Federal Vision Pt II: Incompatible with Justification by Faith
Photo by Cosmic Timetraveler on Unsplash
At numerous points throughout my introductory article How Good Intentions Corrupt God’s Gospel, I stressed that Federal Vision Theology severely undermines the confessionally Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. There, the origins of Federal Vision Theology were examined at length in order to consider how this doctrinal system has gained so much traction over the past 20 years, while having roots firmly entrenched in the thought of Norman Shepherd that stems back roughly 40 years ago.
The article also cited extensive criticisms made by some of the most reputable Reformed denominations and seminaries to underscore the fact that Federal Vision Theology categorically stands outside the bounds of confessional, Reformed orthodoxy.
Lastly, for the benefit of the reader, a direct link to the “confession of faith” developed by the earliest adherents to Federal Vision Theology (the Joint Federal Vision Profession 2007) was provided at the conclusion of the article. In the future articles of this series, I will be interacting with the specific tenets of the Joint Federal Vision Profession (or, JFVP) that most poignantly illustrate the ways in which Federal Vision Theology is not compatible with Reformed theology. Most significantly, with regards to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
However, for the reader’s clarification, it is imperative to first provide an accurate definition of key terms that will be used throughout this series to demonstrate why the biblical and Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone is in danger of being corrupted by Federal Vision Theology. A great place to begin is to precisely explain what I mean when I say, “Reformed.”
This thread of God’s sovereign grace rendered to guilty, undeserving sinners is interwoven throughout the totality of Romans
In our contemporary Christian landscape, an individual, church or para-church ministry is generally recognized as “Reformed” if they embrace the soteriological (doctrine of salvation) convictions that are expressed in the well-known “TULIP” acrostic: Total Depravity; Unconditional Election; Limited Atonement; Irresistible Grace; and Perseverance of the Saints. This so-called “TULIP” acrostic is also synonymous with the labels of “the Doctrines of Grace” or “Calvinism,” which has, in the past decade, experienced an influx of Christians who have grown enamored with the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation.
Nevertheless, despite the ordinary way in which the adjective “Reformed” is utilized by many Christians, I do not find such usage of the word to be the most accurate representation of what it has historically meant to be “Reformed.” As noted by Dr. Michael Allen in his book Reformed Theology, “while most laypersons (and many professional theologians in certain circles) use the terms ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Reformed’ to label someone as opposing Arminian views of soteriology and predestination, this lacks [necessary] historical and theological specificity.” [1]
In this series’ efforts to critically analyze serious errors of Federal Vision theology and how proponents of this system are not within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, it is important that we strive to honor the manner in which the term “Reformed” has been used and understood within its historical context.
So what does it mean, historically, to be regarded as “Reformed?” Dr. Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary has helpfully provided six categories in which those who identified as “Reformed” during the 16th to 18th centuries all shared in common:
1. Agreement on the doctrines of grace as expressed at the Synod of Dort (“TULIP”) in response to the Arminian understanding of soteriology
2. Infant Baptism
3. The recognition of baptism and the Lord's Supper as the New Covenant means of grace
4. The unity of the one covenant of grace from Abraham to the eschaton
5. Agreement that the roots of Christian assurance of salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit (works do not serve as a primary grounds for cultivating the assurance of one's salvation, but are a necessary consequence of all truly justified believers)
6. An identification of the millennium of Revelation 20 with the present era of redemptive history (the New Covenant era of redemptive history, to last until the second coming of Jesus Christ) [2]
I recognize that much scholarship has been devoted to the task of defining what exactly constitutes being “Reformed,” and recognize that there is a broad “reformational heritage” wherein many Protestant denominations trace their origins to Anglicans, Lutherans, Particular Baptists, etc.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of this article and ongoing series, I find it most appropriate to understand “Reformed” in the most narrowly crafted, historically grounded sense: those Christians and Christian ministries that subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. I echo the sentiment expressed by Dr. Keith Mathison in one of his published essays in Tabletalk Magazine seeking to address the question at hand: “What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?”
“Those whose churches trace their history back to the time during which confessional lines were being drawn have a legitimate historical reason to define the word Reformed in a less inclusive way. We see evidence for such a definition, for example, in the conclusion to the Canons of Dort. In this concluding section, the Synod of Dort urges those who want to understand what it means to be Reformed to go to the confessions of the Reformed churches and to the synod’s explanation of that confession’s teaching. The synod here is referring specifically to the Belgic Confession. Do you want to know what it means to be Reformed? Read the Belgic Confession and then read the Canons of Dort. That is the answer that the synod gives here [as to how ‘Reformed’ can be properly defined].”
As alluded above, the predominant context in which criticisms have been centered upon Federal Vision Theology is in ecclesiastical (church) contexts that self-identify as “Reformed.” These aforementioned churches subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards and are staunchly committed to embodying the six characteristics outlined by Dr. Muller that have historically served as the bedrock for Reformed churches. It is in acknowledgement of and appreciation for these historically-attested characteristics that I believe the adjective “Reformed” ought to be understood.
In this series’ efforts to critically analyze serious errors of Federal Vision theology… it is important that we strive to honor the manner in which the term “Reformed” has been used and understood within its historical context.
