A Review of The Federal Vision

[wildboar]

I finished reading The Federal Vision. As a whole I think it offers an excellent critique of the present Reformed church-world. The first chapter by Barach does a good job of presenting and defending their particular view of the covenant and how it relates to election. They offer a different approach than that of the paradigm as expressed in Bavinck and Hoeksema in which masses of people are addressed organically but the message only truly applies to a select few. The charge is made that these men teach that a person can lose their election and they do teach this but they are using the term in a different way than the dogmaticians. The Federal Vision folks distinguished between decretal election and election as it works its way out in history. They do not deny that all who God has decreed from eternity to be saved will be saved. They merely point to the numerous Biblical passages in both the Old and New Testaments and show how the term ‘elect/chosen’ is used to speak of those who were not part of the group predestined from eternity to eternal salvation. They also do an excellent job of showing continuity with the Reformed tradition.

As an OCRC minister pointed out in Christian Renewal recently this whole dispute on covenant and election is really a dispute between paleo and neo-orthodoxy. By neo-orthodoxy I do not refer to Barth or the like but to the Reformed theologians of the scholastic period. The Reformed theologians of the Reformation period were often happy to leave Biblical tensions as Biblical tensions but those of the scholastic period often became rationalistic and create an answer when Scripture did not supply one. This is unfortunately somewhat of a generalization. There was certainly much good work done among the theologians of the scholastic period in the development of theology.

The third chapter by Rich Lusk deals with “Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy.” I think the chapter does an excellent job of showing continuity with the Reformed theologians of the Reformation and the Reformed confessions but a rather poor job of proving itself Scripturally. I agree with what it says about parenting but I tend to view baptism of children being due to the fact that they are Christians rather than that they become Christians through baptism.

Chapter four by Mark Horne makes a good case for the Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

In Chapter five, James Jordan gives an extremely interesting interpretation of the fall and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His explanation would clear up some things that in my mind didn’t make sense previously but I’m not willing to embrace it without pondering it for some time. He argues against the covenant of works idea found in the WCF and claims that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was being withheld from Adam until he had matured.

In Chapter six, Leithart presents some Biblical Perspectives on justification and does an excellent job. The skeleton of what he argues for in the different aspects of justification that he presents can be found in Hoeksema as well (eschatological justification and so forth). Leithart argues from numerous texts that justification includes not only a judicial declaration but vindication as well.

Schlissel writes chapter seven which is also on justification and I believe that this is the worst chapter in the book. It is both incredibly ambiguous and arrogant unlike the other chapters in the book. There are things which are said which sound as if they may be heretical but it is so ambiguous that it is hard to tell. His writing style reminds me of some of the “emergent” post-modern writers. I got the impression at times that Schlissel doesn’t want us to know exactly what he believes—something I didn’t gather from the other authors.

Douglas Wilson writes chapter eight which concerns the visible and invisible church. He believes that the terms are open to and have been misunderstood and I believe he is correct. He prefers to speak of the church in history and the eschatological church but does not deny the other terms as long as they are properly understood.

In chapter nine, Rich Lusk deals with Hebrews 6:4-8 and apostacy. He presents a good argument for his view Biblically. This is another chapter I’m going to have to ponder for awhile. Acceptance of this model would cause a dramatic paradigm shift for me and I would have to rethink some other doctrines that I hold to.

[Tobias Crisp]

Douglas Wilson writes chapter eight which concerns the visible and invisible church. He believes that the terms are open to and have been misunderstood and I believe he is correct. He prefers to speak of the church in history and the eschatological church but does not deny the other terms as long as they are properly understood.

I'm sure it won't be long before Landmark Baptists start referring to this chapter for vindication of their view that the church is strictly a local (visible) assembly. The Landmarkers take this view so then can then claim a form of "church successionism" where they place themselves in a line of "visible" churches extending back to the New Testament times. I used to hold to this non-sense.

[wildboar]

I'm sure it won't be long before Landmark Baptists start referring to this chapter for vindication of their view that the church is strictly a local (visible) assembly. The Landmarkers take this view so then can then claim a form of "church successionism" where they place themselves in a line of "visible" churches extending back to the New Testament times. I used to hold to this non-sense.

I doubt it, much of what Wilson draws much of what he writes from Augustine. He doesn't really speak of any kind of physical succession. He's teaching against the idea that you can be a member of the universal church without being a member of the visible church. He strongly teaches Cyprian's idea of the church as our mother.

He's trying to get people to stop thinking about the visible and invisible church as being two completely different churches and reducing the church to an abstaction. It would be an absurdity if we were to talk about a visible and invisible mother and if they were to argue about who the true mother is.

Wilson also wouldn't be trying to tie the historical church down to a particular denomination. The denomination to which he belongs is the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals which is a very loosely tied denomination in which each church decides whether or not to practice paedobaptism or credo-only-baptism.

Further, the whole Federal Vision controversy is for the most part a Presbyterian and Reformed issue. In order to get really irked about the Federal Vision or be really happy about it a person really has to hold to some form of covenant theology which practices paedobaptism. I doubt most Landmarkers would have any desire to read a book like this anymore than I would be interested in reading a Landmark book arguing about which line of heretics they would prefer to trace themselves through.

[InChristAlways]

WB

In chapter nine, Rich Lusk deals with Hebrews 6:4-8 and apostacy. He presents a good argument for his view Biblically. This is another chapter I’m going to have to ponder for awhile. Acceptance of this model would cause a dramatic paradigm shift for me and I would have to rethink some other doctrines that I hold to.

Hi WB. This chapter is what got me started smoking again 2 months after the Lord came to me LOL.

But as my faith is strenghthened, I now realize that Christ is all forgiving and unlike Israel, who were the First Born Nation of God, we can fall and Jesus will pick us up and the way I read the book of Hebrews is mainly to a "Jewish" audience.

Unfortunately that word for "fall away" is only used this one time, but the fact the author says "crucify again for themselves" the Son of God ,makes it appear that not only do they fall away, but they also go back to the Law and become an even "greater adversary" to Christ's followers than gentiles that fall away, as gentiles were a law unto themselves and not under the Law of Moses. The key I think is the use of Jesus as the "Son of God" instead of the Lord Jesus as Paul uses in 1 thess 2. At least that is how I view this. Blessings.

1 thess 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they [did] from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up [the measure of] their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

Hebrew 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put [Him] to an open shame.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

[Robert R. Higby]

I doubt it, much of what Wilson draws much of what he writes from Augustine. He doesn't really speak of any kind of physical succession. He's teaching against the idea that you can be a member of the universal church without being a member of the visible church. He strongly teaches Cyprian's idea of the church as our mother.

I am perfectly willing to march into the 'hell' threatened by Augustinians and Landmarkers for the cause of the gospel. The 'church' of Constantine, Augustine, or their successionist enemies has nothing to do with the EKKLESIA of the New Testament. So take away my 'snippet and sip'; I will most gladly do without it to honor Christ!