What do you think?
Rate this book
Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root
The contemporary heresy of the federal vision is wreaking havoc on the Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America. The author exposes the ugly root of the heresy (a conditional covenant) and sets forth the truth of the unconditional covenant, proclaiming the Reformation's gospel of salvation by grace alone.
- GenresTheology
257 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2012
4 people are currently reading
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
February 12, 2024
As others have noted the tone is a problem. I don’t mind a forceful tone, which he has in the first half of the book, but in the second half when addressing questions he’s condescending.
As also noted the PRC position on the covenant of works is odd, to say the least. He said Adam was in a covenant of works but couldn’t merit and Christ could merit but wasn’t in a covenant of works. So really he flubs the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption.
The parts that are good are good and the parts that aren’t, aren’t.
As also noted the PRC position on the covenant of works is odd, to say the least. He said Adam was in a covenant of works but couldn’t merit and Christ could merit but wasn’t in a covenant of works. So really he flubs the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption.
The parts that are good are good and the parts that aren’t, aren’t.
April 4, 2018
I was not looking forward to reading this book, as I have serious differences with the David Engelsma's covenant theology. Still, it was interesting to read a critique of the Federal Vision (hereafter, FV) from one who has some similarities with them in terms of denying a prelapsarian covenant of works.
On the positive side, the author calls the FV's denial of justification by faith alone what it is, while others beat around the bush. I was also heartened by his vindication of the Westminster Standards and older Reformed writers from the allegation that their covenant theology is the same as that of the FV. Professor Engelsma rightly points out that earlier Reformed divines used the term "condition" in an improper sense, and not with reference to a moving or meritorious cause.
On the negative side, the author grossly caricatures the traditional Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works as teaching that man could hold God in his debt. As any reader of Westminster Confession 7:1 knows, that is a straw-man. The covenant of works came about as an act of divine condescension; hence, there can be no place for assuming that man could make God his debtor. While the author tries to argue that the root of the FV is a certain concept of the conditional covenant of grace, he is blind to the reality that one of the central pillars of FV theology is its denial of the covenant of works.
If you deny a covenant of works, it is logically impossible to maintain imputed righteousness as Christ succeeded where the first Adam failed (e.g. in perfectly obeying God's law as the federal head of his people). Adam's fall meant that his sin was imputed to all his posterity; Christ's obedience means that his righteousness is imputed to the elect. If Adam had obeyed, he would have earned eternal life for those whom he represented. Because Christ did obey, his active obedience is the ground upon which the elect have a right to eternal life (see Romans 5).
It is no accident that the FV's opposition to imputed righteousness and the active obedience of Christ flows from their denial of a covenant of works with Adam. The fact that John Murray and Herman Hoeksema denied the covenant of works while clinging to imputed righteousness is a happy inconsistency. Norman Shepherd and the FV theologians took this mono-covenantal outlook to its logical conclusion and ended up denying the orthodox doctrine of justification.
The author also has an annoying habit of endlessly repeating himself, as the book is based on a lecture and responses to questions that listeners have raised to his speech against the FV. The style of writing, moreover, reads like an unedited speech. Basically, the author needs to rewrite the whole book, as there are so many non-sentences and overly short paragraphs that it becomes almost painful to read in places. He also contradicts himself when he compares those who praise the FV for emphasising the covenant with praising Islamic terrorists for bomb-making, while he later praises the FV men for borrowing certain aspects of Herman Hoeksema's covenant theology.
Despite these criticisms, we should commend the author's zeal for the orthodox Protestant doctrine of justification and for the Reformed doctrines of grace. It is a scandal that so many conservative Reformed churches have failed to discipline and (if necessary) drive out those who teach gospel denying errors with stiff-necked obstinance.
On the positive side, the author calls the FV's denial of justification by faith alone what it is, while others beat around the bush. I was also heartened by his vindication of the Westminster Standards and older Reformed writers from the allegation that their covenant theology is the same as that of the FV. Professor Engelsma rightly points out that earlier Reformed divines used the term "condition" in an improper sense, and not with reference to a moving or meritorious cause.
On the negative side, the author grossly caricatures the traditional Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works as teaching that man could hold God in his debt. As any reader of Westminster Confession 7:1 knows, that is a straw-man. The covenant of works came about as an act of divine condescension; hence, there can be no place for assuming that man could make God his debtor. While the author tries to argue that the root of the FV is a certain concept of the conditional covenant of grace, he is blind to the reality that one of the central pillars of FV theology is its denial of the covenant of works.
