Paul's Perspective: A Biblical Look at the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul

General Articles and Analyses of the Federal Vision

(FV) - items by Federal Vision advocates
(NPP) - items by New Perspective of Paul advocates

N.B. - By linking to certain sites and articles, we make no claims to be in agreement with every position advocated in response to or in defense of the Federal Vision/New Perspective movements. These links and documents are provided for information purposes only.

Ecclesiastical Documents

Mississippi Valley Presbytery (PCA), New Perspectives Committee Report (February 1, 2005)

This report was prepared by a study committee of the presbytery that summarizes the positions of the Federal Vision, the New Perspective, Norman Shepherd, N.T. Wright and the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA). It is thus far the best short summary of the ideas advanced by the respective movements and figures. This report also includes a pastoral letter discussing the need within the PCA on these topics. Also worthy of note is that this report was adopted unanimously by the presbytery.

(FV) "The Mississippi Valley Presbytery (PCA) New Perspectives Study Committee Report": A Reply from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA)

A response to the Nov. 2004 MSVP draft report from the leading PCA church committed to the Federal Vision position.

(FV) Douglas Wilson, Mystery Theology Theater

Wilson's response to the Mississippi Valley Presbytery's (PCA) report on Federal Vision, New Perspective, Norman Shepherd, etc.

(FV) Peter Leithart, Response to the Mississippi Valley Report (n.d.)

(FV) Andrew Sandlin, The High Price of Sectarianism (Feb. 16, 2005)

(FV) Joel Garver, The MVP Final Report: Some Initial Reflections (Feb. 8, 2005)

(FV) Joel Garver, The MVP Précis on the "Federal Vision": A Response to Its Referencing My Writings (n.d.)

(FV) Mark Horne, A Quick Survey of MVP's Accusations Against Me (n.d.)

(FV) Paul Owen, A Layman's Response to the MVP Report [html]

Resolution of the Central Carolina Presbytery (PCA) on the "Federal Vision" and Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA)

Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly, Preamble, Affirmations and Denials of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly, Concerning the Doctrines of Biblical Revelation, Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, Justification, Baptism, Good Works, The Church and the Westminster Standards.

Reggie M. Kidd, Did the Reformers Get It Right on Justification? Getting Perspective on Justification (ByFaith Magazine, June 2005)

(FV) Jeff Meyers, Filling Out Our Understanding of Justification (June 8, 2005)

Bryan Chapell, An Explanation of the New Perspective on Paul
for Friends of Covenant Theological Seminary (May 2005) [html] [pdf]

(FV) Rich Lusk, A Response to Bryan Chapell on the Federal Vision and NPP [Part 1] [Part 2] [pdf]

(FV) Mark Horne, Discussing the New Perspective, Really Discussing (May 20, 2005)

David Chapman and Hans Bayer, The New Perspective on Palestinian Judaism and Paul [pdf]

A paper prepared by two Covenant Seminary N.T. professors for distribution to the Committee of Commissioners of Covenant Theological Seminary for the 2003 PCA General Assembly.

J.V. Fesko, The Federal Vision and the Covenant of Works

This paper was presented in Dec. 2004 to the PCA Stated Clerks meeting.

"The federal vision's formulation of the Adamic covenant naturally leads to a different understanding of the covenant of grace... Their construction of their Adamic covenant brings them closer to a semi-Pelagian Arminian theory of the atonement than anything that one might find in historic reformed theology. Moreover, by removing the need for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, they create a vacuum which is filled by the believer’s obedience. The federal vision mixes what reformed theology has historically distinguished, faith and works. Given these divergences, it is fair to say that the federal vision does not simply represent a variation within reformed theology but virtually an entirely alien system of doctrine, one at odds with the reformed system of doctrine outlined in the Westminster Standards."

