Color Commentary on
A Précis of the Federal Vision (FV)
Précis by the Mississippi Valley Presbytery (PCA)
Play by Play Commentary by Douglas Wilson in italics
The FV (sometimes termed the Auburn Avenue Theology (AAT)) is a term descriptive of a system of theology that has been current since at least January, 2002. This is an approximate date (BC) for when Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, motivated as he was by an obedient faith. We didn’t know it was January though. Its proponents are active within a number of Reformed denominations.“Active” refers to tennis, golf, softball, that sort of thing. Proponents have propagated their views through pastors’ conferences, self-published books, which we sell to our sisters and our cousins and our aunts, and the Internet – a vibrant support network for this theology. Okay, fine with me. Let’s play chase. We’ll be the bloggers and you be Dan Rather! When we speak of “FV proponents” below, we are referring to the system that emerges from a compiled study of all proponents’ writings. This is quite a method for theological analysis. Take J.I. Packer and John Murray, get your average, and you have yourself a system called Angliterianism, which is quite wrong, and which no one holds!
Proponents of the FV identify themselves as Reformed. You betcher. Most appeal to the writings of the sixteenth century Reformers in support of their views. But this is only because they were obliging enough to provide us with all those neat quotations, and to teach us all these things in the first place. Many regard the Reformed thought of the British Puritan and American Presbyterian traditions to have capitulated to the Enlightenment, what is termed Revivalism, and what is termed baptistic theology. I don’t think it is quite that bad, but statements like this one aren’t helping.
FV proponents define the covenant as an objective relationship that is independent of the covenant member’s subjective considerations of the strength or nature of his membership. Right. Marriage is marriage, whether the marriage is a good one or a bad one.
FV proponents also define the covenant as essentially a vital relationship between God and the covenant member. What? Huh? Downplayed are the legal and forensic dimensions of the covenant. Huh? What? Membership within the covenant is conceived in an undifferentiated manner: the distinction between a non-communicant and a communicant member of the church is either downplayed or eliminated. Non-communicant members of the church? I just gotta get me some new Bible software. I can’t find this stuff anywhere.
FV proponents argue that this doctrine of the covenant requires reformulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Learning and applying the doctrine of the Trinity is not the same thing as reformulating it. The divine unity is framed in terms of covenantal relationship among the three persons.
FV proponents deny the traditional doctrine of the covenant of works. I keep forgetting. Are we against tradition or for it? One proponent has denied the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity. And another proponent affirms it while standing on his chair!
FV proponents deny the imputation of Christ’s active (and perhaps passive) obedience to the believer for justification. When did I do that? I don’t remember. It was dark. They were big. The “righteousness” of the believer in justification is sometimes said to be the believer’s covenantal faithfulness. Justification is defined in terms of a process not a definite act nuh uh; and good works are said to be necessary to justification, particularly to the believer’s “final justification” at the Day of Judgment. One proponent has argued for not fewer than three instruments of justification: faith, covenantal faithfulness, and baptism. As opposed to the four they argue for — preaching, hearing, faith, and convincing the session that something happened in your heart.
Following Norman Shepherd, FV proponents argue that election must be understood in terms of the covenant, not vice versa. The result is formulations of election that render one’s election a process and a function of one’s covenantal obedience. I give up. I don’t care anymore. Coupled with this is a denial of the traditional doctrine [more tradition! but different from Rome’s!] of the visible and invisible church and a practical denial of the distinction between common and saving operations of the Spirit as distinguishing the sincere believer from the hypocrite. So what do we think does distinguish them? One proponent has even denied the doctrine of individual regeneration. Oh? Does that mean the rest of us didn’t?
FV proponents point to objective grounds for one’s assurance while practically denying subjective grounds for one’s assurance. Except for the entire chapter I wrote on subjective assurance in RINE. For assurance, the believer is directed away from discerning the inward and spiritual graces unique to the regenerate person, and we all know how much assurance that produces, and is directed towards his water baptism.
FV explanations of apostasy suggest that a believer may genuinely possess Christ’s redemptive benefits and yet lose them. I would give up some more, but I already did that.
FV proponents understand the doctrine of the sacramental union to mean that the sign and the thing signified invariably accompany one another. I agree with this assessment, provided I can understand it as meaning that the sign and thing signified frequently do not accompany one another. Baptismal efficacy is affirmed, therefore, of every recipient of the sacrament. I agree with this too, provided I am allowed to change it into what I actually do believe. All the blessings and benefits of Christ’s work are sometimes said to be conferred upon the recipient in baptism. Baptism is assigned a place in the doctrine of the Christian life that denigrates the place of preaching as the instrument of conversion. Preaching is an instrument of conversion? Holy moly! What happened to sola fide?