Doctrine is the most important component of Christianity. Without objective, doctrinal truth, the entirety of the Christian faith is reduced to subjectivity and absurdity. Doctrine is also an inescapable component of Christianity because as soon as one begins to articulate what they believe about their faith, they have begun to reveal their own doctrinal convictions. While it is true that God calls His image bearers to love Him with the entire person (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:36-37; John 4:23-24), it is impossible to love that of which one does not first intellectually know. Therefore, the ability for any human being to worship and serve God in a manner pleasing to Him is contingent upon His divine self-disclosure being carefully read, correctly understood and correctly applied to one’s life (Rom. 12:1-2). As J.C. Ryle rightly said, “we should no more tolerate false doctrine than we would sin” and this exact sentiment is continuously illustrated throughout the New Testament. 

In his farewell address to the believers at Miletus, the Apostle Paul exhorted the elders of the church to “be on guard for [themselves] and for all the flock... [and] to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood (in the person of Jesus Christ)” (Acts 20:28). In the verses immediately following, Paul would go on to warn the leadership of this ancient church about the inevitability that false teachers would seek to attack the church from within and without. These false teachers are likened to “savage wolves... [who] will not spare the flock... [but speak] perverse things [in effort to] draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). These Pauline exhortations and warnings continue to ring true today for those who have been entrusted with the weighty calling of shepherding the people of God in the local church. 

The men who God has appointed in church leadership must be equipped to exhort the body of Christ in sound doctrine and refute those who seek to contradict the truth that has been once for all handed down to the saints (Titus 1:9; Jude 1:3). In contemporary Reformed and Evangelical circles, it is imperative for those in local church leadership to stand firm against heretical systems of theology that continue to rear their ugly heads and threaten the doctrinal purity of God’s people. As has been demonstrated over the past two decades, there are few aberrant doctrines that have circulated throughout American Christianity more shrewdly than Federal Vision. This is a charge to leadership presiding over Reformed and Evangelical local churches: be on guard (2 Pet. 3:17-18)! 

A Brief Recap of the Series (So Far) 

In this series’ introductory article , I surveyed the twentieth/twenty-first century development of Federal Vision theology and discussed the overwhelmingly negative reception of that doctrine within Reformed Christendom. The central thesis to be proven throughout this series was also presented in that preliminary article: Federal Vision Theology espouses a “different Gospel” (Gal. 1:6) due to its (mis)understanding of the doctrine of justification and its incompatibility with the confessional standards of Reformed theology. In the previous article of this series, I took time to carefully define how the Reformed tradition has been historically characterized, addressing what constitutes one being able to rightly identify as “Reformed.” I also presented how the doctrine of justification has been confessed by Reformed theologians for over 400 years, and proceeded to set the stage for what will be addressed throughout the remainder of this series. 

In the articles to come, the Joint Federal Vision Profession 2007 (JFVP) will be critically examined against the Reformed confessions to highlight key ecclesiological (doctrine of the church) and soteriological (doctrine of salvation) differences between these two opposing systems of doctrine. Upon doing so, it is my prayer that Reformed and Evangelical readers would do their part in notifying their respective local church leadership about the significant dangers that Federal Vision Theology poses to the doctrinal purity of Christ’s people scattered throughout the world. 

Analyzing the Ecclesiological Concerns of Federal Vision

From an ecclesiological perspective, one of the most significant problems identifiable in the JFVP that begins to bleed into the doctrine of justification is how the statement of faith differs from Reformed theology’s understanding of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Namely, the role and purpose that baptism and the Lord’s Supper has with regards to one’s membership and participation within the covenant of grace. For clarification purposes, the “covenant of grace" refers to the one plan of redemption that is manifested throughout the Bible: God saves sinners by His grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Gen. 3:15; 12:1-3; Ex. 34:28; Jer. 31:31-37; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). As succinctly communicated in chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 

“[The covenant of grace] was differently administered in the time of the [Old Testament] and in the time of the [New Testament]. [During the Old Testament epoch of redemptive history], it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of [God], all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal salvation. [During the New Testament epoch of redemptive history], when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is [to be] dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper… [In these New Testament sacraments, the covenant of grace] is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles” (7.5-7.6). 

In light of this helpful commentary provided by the Westminster Confession of Faith, it is also important to note that in Reformed theology, there is said to be an “internal” and “external” administration of the covenant of grace. During the present New Covenant epoch of redemptive history, the internal administration of the covenant of grace refers to those who come to salvific faith in Jesus Christ, in time, by virtue of them being counted amongst God’s elect from eternity past (Eph. 1:3-14). Conversely, the external administration of the covenant of grace refers to those who physically identify with the visible people of God, most normatively in the context of a local church. 