(FV) James B. Jordan, A Response to "The Federal Vision and the Covenant of Works" by Dr. J.V. Fesko

71st General Assembly (2004) of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Declaration on Justification

Presbytery of New Jersey, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Proposed (Defeated) Overture on Justification by Faith Alone (February 2004)

Grace OPC (Hanover PA) Session, Resolution on Justification by Faith Alone (Sept. 12, 2003)

"Our resolution summarizes the current situation of confusion within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and how it has come about. The resolution commits our session to specific actions that we believe, before the Lord of the Church, are necessary. Three appendices outline the grounds for the resolution. We present a case for Biblical Protestant Gospel doctrine, especially regarding justification by faith in Christ alone, and the relationship of faith and works. We cite the errors on these crucial points of doctrine that have been left standing in the John Kinnaird case, and demonstrate their serious nature. We humbly cite Scriptural warnings and instructions concerning adherence to sound doctrine. We make extensive appeal to the Scriptures throughout, primarily the texts used in support of the affirmations of the Westminster Standards. We have endeavored to produce a document that would be useful not only to the elders of the Church, but also to our congregation at large."

Proposed Pastoral Letter for Consideration by the National Presbytery of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church in October [html] [pdf] (June 2004)

This set of affirmation and denials is directed towards the "Federal Vision"

Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) Report of the Special Committee to Study Justification in Light of the Current Justification Controversy [html] [pdf] (May 2004)

This report deals mainly with Norman Shepherd's "covenantal" teachings.

Doug Green, N.T. Wright - A Westminster Seminary Perspective (March 3, 2004)

Critiques of the "Federal Vision"

Michael Horton, Déjà Vu All Over Again (Modern Reformation July/Aug 2004 13:4)

Horton asserts that the gospel is at stake in the debate with the Federal Vision/New Perspective, and directs his criticism towards three points of their system: 1) their rejection of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to Christians; 2) their blurring of the biblical law/gospel distinction; and 3) their faith + works scheme of justification.

(FV) Rich Lusk, Blurring the Federal Vision: A Reply to Michael Horton

Lusk, the primary victim of Horton’s analysis above, accuses Horton of poor scholarship and defends his position as best representing the thought of John Calvin.

Michael Horton and Doug Wilson, Audio Discussion on Federal Vision

Horton and Wilson have a cordial chat on the topic.

Rev. Richard Phillips, Covenant Confusion [GPTS] [ACE]

"But there is one aspect of this recasting of salvation by covenant that causes only greater alarm the more it is understood. This is the compromising of the doctrine of justification through faith alone. In surveying this recast covenant theology, which first redefines covenant so as no longer to contain the elements of a pact or agreement, and then wipes out the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, the overall effect is to offer a gospel in which works are so intrinsic to faith that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. That is a different gospel than that taught in the Continental Reformed Confessions and the Westminster Confession of Faith."

(FV) Ralph Allan Smith, Defining the Covenant: What Consensus?

The three following essays by Mr. Smith are written in direct response to Richard Philips extensive critique of the Federal Vision.

(FV) Ralph Allan Smith, Covenantal Confusion: An Attempt to Understand the Confused and the Confusion

(FV) Ralph Allan Smith, The Covenant of Works: A Litmus Test for Reformed Theology?

The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision. The Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium, ed. E. Calvin Beisner

This compilation is the best written representation of the Federal Vision from its chief promoters. These papers were prepared by Federal Vision advocates and with responses from their critics and were discussed at an August 2003 closed-door colloquium and subsequently published as a book. The final chapter written by the colloquium moderator and editor, Cal Beisner of Knox Seminary, is both irenic yet pointed in identifying the theological and practical problems created by Federal Vision theology.

Debating the Federal Vision, Anthony R. Dallison (A review of The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons)

"While we recognize that the Westminster Standards should never become an "icon" and that the ecclesia reformata is also subject to the semper reformanda principle ("always being reformed" according to Scripture), the Federal Vision teaching implies a wholesale denial of the Westminster soteriology."

