This is a question that a good friend recommended I addressed as part of my articles on the subject. Perhaps you’ve been thinking that very question. Why is Dave paying attention to this out of all the errors and issues that beset the church? Well, first of all, it’s worth noting that this isn’t the only theological position I’ve chosen to challenge on Faithroots. I’ve covered everything from Open Theism to Prosperity Gospel in my time. However, I think it’s worth picking up on Federal Vision for a few reasons. I’ll go into more detail shortly but one thing I’d observe is that it seems to bring together a few issues from over realised eschatology to big questions about regeneration, faith and justification.
A second factor is the subtlety of it. First it seems a little academic and obscure to most of us here but in fact it has strong practical implications for how you live your life. Secondly, I would argue that there is something about how it is presented which looks like there are things you might consider to be within the spectrum of orthodoxy by are just that little bit off centre. What that means, is that I think we can pick up on one or other aspect of Federal Vision thought and because of our perspective immediately spot issues but perhaps miss others. So, for example I’ve noticed that Presbyterians will quickly point to issues around justification by faith and the relationship between law and gospel but completely pass over the big issues someone like I would have with its approach to baptism.
One example of where something may look a little off centre but is unclear is with views on the Trinity. The 2007 declaration starts with the Doctrine of God and says:
“We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding.”
Now, that’s one of those statements that needs lots of re-reading and can still leave you thinking “I wonder what they meant by that.” We might also want, to some extent affirm that. Yes, God is the archetype and that means that all of our relationships are based on the nature of the Trinity. For example, fathers and sons know that they can look to the Father’s love for the son and the son’s obedience to the Father to learn a bit about how they are to relate to each other.
However, does the statement mean that we are to think of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit as a covenant? This is unclear. And more importantly, should we. I remember Mike Ovey particularly focusing on this in his critique of FV to Oak Hill students. This is unsurprising giving his expertise was in Trinitarian Theology. His observation, if I remember correctly was that this statement didn’t seem to have strayed over into error but the trajectory could be there towards a Social trinitarian view.
The third factor that exercises me when it comes to Federal Vision is because what we believe affects how we live. So, whilst I have some very specific concerns about where it gets things particularly wrong, I am concerned about the impact of the whole package. What I mean is this. There are implications of believing that Acts 2 was about a promise “to your children and your children’s children”, the objective affect of sacraments like baptism and communion and of post-millenial theonomism.
What it has tended to look like has been a focus on encouraging Christians to have lots of children, then needing to provide education for them away from the secular state, It’s tended towards a focus on culture building and culture war. My concern here is first that in the Uk I think we are seeing those kinds of things promoted and pushed without full awareness of the root reasoning. Secondly, that -whilst due to our tendency to inconsistency people may hold those views and remain passionate about evangelism now- the pressure over time is likely I believe to distract away from evangelism and towards an assumed evangelicalism. One final consideration is as to why I take time at all here to engage with controversy. Wouldn’t I do better to spend my time addressing the positives? Well, my preference, and the overall priority here is on positive, practical teaching and training. However, because my concern is to train and equip potential planters, elders, pastors and because we are both to feed and to guard the flock, this means that part of that training means equipping people to keep a watch and to be able to spot danger.
Faithroots 