it was never intended as a monolithic movement. Most of my analysis will be drawn in some form from Peter Leithart. To the degree that it can be summarized, the Federal Vision is a post-Enlightenment Reformed re-reading of Covenant theology.

John Barach offers a certain Dutch reading of the covenant, arguing for some degree of apostasy.

Jim Jordan argues against the Covenant of Works, instead advocating that Adam (as would Christ) would move to maturity in order to fight the serpent.

Other essays are of differing value. On one hand this book won't be the most important thing on covenant theology in the next ten years, and for many the debate is over.

[Scott W. Blankenship · Rating 5 out of 5]

Change My Mind: these men are the brave heralds of the Reformation 2.0.

Excellent work and truly thought provoking! Down with Revivalism! And down with Enlightenment Rationalism!

[Zach McDonald · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://joyandtriumph.com/2017/03/16/b...

If anyone is in Presbyterian and Reformed camps, they know that the 'Federal Vision' has been a big debate for a good while now. Since I am newish to the P&R world, and because I keep hearing stuff about how heretical and evil FV is, I decided to read them for themselves so that I could at least know where the proponents of FV actually stand, versus getting all my information from the telephone game.

I have a lot of stuff I'd like to look back over and comment on but, in short, only one or so chapters in this book seemed to be entirely good and helpful, while the rest of it was mixed with good biblical insights, questionable conclusions, and just outright weird hermeneutics.

I will applaud these men for desiring to be biblical, letting the bible be their standard and NOT the reformed confessions. Whether they succeeded in this is another topic for debate, but at least they are not afraid to critique confessionalists using their bibles. Of course, the confessions are good and helpful, I love the confessions, but I have seen way too many reformed men love their confessions more than they love their bibles. They may not say it, but they do act like it.

I also sympathize - sort of - with their desire to use biblical language. I say 'sort of'' because I do believe their is an obvious place for 'theological language,' but sometimes we need to be corrected when we veer to far off into theological categories at the expense of biblical language. This can have pastoral implications as some of the authors point out. There is also some seemingly good work of historical theology in here, but I am no historian.

Lastly, I do greatly sympathize with the need to view the covenant as being more objective - and I am not the only one outside the FV camps to feel this way. Visible/invisible Church distinctions are good and necessary. Distinguishing between the substance and administration are good and necessary. A correct understanding of election is highly important. But the administration of the covenant of grace is not meant to be treated as some sort of subjective thing. All those who have professed faith and have been baptized should have assurance in their being called by God, because of the faith that the Spirit has wrought,and because of the sign and seal that has been placed on them by God in baptism. Now, I don't know that I would take this as far as some of the FV proponents want to, but their is a need for Christians to have assurance of their calling, and a desire to make that calling and election sure.

Again, I am new to the P&R world, so I am willing to listen to biblical objections and corrections. This book was free for kindle prime library, and I wanted to understand the FV, so I picked up and came down right about where I thought I would. Agreeing in some places, and just being weirded out and feeling unclear in others.

[Douglas Singer · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Federal Vision" is a collection of essays by various pastors involved in the Federal Vision controversy some time back. The book expanded my limited understand of the FV theology. The essays ranged from encouraging to thought-provoking to speculative, but on the whole, I was fed.

The hermeneutics of the FV authors have won me over. For instance, after reading the essay by John Barach, the opening chapters of Ephesians, which before seemed stuffy, abstract and hard to get off the ground, "clicked" on my next read-through.

Everyone should wrestle with this book, if for no other reason than to consider a hermeneutic that does more justice to the narrative of scripture.

[Jonah Saller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book that presents a robust Reformed theology rooted in faithful exegesis of the Scripture, conscious continuity with the ancient Church, and faithfulness to the Reformed confessional concerns.

This book is a return to Classical Reformed Protestant thought with a strong rejection of Neo-Calvinism and its post-enlightenment influence.

[Thomas Duell · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.8 stars? This book ranges quite a range of theological territory, with men who don't agree on everything which only highlights how silly the Federal Vision controversy was/is. It is also difficult to review a collection of material like this as a whole. Barach's essay on election and Lusk's on baptism were both very, very good. There is much good in here, and the discerning theologian will be edified.

[Ryan Watkins · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very bad. Messes up the law gospel distinction and goes against classical reformed covenant theology. Was surprised to see how much the federal visionists drew from John Murray, especially with the denial of the covenant of works. James B Jordan’s article which claims the Adamic covenant was about maturity instead of merit was the worst in the collection.

[Josh Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't agree with all of the conclusions, but this book is worth the read. James Jordans essay on Merit vs Maturity by itself is worth the price of admission. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but it's still worth reading.

[Zach de Walsingham · Rating 2 out of 5]

Steve Schlissel's essay was the most helpful, it deals with reading the Apostle St. Paul in his context of a convert Second Temple Judaism, and how that relates to Galatians 3:28 and Romans 3:28, it serves as a corrective to Luther's innovative law/gospel paradigm.

[Aurora Grace · Rating 1 out of 5]

The standard text for understanding the "Federal Vision" which caused so many heresy trials and denouncements within conservative and fundamentalist Presbyterianism between 2004-2010.

[Cory A Byrum · Rating 4 out of 5]

An informative defense of often misconstrued ideas put forth. This book is helpful in getting a better idea of what some of these men believe concerning election, the Church, baptism, etc...

[Travis Daggett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Demands a lot of thinking and studying . . .

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of essays.

Some are really helpful!

[Matthew Rawlings · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have a few disagreements but, overall, I don't see the reason for all the shouting.

[Noah Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some essays were fantastic, some were just meh. Overall, FV is certainly not the boogeyman people claim it to be.

[Daniel Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

*The NAPARC dislikes this review*

Honestly only reread this for Jordan's essay.

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very stimulating. James Jordan's chapter is fantastic and worth the price of the book. Leithart's is good, but the more developed version for what he is discussing can be found in his "Delivered From the Elements...". Richard Lusk's chapter on baptismal efficacy (particularly the second half of the chapter) was quite good and eye opening.

[Joe Hyink · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very, very helpful, especially the essays by Lusk, Jordan, and Leithart. Wilson's gets four stars simply due to its undeveloped nature and brevity. Schlissel's gets two stars because it seems haphazard and shoots from the hip.

Jordan's essay lays the Biblical groundwork for a covenantal understanding of Scripture and history. Most helpful is how he teases out God's purposes for history that transcend "redemption," that is, purposes that existed apart from the fall.

Leithart's is a good word study on "justification" and related words. I am a little surprised that it should be so controversial. I appreciate most his encouragement to use Biblical terms in the way the Bible uses them rather than redefining them by a selective representation of Biblical usage. Our systematic theology would benefit from such a realignment of our terminology.

Lusk's essays are most applicational for teasing out the implications of the Federal Vision. Again, I am a little surprised that they should be so controversial (even if one disagrees with them). He clearly makes both a Biblical case as well as a confessional case for the ideas.

I highly recommend these essays for a basic introduction to the Federal Vision. Endnotes will direct the reader to further resources, but this is a great place to start!