The Federal Vision: Redefining Covenant and Justification

By Stephen Spinnenweber - Posted at The Heidelblog:

Part 1: Covenant And Election

I have heard it before and I will hear it again, “The Federal Vision is dead. Move on.” Though it is true that the Federal Vision (FV) is now well over twenty years old, it has lost none of its steam in 2025. In fact, over the last five years the FV has made considerable gains by capitalizing on the dysfunction brought on by the pandemic. The refusal of CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches) churches (the home, by and large, of the FV) to close their doors during the lockdowns, coupled with their emphasis upon strong families, Christian education, biblical masculinity in a feminized world, post-millennial optimism, and its seemingly historic forms of worship, proved to be uniquely enticing to a host of disenchanted evangelicals who were hungering for something more. The more that they thought they were getting was the Reformed Presbyterianism of Geneva and Westminster. What they got instead was a loose, patch-work theological system from Moscow, Idaho that is only decades old. Though some have chosen to ditch the label altogether, the same ideas that gave birth to the movement twenty years ago are still being taught today.1 Hence my reason for writing. The FV is not dead, and we would be foolish to sleep on it now.

Brief History

In 2002, Steve Wilkins, pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (AAPC) in Monroe, Louisiana invited Steve Schlissel, Norman Shepherd, and Douglas Wilson to speak at the church’s annual theology conference. It was at this conference that the controversial tenants of the FV first came to the attention of the Reformed world. The 2003 meeting of the AAPC only served to deepen concerns. As time went on and response papers were written and exchanged, it became clear that the controversy could no longer be chalked up to mere semantic differences or talking past one another. The FV’s subtle but dramatic redefinitions of covenant, election, justification, and sacramental efficacy make it incompatible with the historic Reformed faith. The purpose of this essay is to focus on the subtle ways the FV redefines covenant and justification and how these redefinitions are detrimental to the Christian experience.

Surveying the Field

Man lives under one of two divinely instituted covenants—the covenant of works or the covenant of grace—and which one we live under determines where we will spend eternity. If the distinctions between these covenants are blurred or functionally eliminated, our understanding of justification and soteriology as a whole will inevitably crumble. Therefore, covenant theology and justification must be handled with the utmost precision and care whether it be from the pulpit, in academic writing, or online.

The Reformed and FV both agree that those who are members of the covenant of grace, in whatever capacity, really do enjoy unique benefits that those outside of the covenant community do not. The preaching and teaching of God’s Word, the care of elders, the fellowship of the saints—all of these are precious gifts from God that are enjoyed by all within the covenant. In its effort to so honor the covenant, however, the FV assigns it qualities that do not properly belong to it. According to Richard Phillips, “The Federal Vision says we are saved by the covenant; Reformed Theology says we are saved by Christ. The Federal Vision says the covenant itself conveys a relationship of life and blessing with God; the Reformed faith says the covenant offers salvation upon the condition of faith in Christ and his gospel.”2 Clearly there is serious disagreement over what the covenant itself can and cannot do. The first order of business is to explore what each side means when they say “covenant.”

Continue here...

Part Two:

• The Federal Vision (Part Two): Justification And The Role Of Faith | The Heidelblog