PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH
Resolutions Passed of the Bible Presbyterian Church
← BACK TO INDEX
Resolution 70:2
"The Federal Vision"
The Federal Vision (FV), also called the Auburn Avenue Theology, made its public appearance at the Pastor’s Conference of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisiana, January 2002. The conference was led by the church’s pastor, Steve Wilkins, a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. According to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s report from the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification, the following individuals were invited to join Pastor Wilkins in explaining the FV: Steve Schlissel, pastor of Messiah’s Congregation, New York City; Norman Shepherd, retired Christian Reformed Church pastor and former professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (1964- 1982); and Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho. John Barach, former pastor of Covenant Reformed Church (URCNA), Grand Rapids, Alberta, replaced Norman Shepherd, who was unable to attend the conference.[1] Other leaders who have publicly defended the FV include Peter J. Leithart, a minister of the Presbyterian Church in America; Rich Lusk, assistant pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisiana; and Tom Trouwburst, pastor of Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Schenectady, New York.[2]
It should be noted that proponents of the FV differ in their views. Not every view expressed in this resolution is held by every defender of the FV.
During a colloquium on the FV, Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., president of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Greenville, South Carolina, detailed three areas of concern. The first area was “methodological errors,” including “false hermeneutics and exegesis,”[3] "resistance to systematic theology,"[4] and “faulty definitions of key theological terms.”[5] The second area of concern was “loss of balance in covenant theology.” Mr. Pipa said, “…we believe that the Federal Vision’s adherents have lost a Biblical balance and thus err in over objectifying of the covenant; in failing to distinguish the covenantal union of the visible church from the saving union of the invisible church; and in emphasizing covenantal election, atonement, justification, and adoption at the expense of soteriological election, atonement, justification, and adoption.”[6] He also said, “We would not deny that the congregation is spoken to covenantally in terms of these great soteriological benefits, but we would deny that the New Testament fails to address God’s people personally with respect to the possession of these great benefits. And it is an error to maintain that all are elect, justified, and adopted until they apostatize.”[7] The third area of concern is “incipient sacramentalism.” Mr. Pipa said, “Such a sacramentalism is seen in the claim that the sacraments can communicate blessings apart from faith and that baptism is a converting ordinance.”[8] The Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (PCA) unanimously adopted a study paper (February 1, 2005) that identified several theological positions held by Federal Visionists, which include the following:
1. “FV proponents deny the traditional doctrine of the covenant of works;
2. “FV proponents deny the imputation of Christ’s active (and perhaps passive) obedience to the believer for justification. The ‘righteousness’ of the believer in justification is sometimes saidto be the believer’s covenantal faithfulness. Justification is defined in terms of a process not a definite act; and good works are said to be necessary to justification, particularly to the believer’s ‘final justification’ at the Day of Judgment.
3. “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. Coupled with this is a denial of the traditional doctrine 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.
4. “FV proponents point to objective grounds for one’s assurance while practically denying subjective grounds for one’s assurance. For assurance, the believer is directed away from discerning the inward and spiritual graces unique to the regenerate person, and is directed towards his water baptism.
5. “FV explanations of apostasy suggest that a believer may genuinely possess Christ’s redemptive benefits and yet lose them.
6. “FV proponents understand the doctrine of the sacramental union to mean that the sign and the thing signified invariably accompany one another. ‘Salvific’ or ‘covenantal’ efficacy is affirmed, therefore, of every recipient of the sacrament. 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.”[9]The Seventieth General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church, meeting in Grand Island, New York, August 3-8, 2006 warns God’s people concerning these teachings of the FV as identified by the Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (PCA). We believe these theological positions are contrary to God’s Word and the Westminster Standards. Especially grievous is the distortion of the doctrine of justification by faith alone that joins works with faith and makes justification a process. This heresy strikes at the heart of the Gospel and should not be tolerated in a Protestant Church. We commend those who are opposing the Federal Vision and all similar theologies and exhort all true believers to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).
Endnotes:
[1] OPC 73rd General Assembly, “Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification,” p.1657. [Back to text]
[2] E. Calvin Beisner, ed., The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision; The Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium of the Federal Vision, August 11-13, 2003 (Ft. Lauderdale: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004). [Back to text]
[3] Ibid., p. 10. Pipa quoted John Barach: “When Paul says baptism, let’s take him to mean baptism, the baptism that the church knew about, baptism with actual water and to believe that when he says that through baptism we are united to Christ, that he means that with the application of that water there is something efficacious taking place. And let’s learn the language of Scripture” (quoted from 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference, Q/A 12). [Back to text]
[4] Ibid., p. 10. Pipa quoted Schlissel: “If you are inclined, you can ignore lines 327-593, a retelling of the OT Story, done as an exercise to illustrate that we will find ourselves more closely united if we hear the Scripture in a way that reserves its character as a Story. Once we reduce it to a textbook of source material for systematics, the fun begins, and the divisions in earnest…. Abstract theology may produce great individuals, but great Stories make great people” (quoted from Steve Schlissel, email, July 4, 2003). [Back to text]
[5] Ibid., p. 12. Pipa quoted Wilson: “Now when we think about it [regeneration], we are talking about that initial bringing from death to life. Is there a point in time when that happens? Of course, sure, we don’t deny that, but the Bible doesn’t speak of it quite the same way, it attaches that to baptism” (quoted from the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference Papers, Q/A 12). [Back to text]
6 Ibid., p. 12. Pipa quoted John Barach: “But those who fall away will be cut off from the church…. And they will look back and discover that they were reprobate on that last day but they will see that in history this is always God’s plan for them, that in history God did graciously, really bring them into his church, that he really made them a part of his chosen people, that he gave them genuine promises that are just as real, just as dependable, just as trustworthy as the promises he gave to people who do persevere to the end. He gave them real promises of salvation; he united them to Christ in whom alone is salvation…” (quoted from John Barach, “Covenant and Election,” 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference, side 2). [Back to text]
7 Ibid., p. 13. [Back to text]
8 Ibid., p. 13, 14. Pipa quoted Wilkins: “[baptism means] united with Christ, forgiveness of sins, Holy Spirit cleansed, regenerate and renewed, buried and resurrected, joined to [the] body of Christ, clothed in righteousness, justified and sanctified, saved, ordained as priests with access to [the] heavenly sanctuary” (quoted from Steve Wilkins, Sunday School series on the Covenant, tape 5). [Back to text]
[9] The Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (PCA), Study Paper, “A Précis of the Federal Vision,” p. 13. [Back to text]
Adopted by the 70th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church,
meeting in Grand Island, NY, August 3-8, 2006.