While there are those who are members of a local church, have been baptized (either as an infant or later in life), have made a public profession of faith and regularly participate in the Lord’s Supper, not all of those individuals comprise God’s elect (Matt. 13:24-30; Gal. 4:21-31). Scripture is replete with examples of individuals who closely identified with the people of God externally, but internally, remained far from the Lord (Isa. 29:13; Ezek. 33:21-33; Matt. 15:1-14; Rom. 9:6-18). Another common way of making this aforementioned distinction are the categories of the “invisible” and “visible” church. Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith provides a helpful survey of this important Biblical distinction, 

“The invisible church consists of the whole number of God’s elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof… [Whereas] the visible church… consists of all those [local churches], throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children… [outside] of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation… The purest [local] churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error… Nevertheless, there shall be always a [true] Church on earth to worship God according to his will [as delineated in Scripture]”. 

Analyzing the JFVP on Baptism 

As demonstrated in the Bible and outlined in the Reformed confessions, one can be a member of the external administration of the covenant of grace (visible church) without being a member of the internal administration (invisible church). However, Federal Vision Theology significantly digresses from Reformed orthodoxy on this issue as a result of adhering to a different understanding of the New Testament ordinances. In the JFVP’s section on “The Sacrament of Baptism,” it is said that “God formally unites a person to [Jesus] Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name.” Based on this statement’s articulated understanding of baptism, one is said to (temporally) enter into union with Jesus Christ at the moment of their baptism. 

That is to say, according to the JFVP, baptism results in one becoming a member of the internal administration of the covenant of grace. Although the profession denies the heresy of “baptismal regeneration”—the idea that one is born again through baptism (John 3:21)—this wording portrayed in the JFVP is very unhelpful and on the surface, appears contradictory. How can one propose that a person can enter into union with Jesus Christ through baptism on the one hand, but on the other hand, not subscribe to some form of baptismal regeneration? Moreover, given that Federal Vision proponents administer baptism to the children (and infants) of Believers, this statement’s conviction poses significant aberrations from the Reformed confessions. In short, it appears that Federal Vision Theology doesn’t hold to any sort of external/internal distinction with regards to the covenant of grace. 

In the case of those who have yet to make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ (infants or very young children of believers), the Bible does not teach that their (temporal) union with Christ begins at the moment of baptism. In fact, regardless of where the Christian falls on the Padeobaptist (Infant-Baptism) vs. Credobaptist (Believers-Baptism) spectrum, one’s union with Christ is a reality that does not begin with nor depend upon baptism. Rather, union with the Lord Jesus Christ is a threefold reality: 1) it is grounded in God’s sovereign electing purposes in eternity past (Eph. 1:3-14), 2) it is established on the basis of all that Jesus Christ accomplished on behalf of His people as their Federal (Covenant) Head (Rom. 5:12-21) and 3) it becomes temporally realized in a person’s life at the moment they come to saving faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-11; Gal. 2:20-21).

It is also important to note that none of the Reformed confessions link baptism with any kind of true union with the Lord Jesus Christ in regards to those who have yet to make a profession of faith (see Article 34 of Belgic Confession; Q&A 69-74 of Heidelberg Catechism; Q&A 94 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism; Q&A 165-166 of the Westminster Larger Catechism; Chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith). In summary, they categorically teach that for infants and the children of believers, “[baptism] initiates the recipient into an [external] covenant relationship with God [as a byproduct of bringing] them into the membership of the visible church, calls [them to] an internal washing by faith… and is [an outward] sign of God’s promise of forgiveness of sin and adoption that is freely offered to all by faith [in the Lord Jesus Christ]”. 

A discrepancy of this magnitude between the Reformed confessions and the JFVP should raise immediate concerns by the Reformed and Evangelical Christian alike when examining Federal Vision Theology’s claim to be “confessionally bound to the Three Forms of Unity [and] to the Westminster Confession of Faith.” Yet even more troubling is that in the denial section of the JFVP’s statement on baptism, it is expressed that those who were at one point united to Jesus Christ in baptism can potentially lose such union. The profession states that “baptism [does not] automatically guarantee that the baptized will share in the eschatological church… [because] baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning.” 

In other words, per the wording utilized in this section of the JFVP, it is suggested that baptism does not result in one being born again, but unregenerate baptized sinners somehow experience true union with Jesus Christ. This idea of baptism necessarily denies the distinction between an internal/external administration of the covenant of grace and in doing so, suggests that those who are baptized can lose their union with Jesus Christ if they do not exhibit “a growing and living faith.” The consequences of such failure? Spending an eternity in Hell. 

