I want to explore the Federal Vision theology that is growing in influence among conservative, Reformed folks and classical educators. I have read and appreciated and benefited from the writings of Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart and N.T. Wright, but I am confused and frustrated by this Federal Vision theology. I am confused because many of the arguments made by Federal Vision folks sound like arguments I make for the interity of the Christian family and the biblical case for infant/covenant baptism. On the other hand, other arguments they make sound very un-Reformed to me and seem to fly in the face of own of the most central truths in Reformed theology, the Golden Chain of Salvation, outlined in brief by Paul in Romans 8:28-30 and fleshed out in the Reformed concept of the ordo salutis (order of salvation).
I would like to attempt to briefly outline my understanding of Federal Vision theology and then ask a few questions. I invite people from both sides to respond. I may even invite you to join as a contributor of your own posts if your comments are excellent and you are interested in getting more involved. For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions of the PCA Study Committee and the recent action taken by the PCA General Asssembly.
My Understanding of Federal Vision:
1. Baptism unites a person to Christ and to the Church, His Body. (No attempt is made to distinguish between the visible and the invisble church at this point.)
2. Not everyone who is “in Christ” is necessarily united to Christ in the same way. Different people in the Church are “in Christ” in different degrees.
3. Everyone who is united to Christ through baptism and is in the Church is a child of God, adopted into God’s family, and is truly a member of the Body of Christ.
4. These members of the Body of Christ are called to place saving faith in Christ alone for their salvation. They should trust in Christ’s sinless life, atoning work on the cross and His bodily resurrection and ascension as the only and all-sufficient grounds for their salvation.
5. However, whether or not a person is justified, declared not guilty, is an eschatological event, something which happens at Judgment Day. Only then will we know who has saving faith, which is also a persevering faith, and is thus justified.
6. Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to us. Some FV folks say we need no merit, no positive righteousness, to be saved, whether that is Christ’s or someone else’s or our own. Other FV folks say that our own works and/or our own perseverance serve as a kind of merit, which is not the grounds for our justification, but plays some role in it. In other words, we do get credit for persevering in our faith and good works.
7. Children may be offered communion from a very early age because their baptism, received as infants, does truly unite them to Christ and make the Christians. Their understanding of communion may be immature, like their faith, but that is no reason to deny them their rightful place at Christ’s table.
So, my first question is: Is this an accurate and clear summary of many of the key points in the current dispute?
My second question: Where does the Bible teach differing degrees of being “in Christ”?
Question #3: How can one be a Christian and yet not be justified? How can one be in Christ and yet not cleared of condemnation?
Question #4: How can one be in Christ and a child of God without necessarily being elect?
I’d like to know how we can understand the Book of Romans clearly? What do these key verses from Romans mean?
“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” – Romans 5:1-2
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” – Romans 8:1-2
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” – Romans 8:28-30
“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 8:38-39
This statement hits very close to the whole problem: “Baptism marks them out as God’s elect people, a status they maintain so long as they persevere in faithfulness.” (from Auburn Avenue’s Session). This is an unbiblical, contradictory and confusing statement.
Pro Christo Rege - For Christ the King 
The points you drew up would be disputed in different ways by different individuals within the general movement called Federal Vision. It really is giving them too much to even attempt to draw up their beliefs like that. They basically are a bunch of amateur theologians who got in over their heads and have been, for reasons of keeping their vanity and pride intact, bailing ever since while never admitting any mistake or wrong.
The whole thing has become an issue because 1.) they are operating from within the Reformed camp, which gives them more leverage than their numbers would normally give them (i.e. they shamelessly claim to be Westminsterian and the more authentially Reformed, etc.); and 2.) because they are exploiting the weaknesses of Reformed Theology such as sacramentology that never broke cleanly from Rome, and pretending the weaknesses are the strengths, and thereby causing mainstream Reformed types to have to do battle by forming a circle and catching themselves in the crossfire.
The essence of the Federal Vision movement can be summed up in the word ‘troll.’ They troll Calvinist/Reformed Christians and churches and denominations. They use disingenuous sophistical rhetoric shamelessly to troll their opponents.
What it all comes down to is this: they know sound biblical doctrine resides in Calvinist, Reformed camps, so if you really want to troll it up (deconstruct, etc.) in the area of theology (like, for instance, secular academia has been doing with the western canon the last forty or so years) then you go for the camp with the truth in it.
Another aspect to it all that is more difficult to bring up (which is to the advantage of the FVists) is the fact of regeneration or lack thereof. The FVists not only don’t have it, but they refuse to recognize it as even a state. People like this always demand paint-by-numbers ‘regeneration’ that puts man in control. The FVists are exploiting the weaknesses in Reformed Theology to push these demands and they are yanking chains all along the way. Like for instance if you say they are exploiting Romanist aspects of Reformed Theology they will give themselves away with a response like: “But you see you are admitting Reformed Theology is Romanist!!”
Robert’s comments seem to be valid… But my concern is definitely for the area of imputation and the MonoCovenantalism of the Federal Vision. Their lack of understanding of the Covenants gives them a garbled view of redemption. It is hard to have a good redemptive theology if one’s historical-redemptive theology is totally messed up… Without the imputation of Christ’s righteousness there is no salvation…
The NPP seems to major on some issues like societal redemption to the extent that they forget the sin issue with each person and thus see know discussion of imputation in the Bible… A clear view of both societal redemption and personal redemption is lacking in both the NPP and the FV.
Great questions and points! These things are at the heart of the matter…
It appears that many of these heresies are a reaction to bad theology that did not clearly teach what was needed. They seem to be a reaction to a Reformed theology without a world view, which is an oxymoron, but it seems that this is the case with the FV.
Glad to know the brothers here are critical of the FV, NPP, etc. Right so! Keep up the good work!
Just wanted to let you guys know that I recently launched a new blog. http://ponderingsofapilgrimpastor.blogspot.com/