Perhaps the most basic question undergirding every religion is, "How can sinful man stand just, or be considered righteous, before his god(s)?” A cursory overview spanning the world’s most ancient civilizations to the present era of human history will reveal man’s insatiable desire to achieve objective assurance that he is at peace with the divine. Whether through the rigorous ascetic lifestyle practices of Hinduism or Jainism, the staunch commitment to earning God’s favor through the performing of good deeds as seen in Islam or Mormonism, the rigid adherence to civil/ceremonial laws as seen in Judaism or Rastafarianism, or even the outright rejection of religion itself as demonstrated in atheism, all human beings appear to carry an epistemological (intellectual) burden throughout their life as they seek to appease their conscience at all costs. 

The staunchly religious man seeks to appease his conscience by worshipping the god of his respective faith, while the atheist seeks to do the same by rejecting the notion that he must someday answer to his creator (ironically, the atheist will eventually identify himself as the very supreme being he sought to supplant). Indeed, whether a man is theistic or atheistic, he will find the totality of his life consumed by a desire to be justified in his own eyes (in the case of the atheist) or justified before the god of his religion (in the case of the theist) because he cannot escape the guilt that sin has placed on his soul. Try as he may, man will not rest in trying to alleviate his own guilt through either a historically established or self-constructed religion. 

While there are many competing religious systems in this world for man to choose from to satisfy his innate religious propensities, there are none that can rival Christianity’s ability to cogently explain why reality is the way it is or adequately address the question of how sinful man stand justified before his Creator. More narrowly, it is Christianity’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, as confessed within the Reformed tradition, that offers the clearest articulation of how sinful human beings can obtain real, objective and unwavering assurance as to how they can enjoy loving fellowship with a holy God. Tragically, from the first century to the twenty-first, there has been no tenet of the Christian faith more liable to abuse, confusion, corruption, and perversion than the doctrine of justification by faith alone. For the purposes of this article, one of the more recent aberrations to the orthodox, Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone will be examined, the theological system formally known as “Federal Vision.” 

Any doctrinal system that posits that God welcomes His people into covenant with Him by grace, but requires them to maintain covenant relationship with Him through their own works is a framework that must be renounced as vigorously and swiftly as possible; it is a system that espouses a fundamentally “different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). Thus, the remainder of this article will strive to (1) succinctly expound the twentieth/twenty-first-century development of Federal Vision; (2) clarify why this theological framework is incompatible with the Gospel and the classic Reformed confession of justification by faith alone and (3) exhort contemporary Reformed and evangelical Christians to grow in their awareness of the dangers that Federal Vision theology poses to the believer’s experience of his relationship with God. 

The Origins and Concerns of Federal Vision Theology 

Although much of the heavily publicized concerns levied against Federal Vision theology has surfaced over the past 15-20 years, the development of Federal Vision finds its earliest roots in the thought of Norman Shepherd. Shepherd was a professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary-Philadelphia (WTS) from 1963 to 1981 until he was dismissed from the faculty by the seminary’s board of trustees. A former ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and later the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA), until his retirement in 1998 from pastoral ministry, Shepherd was never far from controversy and criticism within the confessionally Reformed community throughout the duration of his service in vocational ministry.

In a public statement released on February 26, 1982 the Board of Trustees of WTS declared that Shepherd’s removal from faculty was due to the conviction that his “teaching regarding justification, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, and related themes is not clearly in accord with the teaching of Scripture as it is summarized in the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards.” The statement continued to clarify that “after spending much time and effort in writing and speaking on these areas of theology, Mr. Shepherd has not been able to satisfy the Board and considerable portions of the Seminary constituency that the structure of his views and his distinctive formulations clearly present the affirmations by which our Standards guard the relation and place of faith and works with respect to salvation.” In the context of his role as professor at WTS, Shepherd was teaching that “faith coupled with obedience to Christ is what is called for in order to [to be saved] and therefore in order [to obtain] justification... thus, faith and new obedience are [necessary] to [obtain] justification and salvation.” 

The board recognized that Shepherd’s intention behind teaching his perspective on the doctrine of justification was “to achieve many commendable purposes: to give full weight to the warnings of Scripture, to overcome an ‘easy—believism’ in gospel preaching that would suppress the claims of the Lordship of Christ, to correct morbid introspection that would ground assurance in the quality of a past act of faith or in a meticulous evaluation of attainments in holiness.” However, despite Shepherd’s efforts to achieve his desired “commendable purposes,” the board recognized that his teaching on the doctrine by which the church either stands or falls (i.e.- justification) made “obedience the central and embracing category for our response to God and thereby question[ed] the restrictions that the Reformed standards have put on the place and function of our good works.” The board continued to emphasize the certitude that historic, confessional, Reformed theology has recognized that “there is a vast and crucial difference between fleeing to Christ for salvation and serving God acceptably in new obedience. [As] close as the relation must be between faith and works, the distinction [between the two] is central to the gospel.” 

The buildup to and aftermath of Shepherd’s eventual removal from the faculty at WTS in 1981 as well as his departure from the OPC to the CRCNA in the midst of that season of doctrinal disputation would come to be infamously characterized as the “Shepherd Controversy,” until the advent of Federal Vision theology in the early 2000’s. 

