The following is taken from a blog of a Roman Catholic apologist. (He is a former Episcopal priest who converted to Romanism). His view on Federal Vision is very enlightening, and yet another reason why this theology of men like Doug Wilson must be seen as a great departure from the Reformed faith. The article in its entirety can be read here.
But here are some of the comments of Taylor Marshall that you will find in that article.
In answering the question, “From Where did Federal Vision Arise?” He says it came from a number of movements. He gives three. (Note the names Norman Shepherd and N.T. Wright)
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.
On the question, “What is Federal Vision?” here is what he says. (bold emphasis mine)
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.”
Note how over and over again, this Roman Catholic man views the FV theology as being compatible with Romanism. When we in the Reformed churches were saying this, the FV defenders were loudly denouncing us as ‘unloving’, ‘not understanding’, ’simplistic’ (and those were the nice things they had to say about us!) But now we have the public pronouncements of one from within Romanism that FV is in sync with the teachings of the Church of Rome.
His concluding remarks are even more troublesome.
How does he view the men who are teaching Federal Vision?
As a Catholic I believe the Federal Vision group is right in its theological tendencies and wrong about its denomination.
And looking ahead, what will the effect of teaching FV have on the (Presbyterian) Reformed churches?
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.
It is not hard to understand how the FV heresy (let’s call it for what it is), can get a foothold in the paedobaptist reformed churches. Once you have a wrong view of what constitutes a church (all baptized persons, including infants who have no faith in Christ), you are ripe to receive the teaching that all baptized persons are Christians. In other words, if baptism puts you into the body of Christ (the church), then it is hardly a stretch to accept that the act of baptism actually and really “unites you to Christ” (makes you a Christian). Slice and dice it anyway you want, that is baptismal regeneration.
Back in February, Doug Wilson, a leading FV proponent, spoke to the Atheist and Agnostic Student Group at Washington State University. He was asked why he was a Christian.
Wilson: “I’m a Christian because I was brought up in a Christian home, and in adulthood I’ve researched and defended my beliefs”
Another student said he had “a hard time believing that if you don’t accept Jesus as your saviour, you’ll go to hell.”
Wilson’s response: “People are not condemned because they don’t believe in God. They are condemned because they can’t be held to their own moral standards.”
The blind are still leading the blind.