If you deny a covenant of works, it is logically impossible to maintain imputed righteousness as Christ succeeded where the first Adam failed (e.g. in perfectly obeying God's law as the federal head of his people). Adam's fall meant that his sin was imputed to all his posterity; Christ's obedience means that his righteousness is imputed to the elect. If Adam had obeyed, he would have earned eternal life for those whom he represented. Because Christ did obey, his active obedience is the ground upon which the elect have a right to eternal life (see Romans 5).
It is no accident that the FV's opposition to imputed righteousness and the active obedience of Christ flows from their denial of a covenant of works with Adam. The fact that John Murray and Herman Hoeksema denied the covenant of works while clinging to imputed righteousness is a happy inconsistency. Norman Shepherd and the FV theologians took this mono-covenantal outlook to its logical conclusion and ended up denying the orthodox doctrine of justification.
The author also has an annoying habit of endlessly repeating himself, as the book is based on a lecture and responses to questions that listeners have raised to his speech against the FV. The style of writing, moreover, reads like an unedited speech. Basically, the author needs to rewrite the whole book, as there are so many non-sentences and overly short paragraphs that it becomes almost painful to read in places. He also contradicts himself when he compares those who praise the FV for emphasising the covenant with praising Islamic terrorists for bomb-making, while he later praises the FV men for borrowing certain aspects of Herman Hoeksema's covenant theology.
Despite these criticisms, we should commend the author's zeal for the orthodox Protestant doctrine of justification and for the Reformed doctrines of grace. It is a scandal that so many conservative Reformed churches have failed to discipline and (if necessary) drive out those who teach gospel denying errors with stiff-necked obstinance.
October 21, 2013
I respect the author of this book, David Engelsma. He has done quite a bit of good work on Christian education and bringing up children in the faith. This however, is not his best book. He is concerned with the problems of what is known as "federal vision" theology. I will not take the time to explain these beliefs here. The fact is, there isn't one particular system of belief known as the "federal vision." By that I mean there isn't a book that systematizes it as a doctrine of belief. Rather it is a group of pastors, professors, and laymen who combine a Lutheran view of baptism with covenant theology (and this is a gross oversimplification, but it will have to do for now).
Regarding this particular work, the author intends to warn the reader of these beliefs, which he (and others) consider heresy. He uses quotes from various authors to develop a system of belief. The problem is that you can't construct someone else's theological system based on snippets of unrelated essays written to different audiences. That being said, Engelsma is clear regarding his differences with those who hold to the federal vision. It comes down to a different view of God's covenant. Engelsma is closer the a Reformed Baptist view of the covenant, while men who hold to the federal vision are closer a continental Reformed view of the covenant.
But the biggest problem with the book is the tone. There are denunciations throughout the book of various men who disagree with the author. Ironically, these variances of opinion could also be found among those who wrote the Westminster Confession. Yet the men who wrote the confession were able to abide one another's difference for the sake of the gospel (see Robert Letham's book on the Westminster Confession). The harsh tone will only further convince those who despise the federal vision, but it will not convince the objective reader of anything except how much author dislikes the movement.
If you want to understand the federal vision, don't read this book. It will not present an adequate description.
Regarding this particular work, the author intends to warn the reader of these beliefs, which he (and others) consider heresy. He uses quotes from various authors to develop a system of belief. The problem is that you can't construct someone else's theological system based on snippets of unrelated essays written to different audiences. That being said, Engelsma is clear regarding his differences with those who hold to the federal vision. It comes down to a different view of God's covenant. Engelsma is closer the a Reformed Baptist view of the covenant, while men who hold to the federal vision are closer a continental Reformed view of the covenant.
But the biggest problem with the book is the tone. There are denunciations throughout the book of various men who disagree with the author. Ironically, these variances of opinion could also be found among those who wrote the Westminster Confession. Yet the men who wrote the confession were able to abide one another's difference for the sake of the gospel (see Robert Letham's book on the Westminster Confession). The harsh tone will only further convince those who despise the federal vision, but it will not convince the objective reader of anything except how much author dislikes the movement.