In 2002, the name “Federal Vision” was formally established in lieu of a pastor’s conference held at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) of Monroe, Louisiana in effort to equip self-identifying Reformed clergymen with a framework for interpreting Scripture and the created order from a covenantal perspective. The reception of that conference within the world of confessionally Reformed churches and para-church ministries was embarrassingly negative. Between the years 2002 and 2007, ecclesiastical reports were formulated by six confessionally Reformed denominations (URCNA; OPC; PCA; RCUS; RPCNA; ARPC) in order to publicly and corporately denounce the so-called “Federal Vision Theology” that had begun to proliferate amongst those who claimed to identify as “Reformed” ministers, churches and para-church entities. 

Moreover, in response to the intense disputations that captivated the Reformed Christian community in America during the early 2000’s, two prominent confessionally Reformed seminaries would eventually go on to explicitly denounce Federal Vision theology in written statements made on behalf of each respective institution: Westminster Seminary-California (2004) and Mid-America Reformed Seminary (2007). For the purposes of surveying the primary concerns identified with Federal Vision theology by the aforementioned confessionally Reformed denominations and para-church institutions, consider the following excerpts from a few of the ecclesiastical reports:

• “[Federal Vision Theology adherents] have expressed views on justification that are in conflict with Scripture and the confessional standards of the OPC... aberrant views on justification have been promulgated from within these circles. Therefore, the Committee has sought to reaffirm the Church’s commitment to the teaching of Scripture and the Westminster Standards on justification and to identify and critique contemporary claims to the contrary from those holding these aberrant views.”

• “The teachings of the Federal Vision... seriously undermine the testimony of the Gospel and are substantially at odds with the Christian gospel. In particular we believe they promote serious error and represent a deviation from the teachings and doctrines of Scripture and the Reformed confessions and are another gospel... Inasfar as proponents of Federal Vision so define baptism as to make it a saving ordinance that unites us to all the benefits of Christ, without distinguishing between those who have the inward washing of the Spirit and those who do not... Inasfar as proponents of Federal Vision teach that all those who are baptized bear the same relation to the covenant [of grace], without making a distinction between mere ecclesiastical membership and a vital union with Christ through faith in him alone, and that those in union with Christ can lose their position in Christ... Inasfar as proponents of Federal Vision teach that justification by faith is not a one time in history declaration of God by which we are accounted righteous solely on the basis of the imputation of Christ's merits which is received by faith alone, but that our justification is contingent upon our continued covenant faithfulness.”  

• “By the standard of biblical and confessional teaching, this reformulation of the doctrine of justification by Federal Vision writers stand condemned. Contrary to the biblical teaching, which ascribes everything necessary to justification to the works and merits of Christ, the unwillingness of some Federal Vision writers to affirm the imputation of Christ’s entire obedience for justification leaves believers ‘under the law’ so far as their justification before God is concerned... It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this reformulation of the doctrine of justification diminishes the work of Christ and enlarges the role played by the works of believers.” 

Tragically, the overwhelmingly negative consensus exhibited by America’s most faithful, confessionally Reformed denominations towards Federal Vision theology did not result in any attempts made by Federal Vision adherents to revise their aberrant doctrinal convictions. Instead, the concentrated scrutiny demonstrated by these Reformed denominations resulted in the construction of the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) by 11 of the most prominent advocates for Federal Vision theology (John Barach; Rich Lusk; Randy Booth; Jeff Meyers; Tim Gallant; Ralph Smith; Mark Horne; Steve Wilkins; Jim Jordan; Douglas Wilson; Peter Leithart). 

Needless to say, the magnification of the erroneous distinctives of Federal Vision theology did not produce in its constituents the desired doctrinal modifications or the humility to acknowledge the substantial areas wherein Federal Vision theology resides outside of confessional orthodoxy within Reformed Christendom. On the contrary, it was in light of the heightened pressure imposed by the Reformed community that set the table for the major figureheads of Federal Vision theology to double down on their heterodox views and concretize the clearest articulation of the key doctrinal distinctives undergirding this system as a whole. While it is certainly true and openly acknowledged by those who endorse and oppose Federal Vision theology that the system is not always monolithic, the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) itself does “represent [the] honest convictions [of the 11 major signers of the Joint Federal Vision Profession] at this stage of the conversation... [and] represents [their] desire to be as clear as [they] can be, given [their] circumstances.” 

For the benefit and education of the reader, a link to the original, unedited Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) is included at the end of this article. In bringing this article to a conclusion, I recognize that there are many contours and nuances to the convictions that each of the 11 signers of the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) have on a number of elements relevant to how their subscription to Federal Vision Theology affects other categories of doctrine. The ability to exhaust and qualify every single doctrinal distinctive embraced by each of those 11 signers falls well beyond the scope and intentions of this article. Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the extensive work that has been done by others in an effort to critically engage with the intricate details of where each of the 11 signers stand on a number of other theological issues. I also recommend that the reader consult other resources to garner additional insight as to where these preliminary signers of the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) stand on doctrine not explicitly addressed within the parameters of that specific statement of faith. Let the reader understand that this is no small or trivial issue of theology that ought to exclusively be discussed and addressed by academic theologians. This is a matter of premier importance for the universal church to reconcile once and for all. 

As will be demonstrated in the forthcoming articles in this series, Federal Vision theology severely mars the purity of God’s free grace offered to needy, perishing sinners through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and eradicates any ability for Christians to have assurance that the God who began a good work in them will ultimately perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:6). 

I look forward to interacting with key portions of the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) to depict the ways in which the statement itself is not compatible with the confessional standards of Reformed theology—especially with the expressed understanding of the doctrine of justification as delineated in the Reformed confessions—while also stressing the importance for contemporary Reformed and evangelical Christians to be aware of the dangers that Federal Vision theology poses to the Believer’s experience of his relationship with God. 

-

Read the original, unedited Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) here: