Over the past few years, pastors and members of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition have become alarmed at a new movement called the “Federal Vision.” I first became aware of what became the “Federal Vision” when I was a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). I watched this storm form and take shape during the years that I attended Westminster Theological Seminary in the debates that were stirring up around the writings of N.T. Wright, E.P. Sanders, along with the growing discontent with Meredith Kline’s “merit model.”
From Where did the Federal Vision Arise?
For those Catholic readers that are likely unaware of the Federal Vision controversy, it is fair to say that this “federal school” grew out of a number of movements.
1. There was the Norman Shepherd controversy in the 1980s at Westminster Seminary in which Shepherd highlighted the role of “works” in the Epistle of James. Shepherd soon afterward disappeared from the campus of Westminster Seminary.
2. There was the Theonomy or Reconstructionist Movement in Reformed/Presbyterian circles that sought to take the Old Testament seriously and apply its legal/covenantal framework to the New Testament economy. This project largely fell apart because it was, well, impossile. The remaining bright minds adjusted their theology from a civic model to a liturgical model and abandoned Theonomy. They became “liturgical Calvinists.”
3. These ex-Theonomists and their discioples went on to become excellent biblical theologians with a knack for seeing the role of Israel and Judaism in the New Covenant. They gravitated toward the work of Anglican theologian N.T. Wright.
I was a young Calvinist who set to reading the post-Theonomy authors (James Jordan, Jeffrey Meyers, Peter Leithart, Ray Sutton, et al.) They were on the edge of things – robes, weekly communion, Old Covenant typology, realized eschatology, high ecclesiology, etc. This is the same pond that produced the covenantal Catholic theologian Scott Hahn, which nearly all American Catholics have celebrated.
I was drawn to their liturgical/covenantal worldview, because it was robustly biblical. It was able handle cultural questions in a way that was much more effective than the Evangelical “proof-texting” model. I took hold.
While at Westminster Seminary, I began to flirt with the Episcopal Church and joined the Anglican tradition as an “orthodox conservative.” I saw the need for the Eucharist as the focal point of Christ’s covenant. I also saw the need for a historical organic Church, bound through time in Apostolic Succession. A few years later I became an Anglican priest and spent my time reading through the volumes of N.T. Wright. Then I finally did the unspeakable – I became…Catholic.
Needless to say, I now follow the “Federal Vision” debate in the Reformed realm of theology with great interest. I suspect that it will play out like the Oxford Movement of the Church of England in the 19th century. The Federal Visionists will soon see that they are not tolerated by Presbyterians and over time they will be persecuted. Some of their great minds will become Catholic. Others will break away and start their own “Reformed Catholic” movements (similar to the Anglo-Catholic Ritualist movements). These breakaways will continue to write and develop their thought.
What is Federal Vision?
The Federal Vision movement is so termed because it stresses the foedus, Latin for “covenant.” They are covenantal theologians par excellence. Fundamentally, Federal Visionists reject the bi-covenantal structure of the Scriptures taught in the Presbyterian articles of the Westminster Confession of Faith. In other words, the universe does not rotate on covenantal axis of “Works” and “Grace.” Federal Visionists would say that obedience and works are not opposed to grace. They rightly point out that before the fall, Adam worked, obeyed, and received the grace/favor of God. Grace and obedience are not opposed to one another.
It is not a surprise then that Federal Visionists believe that justification is best understood as “union with Christ” and not as the imputation of righteousness in a strict merit/demerit transaction. Very biblical and very Catholic.
Federal Visionists believe that the sacrament of Baptism actually accomplishes union with Christ – not in a nominal way, but in an ontological way. Again, very biblical and very Catholic. A person is Christian if they are baptized – they are either a “good Christian” or an “apostate Christian.” This somewhat approximates the way Catholics understand being in a state of grace or mortal sin.
Federal Visionists understand “election” primarily in terms of sacramental participation, much as the Catholic Church does.