If you want to understand the federal vision, don't read this book. It will not present an adequate description.
January 2, 2018
I disliked the tone of this work from the start; but as I do want to read widely on the FV and its critics and so I 'persevered'.
Despite finding his writings obnoxious, his tone unattractive and his accuracy questionable I do think this is a book worthwhile reading. It is a critique of the FV from those who disagree with the whole idea of a conditional covenant (though they share with the FV men the belief that a covenant is a bond of fellowship and that the covenant with Adam was not a covenant of works). He traces the influence of Klass Schilder, postulating that the FV is a natural extension of his theological opinions.
Personally, I not so sure about the author's theories. And the author's extreme statements sapped all the confidence I had in him as a good theologian.
I am not actually sure what covenantal view I believe in myself exactly--seeing real difficulties in every system I have yet understood--but it was certainly interesting to consider the issues from this perspective. The author may well have something in his contention that the FV men 'cut the covenant loose from election' (I don't think he intended any pun on the with the word 'cut'!)
Didn't like it, but interesting enough.
Despite finding his writings obnoxious, his tone unattractive and his accuracy questionable I do think this is a book worthwhile reading. It is a critique of the FV from those who disagree with the whole idea of a conditional covenant (though they share with the FV men the belief that a covenant is a bond of fellowship and that the covenant with Adam was not a covenant of works). He traces the influence of Klass Schilder, postulating that the FV is a natural extension of his theological opinions.
Personally, I not so sure about the author's theories. And the author's extreme statements sapped all the confidence I had in him as a good theologian.
I am not actually sure what covenantal view I believe in myself exactly--seeing real difficulties in every system I have yet understood--but it was certainly interesting to consider the issues from this perspective. The author may well have something in his contention that the FV men 'cut the covenant loose from election' (I don't think he intended any pun on the with the word 'cut'!)
Didn't like it, but interesting enough.
November 9, 2012
Excellent exposition of the heresy of the Federal Vision.
December 29, 2016
Outstanding!
October 30, 2025
A SHARP AND STINGING CRITIQUE OF THE FEDERAL (COVENANTAL) VISION THEOLOGY
David J. Engelsma (b. 1939) is emeritus professor of the Protestant Reformed Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, from which he retired in 2008 after teaching for twenty years.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2012 book, “The first part of this book is an expanded version of a speech commemorating the sixteenth-century Reformation of the church… Genuine commemoration of the Reformation consists of maintaining the Reformation’s confession of the one, true gospel of salvation by sovereign grace. It consists also of anathematizing… the false gospel of works, will, and worth of the sinner… Hence, this book…
"The theology that calls itself the federal vision is a grave threat, if not the CHIEF threat, to the Reformed faith---the Reformation’s gospel of grace---in our time. The heretical fruit of this theology is the bold teaching of justification by faith and works. Its heretical root is the doctrine of a conditional covenant… This book purposes the eradication of the heresy of the federal vision.”
He explains, “The advocates of the doctrines published by [Norman] Shepherd call their distinctive theology federal vision. One thing about this name should be noted, the main thing: derived from the Latin ‘foedus,’ ‘federal’ means covenant… The federal vision’s teaching concerning justification is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, condemned by the Reformation. It is the doctrine of justification by works that Scripture condemns in Romans 3-5 and in the epistle to the Galatians.” (Pg. 18-19)
He adds, “The federal vision is a theology of the covenant---a body of teachings about the covenant. This is what the federal vision is fundamentally. Only secondarily is it a doctrine of justification, of predestination, or sanctification, and of perseverance… The federal vision is a distinctive doctrine of the covenant of God with his people in Jesus Christ… By ‘vision’ in the name of their theology, the men of the federal vision propose that their covenant doctrine is new and different. It is certainly and strange in comparison with the covenant doctrine of the Reformed creeds.” (Pg. 25)
He observes, “It is the distinctive teaching of the federal vision’s fundamental doctrine of the covenant that the covenant is conditional. The covenant of God depends upon us humans with whom God establishes his covenant. Because the federal vision is especially a doctrine of the covenant with regard to baptized babies of believers, the distinctive covenant doctrine of the federal vision holds that the covenant depends upon baptized infants.” (Pg. 28-29)