The way in which this section of the JFVP is depicted creates a conundrum that has led men like Dr. R. Scott Clark to conclude that Federal Vision Theology fundamentally teaches that one is in the covenant of grace by God’s grace (baptism), but must maintain membership in the covenant through their works (faithfulness)”. The soteriological implications embedded in the JFVP will be further nuanced in the next article in this series, but as Dr. Clark rightly notes, perhaps the most troubling feature of Federal Vision Theology is that membership in the covenant of grace is said to begin by God’s grace and is only maintained through one’s perseverance in faithfulness to the Lord. 

In other words, Federal Vision is a system that posits “God must do His part” (grace) and “man must do his part” (works) in order to enjoy a relationship with the triune God in this age and in the age to come. How else can it be explained that those who come to a true (temporal) union with Jesus Christ through baptism can wind up losing such union due to their own infidelity to Him? Indeed, according to the JFVP’s explanation of the role and purpose that baptism has in the life of an individual, our ability to remain in relationship with God is based upon our feeble ability to hold onto Him, not upon His perfect ability to hold onto us. 

Analyzing the JFVP on the Lord’s Supper 

When considering how the JFVP describes the Lord’s Supper, another poignant example of how Federal Vision Theology blurs the Reformed distinction between the external/internal administration of the covenant of grace arises. In the section titled “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” it is stated “that any baptized person, children included, should be welcome at the [Lord’s] Table.” Building off of what was previously discussed on the subject of baptism, adherents to Federal Vision Theology regard all baptized members of the visible church to be partakers of the internal administration of the covenant of grace. That is to say, all those who have been baptized (regardless of age) have been truly united to Jesus Christ through their baptism (a union that can apparently be lost through their own unfaithfulness). Therefore, says the Federal Vision advocate, “any baptized person, children included, should be welcome at the [Lord’s] Table.” 

Padeocommunion, the practice of administering the Lord’s Supper to infants, is a well documented ecclesiological aberration of Federal Vision. However, the Reformed confessions are unanimous in teaching that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament to be reserved for those who have made a credible profession of faith and are not under any discipline from their local church. This is plainly evidenced by the instruction provided in Q&A 177 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

“Q. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper differ?

A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” 

As depicted in this excerpt from the Westminster Larger Catechism, there is a fundamental difference between the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Whereas baptism is to be administered once as an outward sign of one’s initiation into the external administration of the covenant of grace, the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often as a means of confirming the faith of Christ’s people in their own hearts every time they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. The calls from Scripture for self-examination and reflecting upon what Jesus Christ accomplished in the place of His people prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper punctuate why only those who have made a credible profession of faith ought to participate in this sacred meal (1 Cor. 11:20-34). Ideally, only those who are members of the internal administration of the covenant of grace ought to partake of the Lord’s Table. 

The failure of Federal Vision Theology to distinguish between the external (visible church) and internal (invisible church) administration of the covenant of grace has led to its failure to accurately understand the unique significance and purpose of each New Testament sacrament. As Dr. R. Scott Clark rightly notes, the Lord’s Supper “speaks to us of our union [with Christ]... and its purpose… is to help us grow in grace, confirm our faith and to seal us Christ’s imputed righteousness [after first] embracing that righteousness by faith alone”. Infants are certainly to be embraced as members of the visible covenant community of faith, but they must not be admitted to the Lord’s Table due to their inherent inability to meet the most basic requirement for participating in this New Covenant meal: trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation. 

Why does this matter? As I have written elsewhere, there are few things that have been undermined more in American Christendom than the New Testament sacraments. Far too many Christians bear the name “Reformed,” even more so “Protestant,” yet are involved with churches that have very little in common with the rich heritage from which those labels have been derived. In light of Jesus Christ laying down His own life for the salvation and purity of His people (John 10:11-18; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 John 3:16), one would think that ecclesiology would garner more attention to detail and reverence amongst those who self-identify with the church. Given the enormity of the ecclesiological disparities between Federal Vision Theology and Reformed/Evangelical theology, it is disheartening to see Federal Vision’s growing acceptance and influence over the past several years by those who formerly denounced it. 

If there’s anything that can be learned from the multi-decade controversy surrounding Federal Vision, it’s that doctrine really does matter and theological ideas have consequences for our lives and ministries. But there is no doctrine more vital to the Christian faith than the doctrine of justification: how sinful human beings can obtain real, objective and unwavering assurance as to how they can enjoy loving fellowship with a holy God. In the next installment of this series, it will be demonstrated from the JFVP how the profound soteriological aberrations of Federal Vision Theology necessarily espouses a “different Gospel” (Gal. 1:6) and in doing so, stands outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

Check out the complete Joint Federal Vision Profession, here, and continue to follow Dewey Dovel’s series on Federal Vision Theology in our Faith section.