Federal Visionists stress the need to “persevere in the covenant.” This is perceived by many of their Calvinist brethren to be a repudiation of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, or to put it in Evangelical terms, “once saved, always saved.”
Hearkening back to Norman Shepherd, Federal Visionists believe that obedience to the Gospel is a necessarily element of salvation. This causes them to be lambasted as seeking a salvation through “works-righteousness.”
The Catholic Perspective on the Federal Vision
As a Catholic I believe the Federal Vision group is right in its theological tendencies and wrong about its denomination. Whether or not the PCA holds to the Westminster Standards, the PCA is still largely a Zwinglian/Anabaptistic denomination. I don’t mean this in a pejorative way. I just mean that the inherited tradition of the PCA is not covenantal and sacramental.
The Anglican Tractarians constantly “proved” that Anglicanism was Catholic. They quoted Anglican divines and tweaked the 39 Articles or Religion in a “Catholic” direction. They pointed to the liturgy and quoted the Fathers – but at the end of the day, the people of the Church of England were Protestant and had moved away from any sense of the Catholic past. Sure, there were “Catholic” movements within the Church of England – but that was not the Church of England. These “high-church” movements were exceptions, not the norm.
The same goes for the PCA. The leadership and pew members are basically Evangelicals that read R.C. Sproul, maybe believe in infant baptism, and have worked “the five points of Calvinism” into their worldview. And when the last word is spoken, the Federal Visionists will be sidelined and ridiculed as crypto-Catholics and adherents to “salvation by works.” Fundamentally, the PCA fears that the Federal Vision movement is “just too Catholic.” All this talk about sacraments, covenants, ecclesiology, robes, candles, weekly communion, just gives your typical Southern Presbyterian the heebie-jeebies. They want that old time religion of three Wesleyan hymns, the pastoral prayer, and a 35 minute sermon proclaims the “sovereign grace of the Gospel.”
Ultimately, I think that younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church. The Federal Visionist has a vision of the beautiful things inside, but they have not yet appreciated the warmth of a true home.
Taylor was an Episcopal priest in Fort Worth, Texas before being received into the Catholic Church by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth.
Taylor was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly. He was served under Archbishop John J. Myers and Msgr. William Stetson for the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II, the canonical structure by which Anglican clergy are received into the Catholic Church and then go on to pursue Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.
He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.A.R. Theology), Nashotah Theological House (Certificate in Anglican Studies), and University of Dallas (M.A. Philosophy). He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas where he studies the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae Ia Iaa qq. 94-108). Taylor and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their five children. He is the author of The Catholic Perspective on Paul (forthcoming).
Visit his personal site at: www.taylormarshall.com
Taylor is also the Editor of Christian and American at: www.christianandamerican.com. 
Interesting. Though I respect the journey you’ve made, and personally being partial to the FV view, I wanted to let you know that I couldn’t disagree with you more about its relation to Roman Catholicism. While this could be along conversation I’d like to make a few brief points:
First, Norm Shepherd’s attempt to overturn Kline’s (though it’s older than Kline – but since that’s what you called it) view of merit took him further from Rome, not closer. He explicitly left NO ROOM for ANY MERIT WHATSOEVER in our Justification – not even the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. In Norm Shepherd’s view, Justification = “forgiveness from sin” which comes strictly though faith (by grace alone) – he removed ALL MERIT from the equation.
Second, the covenantal perspective of the scripture is antithetical to the familial (modern Roman – not that there isn’t more than one) or legal (Latin) conceptions within RCism. Instead, it directly supports a robust CALVINISM. As an additional note, it’s also antithetical to the parallel construction built on “ontology” in the East.
Could add more … but I gotta run.
Jim,
Great comment.
I completely agree with you regarding the FV retreat from merit/debit/credit paradigm.
However, I think that there is a reason for this. If they claim what they claim and DID NOT deny the merit paradigm – then they would be fully Catholic in their soteriology. Thus, they must chop off one hand or the other.