Our Testimony on Justification (May 2004) Westminster Theological Seminary-California Faculty

This statement prepared by the seminary faculty is directed towards three movements attempting to rewrite the Reformational understanding of justification by faith alone: 1) the ecumenical movement; 2) the New Perspective on Paul; and 3) Neonomism (Federal Vision). The testimony is primarily directed towards the third group, and refutes nine points of their error with selections from the Westminster Standards, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt.

(FV) Mark Horne, WTS West on Justification (June 2, 2004)

A brief response to the Westminster-CA testimony by a leading Federal Vision advocate.

O. Palmer Robertson, The Current Justification Controversy [html] [pdf]

This article recounts the debate surrounding the dismissal of Norman Shepherd from Westminster Seminary in the early 1980’s from an eyewitness viewpoint.

T.E. Wilder, Ecclesiology: The Achilles Heel of the Federal Vision

"We see that those who hold to the idea of the covenant taught by the Federal Vision cannot agree on what the true church is. They cannot agree on the boundaries of the covenant. They cannot agree on who is in the covenant. Therefore they cannot agree who is elect and united with Christ." (p. 6)

James W. Galyon, Retreating to Rome: The New Battle Over Justification (Founder's Journal, Fall 2003, pp. 19-27)

This concise analysis is directed against both the Federal Vision and the New Perspective approaches to justification.

Joe Morecraft, A New View of the Covenant Creeping in Largely Unnoticed (New Southern Presbyterian Review I, 2, Fall 2002)

Taking on the Federal Vision's understanding of covenant, Morecraft identifies the FV confusion between covenant and election:

"This new view of "the objectivity of the covenant goes off track by failing to keep clear two Biblical distinctions: first, the distinction between the corporate election of Israel as a nation (in the Old Testament) and the soteric election of individuals in Christ (in both Testaments) and, second, the distinction between being baptized into the organized church and being incorporated into Christ."

Morecraft includes two appendices: the first, a refutation of the Federal Vision's interpretation of John 15 (Norman Shepherd and Douglas Wilson) and Doug Wilson's rejection of the visible/invisible church distinction.

Joe Morecraft, What's So Controversial About the New Controversy?

"I have carefully listened to all the lecture tapes of this conference and have read related material by some of the lecturers. I have spent hours studying the roots of the perspective presented at this conference. I earnestly and sadly believe that what was presented by these men, all of whom have made major contributions to the advance of the Reformed Faith in the late Twentieth Century, represents at best a blurring of the gospel of Christ, and at worst, a betrayal of that gospel. This is not to say that all they presented was in error, but it is to say that misrepresentations, caricatures, reckless statements, deceptive statements and departures from the truth of God were intermixed with the good things they said. This makes their statements all the more dangerous, since careful discernment is necessary to distinguish truth from plausibly expressed falsehoods."

Mark D. Anthony, Is Baptismal Regeneration Being Taught in the Reformed Community? (Counsel of Chalcedon, July-Aug. 2002)

An analysis of the 2002 AAPC address by Steve Wilkins (Sr. Pastor, Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisana - PCA), "The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant" and Wilkins' assertion of Baptismal Regeneration as the view of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Gerry Wisz, The Monroe Four Speak Out (With a Response) (Counsel of Chalcedon, May 2004)

Two sets of interviews published by Christian Renewal in the wake of the Auburn Ave. controvery. The first interview is with Federal Vision advocates, John Barach, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, and Doug Wilson. The second interview includes Federal Vision critics Robert Godfrey (Westminster West), Cornel Venema (Mid-America Reformed Seminary) and RPCUS pastors, Paul McDade and Henry Johnson.

Andy Webb, Foolish Galatianism (Counsel of Chalcedon, Sept.-Dec. 2002) [html] [pdf]

This is review of the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors conference by a PCA pastor. Webb concludes:

"The New Paradigm teaches people to depend upon their baptism for assurance, threatens those united to Christ with the real possibility of apostasy if they fail to meet the demands of the covenant, and consequently teaches them to look to their own faithful "non-meritorious works in order to remain in the Covenant of Grace. This encourages unbelief, nominalism, legalism, and is contrary to the Reformational Solas and, most importantly, the Scriptures. These gentlemen have been given ample time to clarify their message, and it is abundantly clear that their message really is as unorthodox as it sounds."