In light of this definition, it is necessary to survey what has been historically taught within the Reformed tradition on the subject of justification by faith alone. Future articles will be devoted to demonstrating how the JFVP differs from confessional Reformed theology in other significant facets of doctrine that are directly related to justification. In an effort to most accurately represent the Reformed consensus on articulating its doctrine of justification by faith alone, it will be imperative to turn to consider the pertinent definitions of this doctrine as listed in the Reformed confessions.
Therefore, in this article and later articles of this series, my hope is that you will have access to a harmony of what each of the Reformed confessions specifically teach with regard to the doctrine of justification. I heartily encourage the reader to compare each of those historical confessions with the substance of the Joint Federal Vision Profession (2007) for themselves.
What is the reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone?
Beginning in the 16th century, John Calvin clearly set forth what would become the standard definition articulated by the Reformers regarding the doctrine by which the church stands or falls:
“[Justification] is the principal article of the Christian religion, so that each one may take greater pains and care to know it. For if we do not know what God’s will toward us is, we have no foundation on which to establish our salvation or build us up in piety and fear of God (I.6)... [For the sinner to be justified], Jesus Christ’s righteousness, which alone can bear the sight of God because it alone is perfect, must appear in court on [their] behalf, and stand surety for [sinners] in judgment. Received from God, this righteousness is brought to [believers] and imputed to [them], just as if it were [their own righteousness].” (I.32).
Thanks to the prolific work of Calvin and his other Reformed allies, this working definition of justification would give shape to how the doctrine would later be developed in the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort) and confessed throughout the Westminster Standards in the 17th century. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism- Q. 70 defines the doctrine of justification succinctly when it states,
“Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.”
When examining the 16th and 17th century Reformed theologians’ doctrine of justification, Dr. Robert Godfrey of Westminster Seminary California explains that it coincides with Paul’s, in that,:
“(1) all humans are sinners, helpless to save themselves; (2) that only the perfect work of Jesus saves sinners; (3) that only faith—not works —receives the saving effect of Jesus’ work; (4) that God in Christ receives all the glory for justification; (5) that this justification brings peace to the heart and mind of the believer.”
I believe there is no clearer presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ than the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the first century church in Rome. Paul begins the letter with a universal declaration of humanity’s total depravity—for both the Jew and Gentile respectively. He explains that “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one” (Rom. 3:9-12).
Because of his sinfulness, man is utterly helpless to save himself through his own works. In and of ourselves, sinful human beings are bankrupt of any and all righteousness, which is why “[through] the works of the Law, no flesh will be justified in [God’s] sight” (Rom. 3:20).
With a robust understanding of the Old Testament—specifically the holiness of God and the sinfulness of mankind—the Apostle Paul proclaimed to the Roman church that “the wages of [man’s] sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Nevertheless, though God’s justice demands death for man’s sin, the glory of the gospel is that the Most High has lovingly and graciously provided a Savior who has paid the full penalty for the sins of everyone who would ever place their faith in Him.
As declared by Paul, it is “apart from the Law [that] the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (as portrayed throughout the Old Testament) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe (as testified to throughout the New Testament)... [Indeed, those who believe] are justified as a gift by [God’s] grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus... so that [God] would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:21-22, 24, 26). This thread of God’s sovereign grace rendered to guilty, undeserving sinners is interwoven throughout the totality of Romans and ultimately, the fullness of God’s self-disclosure as contained in the Bible.
Even more glorious than being saved from Hell is that every Christian is saved to eternally enjoy a loving, all-satisfying relationship with their holy Creator. When a sinner is saved from their sins at the moment of faith, the God who was previously their greatest source of danger becomes their greatest source of delight; their greatest adversary becomes their greatest advocate; their judge becomes their justifier; their greatest foe becomes their Heavenly Father. This marvelous reality excludes all boasting, establishes assurance of salvation and heightens the Christian’s joy in their spiritual pilgrimage; the exact opposite of what necessarily follows when one embraces Federal Vision theology for themselves!
It is my hope that between Calvin’s commentary, the Westminster Larger Catechism’s definition, and my own commentary, the reader will acquire a helpful foundation for understanding the reformed doctrine of justification. I encourage us to do as Bereans (Acts 17:10-12) and search the Scriptures to verify if the Reformed confessions are consistent on justification.
I am convinced that when examining the JFVP as a collective whole (despite it making the claim in the preface to “be bound to the Three Forms of Unity or to the Westminster Confession of Faith”), it can be said to differ substantially from confessional Reformed theology on the doctrine of justification in several ways.
In the articles to come in this series, I will be surveying two of the most poignant areas of difference between Federal Vision theology and historic, confessional Reformed theology. Namely, the ecclesiological (doctrine of the church) and soteriological (doctrine of salvation) differences that categorically demonstrate how the JVFP portrays a theology, piety and practice that stands in direct opposition to Reformed theology.
Yet most importantly, the reader will come to see how Federal Vision theology inevitably leads to one embracing an altogether “different Gospel” (Gal. 1:6) than the gospel of God’s free grace as depicted in sacred Scripture.
[1] Michael Allen, “What is Reformed Theology,” Page 5
[2] Richard Muller “How Many Points?” Calvin Theological Journal 28, no. 2 (1993), 427.