I’ve said before that I think that the NPP is wrong in retreating from merit/debit articulations since it’s all over the OT and the NT in its “ransom” language.
I reread your second thought and can’t quite figure it out. Are you saying the covenant is opposed to family/legal?
Thank you for stopping by. I hope you’ll check out some podcasts.
in Christ,
Taylor Marshall
Rom 10:9
Thanks for the response. I agree that there is “ransom” (or can I say “redemption?”) imagery in the old and new covenants
but I agree with FV and Norm Shepherd as these are so clearly linked to Christ’s sacrifice, once and for all, done at the cross (passive obedience), imputed to us by grace (that is, simply “favor” – action (‘energy’ as the east would say), not “substance”) through faith – they type of faith that is attended by works (which are also by grace only).
In my second paragraph – I was in a rush and ‘antithetical’ was the wrong word. I have several friends convert to Catholicism and I spent a lot of time talking to them. My closest friend (of those that converted) went east, a few others went west. These views (east and west) entail bringing a different paradigm to the interpretation of Scripture. In the east everything is viewed through the lense of “ontology.” It’s why they view the Incarnation as the pivotal event of history – Christ taking on human ‘nature.’ It’s the merging of human nature with the divine nature in Christ that restores mankind’s fallen nature. They kept telling me to “stop viewing the world through that Latin legal framework” and I kept quoting Paul on our guilt before “the law.”
(I got in a protracted discussion about this with Perry Robinson over at Energetic Procession a while back over these issues.)
On the western side there was the “familial” paradigm that was frequently offered. God is our Father, not a raging judge, etc. etc.
One day Kline kicked me in the head when I read his oft-repeated phrase, “not law, covenant.”
Now, these other paradigms seem understandable: A familial view is a permeating subset of a covenantal view. There are familial like relationships implied in all aspects of a covenantal relationship (though certainly the reverse isn’t the case). A legal view is truncated covenant. It only concentrates on one aspect of a covenant. An ontological perspective has an amazing number of analogies to the covenantal view – but they are only analogies.
Anyway. Sorry for the ramble.
Jim
Then
Jim,
So do you personally reject the debit/merit paradigm?
Also, are you rejecting or affirming the legal/familial framework?
Incidentally, the Catholic Church also rejects the notion that grace is a substance. Maybe I misread you, but you seemed to suggest that this what we Catholics believe. However, the Catholic Church teaches that grace is NOT a substance.
Saint Thomas Aquinas trashes the notion of “grace as substance” at Summa theologiae III q 110 a 2.
Sincerely,
Taylor
That was quick.
> So do you personally reject the debit/merit paradigm?
I’m leaning that way.
> Also, are you rejecting or affirming the legal/familial framework?
Yes. My point was that the covenantal framework (esp. of FV) subsumes those positions. Alone, neither provide the full picture but both can be looked at as aspects of a covenantal view.
On ‘grace’ – thanks. It’s funny I never heard it put the way I described, by the way it’s treated in RCism it just seemed to me to be a given. I stand corrected.
Sorry – the answer to that second question was “rejecting” – not “yes”
Jim,
I was once close to rejecting the debit/merit paradigm – but I came to see that such a rejection actually solved only one problem but gave birth to many more problems.
There is a fascinating new book that’s getting lots of attention from Protestants and Catholics that I’d recommend. It’s Gary Anderson’s “Sin: A History”. He demonstrates that the primary paradigm for sin in Second Temple Judaism (and the NT) is “sin as debt.” He shows this in Daniel, Proverbs, Qumran documents, etc. It’s unavoidable.
Moreover, Christ quotes passages referring to the Jubilee year – a time of releasing debts – as his message regarding human sin.
I’m really surprised to hear that you as a Christian rejects the legal/familial context of the NT. Wow! I’ve never heard that before. You’re the first!