Brian Schwertley, A Defense of Reformed Orthodoxy Against the Romanizing Doctrines of the New Auburn Theology

In this lengthy and well footnoted analysis, Schwertley identifies five troubling trends of the Federal Vision: rewriting the doctrine of atonement and rejection of justification by faith alone; violation of standard principles of biblical interpretation; destroying the believer's assurance of salvation; adopting a Lutheran view of the sacraments; and erasing the distinction between the visible and the invisible church.

Brian Schwertley, A Refutation of the Auburn Avenue Theology's Rejection of Justification by Faith Alone

This further analysis by Schwertley focuses on the Federal Vision's approach to justification, identifying it with the Roman Catholic understanding of justification.

Michael J. Ericson, Critique of the Teachings of Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins, and Wilson

This critique responds to the statements made at the 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference related to three areas of the Federal Vision: union with Christ; justification by faith; and experimental religion. Includes extensive quotes and citations by the Federal Vision advocates.

The Trinity Foundation, More Quotes from Wilkins, Wilson, Barach, and Schlissel

Quotes taken from the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference from John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation.

R.C. Sproul, Jr., Auburn Affirmations

R.C. Jr. has managed to stay above the fray, but he does direct some good questions to the Federal Vision crowd and makes some good points in the following three postings.

"I ought also disclose what I think ought to be done. As I have argued before, this stuff ought not be tried over the internet. Nor should it be tried in dueling books, like the rash of dispie/theonomist books of the eighties. Rather, because the charges are serious, and the doctrines are subtle, the appropriate sessions/presbyteries ought to be looking into these matters. What I think of this doesn’t matter. Nevertheless, here are some affirmations and denials, all things I believed long before Auburn Avenue. If they don’t apply to you, don’t write me squealing about what I said."

R.C. Sproul, Jr., Cutting Off One's Nose

"Given my own experience then, in dealing with this common and poignant pastoral issue, I appreciate the clarion call of my friends from Auburn Avenue to lift our eyes up off our navels. We are not to be suspicious of the depths of the grace of God. We are not to look to ourselves but to Christ. He is our surety.

"What I don’t understand, however, is how their solution helps the problem. Looking to ones baptism is all well and good, if it really works ex opere operato. The trouble is, of course, that everyone concedes, even the Baptists, that there are wet headed people in hell. Here is the good news coming from Auburn Avenue-all who have been baptized receive every benefit in Christ. And here is the bad news-except those who are reprobate do not receive persevering grace."

R.C. Sproul, Jr., He's heavy, he ain't my brother: Something stinks when his friend Robert Barnes is forced to hold his nose

"Here’s where the rhetoric gets tricky. According to at least one of the Auburn Avenue Four, we are to consider Romanists to be Christians who (a) go to hell when they die, and (b) are disqualified from marrying our daughters. In short, and in a supreme irony, they found themselves right back where they started, with a half-way covenant. Baptism gets you part way in, but not all the way."

Documents Related to the RPCUS "Call to Repentence"

Reformed Presbyterian Church - United States, Covenant Presbytery, Call to Repentence (June 2, 2002)

RPCUS Chronology of Events and Links Related to the Auburn Avenue/Federal Theology Controversy

Trinity Reformed Church Responds to RPCUS Charges

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church's (PCA) Response to the RPCUS Charges (July 18, 2002)

Christ Church Public Response to the 'Call to Repentance' of Covenant Presbytery, RPCUS

The Ongoing Discussion Between The Reformed Presbyterian Church of the United States and Christ Church of Moscow, Idaho

John Otis, Message from the RPCUS Moderator Regarding the Auburn Avenue Controversy