I don’t know how to respond to that.
in Christ,
Taylor
As I tried to explain, I think those perspectives (familial and legal) are subsumed under a covenental perspective. They are aspects of that perspective. I “reject” them in the sense that I think that using them APART from a covenantal perspective warps the view of the Scripture and our relationship to Christ.
I interpreted your question as “through what lense/paradigm do you view scripture?” I guess I interpreted your question as a choice between ‘familial’ ‘legal’ OR ‘covenantal’, one to the exclusion of the others.
I see legal, and familial, (or ontological) as incomplete, and since there’s only one place to stand (from which to have a “perspective”) I view these things from the perspective of the covenant – which I think there’s enormous Scriptural warrant for. And I think this puts the familial and legal aspects in their correct context.
You make it sound like I reject any “legal” sense to Scripture but I simply meant that I prefer to stand in the covenant. In other words – like Kline says “not law, covenant.” I doubt you could accuse him of “rejecting the legal context” of the Old/New testament.
Not that I blame you for reaching the conclusion you did. I’m not always (rarely?) clear. My apologies.
Taylor,
You’ve got me wondering:
> I was once close to rejecting the debit/merit paradigm – but I
> came to see that such a rejection actually solved only one
> problem but gave birth to many more problems.
Any hint as to the problems you’re referring to? I don’t see how Christ’s references to the Jubilee year relate. They relate to redemption, sure, but merit, I don’t see it.
The book is in my wish list. I liked the writeup. Of course, if he doesn’t conclude that sin is covenantal unfaithfulness in Judaism then I’m sure it’ll be a worthless read
(just kidding)
Thanks
Jim
Jim,
You write:
I see legal, and familial, (or ontological) as incomplete, and since there’s only one place to stand (from which to have a “perspective”) I view these things from the perspective of the covenant – which I think there’s enormous Scriptural warrant for. And I think this puts the familial and legal aspects in their correct context.
Okay, I think I now understand you now. My bad.
I agree with you! You’re closer to the Catholic Church than you may expect. Check this out from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2060 The gift of the commandments and of the Law is part of the covenant God sealed with his own.
The Catholic Church teaches that law falls under covenant.
Here’s another quote from the CCC:
709 The Law, the sign of God’s promise and covenant, ought to have governed the hearts and institutions of that people to whom Abraham’s faith gave birth.
And another one from the CCC:
2801 When we say “Our” Father, we are invoking the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
So here we see that in Catholicism, both the legal and familial elements of the Faith belong within the covenantal framework. The covenant holds the primacy.
This comes to its highest realization in the Holy Eucharist – since Christ only once spoke of the “the covenant” – and that at the institution of the Holy Eucharist.
Hence, to be truly covenantal is to be truly Eucharistic.
Godspeed,
Taylor
Nice.
I’ve read much of the Catechism. Parts of it I love (like the things you quote above). Parts of it make me cringe (one thing that comes to mind is the “sacrifice” of the mass being the re-sacrificing of Christ, looking it up 1365 – depending on how you take it, 1366 – worse, but still tolerable in a twisted sense, 1367 – flat out ‘no’, 1368 – which sheds light on the appropriate interpretation of 1367 is flatly denied by several parts of scripture, not the least of which is Heb 7:27).
Though this statement “Hence, to be truly covenantal is to be truly Eucharistic.” is well put my friend. I may use that – unless you have a trademark on it or something
In case we cross posted, I had a question for you above. Not sure if you saw it.
Jim,
Just for the sake of clarity, we Catholics don’t believe that Christ is “re-crucified” or “re-sacrificed” in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rather, it is one and the same sacrifice of Golgotha. In the Holy Mass, the sacrifice of Christ re-presented, not repeated. Otherwise, we Catholics would have to cut the Epistle to the Hebrews out from our Bibles. On the contrary, we Catholics read Hebrews during Holy Week and and Good Friday – because it reaffirms what we believe about the Eucharist and Good Friday.
“To be truly covenantal is to be truly Eucharistic” is in the book featured in the upper right bar: “The Catholic Perspective on Paul” which is due out later this year. Please feel free to use it.
Christ’s reference to the jubilee (“to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” Lk 4:19) refers to the release of debts. Now clearly Christ isn’t preaching that all believers get a free pass on their home mortgage and credit card debts. Rather, He refers to the release of sin in terms of debt.
And don’t forget Matthew 18:
[34] And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt.
[35] So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
“Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”
Here again, Christ uses debt language.
Proverbs also teaches that alms for the poor are a “loan to the Lord.” Hence the language of debt is everywhere.
I could go on and on about how Christ teaches that we will receive a “reward” for what we do (e.g. give water to someone or prayer with the door closed).
To reject the language of debt and merit with regard to works means we would have to explain all these passages away. Instead, it’s easier to do these two things:
1) accept covenantalism as establishing the divine economy of salvation
2) accept that the merit system is a filial aspect of belonging to a family based on grace and family identity
However, these options essentially lead to a “check mate” on the side of Catholicism. Hence, opponents must choose one or the other.
Why not choose both…and become fully Catholic?
Yours in Christ,
Taylor
Taylor,
Thanks for the response. I have heard the mass explained that way. It’s difficult consider that the “once and done” language of Hebrews and all of the other verses (“it is finished/paid in full/tetelestai”, the veil of the temple ripped, etc) is not violated by those catechism entries but …
On the merit issue, there’s a confusion here (no doubt, on my part). There is, no doubt, a large number of passages that use fiduciary language, that is, the language of “debt.” You’ve assumed that is equivalent with “merit.” Sorry. I don’t see it. Not only that, what I do see is that the payment of that debt by Christ is completely unmerited. For even as we were dead in our trespasses and sins, and were by nature children of wrath, God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, (and we only love, because He first loved us) even while we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by God’s favor we are saved so that none should boast) (pardon the redaction).
On another note I’ve been listening to your podcast. I listened to #1, #2, #3, and #10 (it’s just the order they came up in my mp3 player). You do a good job of presenting the material. I’m curious though, #10 deals with celibacy. Paul frequently contrasts two states, both of which he commends. He talks about celibacy vs marriage. Sometimes, virginity and marriage. These two states he talks about frequently. He even goes on to call the forbidding of marriage a doctrine of demons when discussing our liberty. He let’s us know that each state is a gift we are called to.
Now, these two states he honors, and the other two states he forbids. I probably don’t need to point to the number of passages that deal with fornication but YOU quoted 1Co about “conjugal duty” (though I find that sterile sounding translation a bit distant from the idea I get when I read the entire passage in context).
So I hope, given my Puritan (in the original sense, not the modern sense – that is, I find my “conjugal duty” God honoring, not simply a compromise) attitude about sex, you’ll understand why I was aghast at the prospect of priests, married but celibate; a state you mentioned as honorable.
I think, if you really look, you will find more the early penchant for such a state was more influenced by Plato than Paul.
Wow, covenant; this word has lost all meaning for me.
I am curious what the debit/merit paradigm might mean, and the familial/legal?(help?)
wow; if we aren’t synthesizing things exclusive of one another, when we are separating things fused inextricably in this life.
I’m thinking of the Sacraments and the incarnate works respectively.
I was suggested this web site by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my difficulty. You’re wonderful! Thanks!
This is getting a bit more subjective, but I much prefer the Zune Marketplace. The interface is colorful, has more flair, and some cool features like ‘Mixview’ that let you quickly see related albums, songs, or other users related to what you’re listening to. Clicking on one of those will center on that item, and another set of “neighbors” will come into view, allowing you to navigate around exploring by similar artists, songs, or users. Speaking of users, the Zune “Social” is also great fun, letting you find others with shared tastes and becoming friends with them. You then can listen to a playlist created based on an amalgamation of what all your friends are listening to, which is also enjoyable. Those concerned with privacy will be relieved to know you can prevent the public from seeing your personal listening habits if you so choose.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.