Later, he adds, “[the FV] teaches that salvation, in the covenant, depends on the sinner, upon the sinful, baptized infant, upon what that sinful infant will do, namely, perform the conditions of believing and obeying… it teaches that, in the covenant, one child makes himself to differ from other children with regard to salvation. According to the federal vision, all alike are united to Christ and all alike receive the grace of God. That one is everlastingly saved in distinction from the others is because one performed the conditions of the covenant, whereas the others did not…
"The federal vision’s doctrine of a conditional covenant is false doctrine… in that it teaches grace---SAVING grace---in the covenant that can be and often is resisted. Here, the federal vision nails its Arminian colors to the mast!” (Pg. 49-50) He adds further, “The federal vision tells the Reformed churches and members that the reason for its doctrine of the ‘real’ falling away of covenant saints is its doctrine of a conditional covenant.” (Pg. 69)
He argues, “the federal vision teaches a form of baptismal regeneration… It is essentially the same as the Roman Catholic doctrine. All the children are united to Christ and saved---temporarily. But this covenant established with all the baptized children alike can be annulled. The union with Christ can be severed. The child can lose the life and benefits of Christ that once he or she possessed. For the covenant established at baptism is conditional. If the child… should fail to perform the conditions of the covenant, the child will fall away from Christ and perish. There is a falling away of covenant saints. There is a loss of covenant grace and salvation.” (Pg. 89)
He suggests that Norman Shepherd’s 'The Call of Grace' is the playbook of the theology of the federal vision. It denies justification by faith alone and all the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism). It is the book that unleashed the controversy over the federal vision upon the public arena of Reformed Christianity in North America.” (Pg. 95) Later, however, he observes that “The treatment [at Westminster Theological Seminary] of Shepherd and his teachings by adversaries and supporters alike was appalling…. [it] was a travesty of justice and a trampling upon the basic rules of Reformed church order.” (Pg. 236)
He asserts, “The creeds settle issues. They determine what is biblical and Reformed, once and for all. Reformed churches and people do not have to be forever reinventing the wheel. Reformed churches and people are not in such a position … as allows Pelagianism and Arminianism to come up again and again in new forms in their midst as legitimate subjects of fresh discussion and debate. They are CREEDALLY Reformed.” (Pg. 121-122) He admits, “Although the phrase ‘covenant of grace’ does not occur in Scripture, it is found in the Reformed creeds, which by the phrase rightly express the teaching of Scripture.” (Pg. 127)
He acknowledges, “we do not know with absolute certainty the election and salvation even of the godly couple---the parents---who present their child for baptism. It is possible that one or both are hypocrites… only God and the godly couple themselves know with absolute certainty that the two who present the child for baptism are elect, saved children of God. Is there any Reformed church that has not had the painful experience that one whom they regarded as a godly man or a godly woman when he or she presented a child for baptism falls away and evidently perishes everlastingly?” (Pg. 166)
Relentlessly critical, this is also perhaps the most concise and clear critique of the Federal Vision that has yet appeared. It will be of great value to anyone who is following this subject.
David J. Engelsma (b. 1939) is emeritus professor of the Protestant Reformed Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, from which he retired in 2008 after teaching for twenty years.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2012 book, “The first part of this book is an expanded version of a speech commemorating the sixteenth-century Reformation of the church… Genuine commemoration of the Reformation consists of maintaining the Reformation’s confession of the one, true gospel of salvation by sovereign grace. It consists also of anathematizing… the false gospel of works, will, and worth of the sinner… Hence, this book…
"The theology that calls itself the federal vision is a grave threat, if not the CHIEF threat, to the Reformed faith---the Reformation’s gospel of grace---in our time. The heretical fruit of this theology is the bold teaching of justification by faith and works. Its heretical root is the doctrine of a conditional covenant… This book purposes the eradication of the heresy of the federal vision.”
He explains, “The advocates of the doctrines published by [Norman] Shepherd call their distinctive theology federal vision. One thing about this name should be noted, the main thing: derived from the Latin ‘foedus,’ ‘federal’ means covenant… The federal vision’s teaching concerning justification is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, condemned by the Reformation. It is the doctrine of justification by works that Scripture condemns in Romans 3-5 and in the epistle to the Galatians.” (Pg. 18-19)
He adds, “The federal vision is a theology of the covenant---a body of teachings about the covenant. This is what the federal vision is fundamentally. Only secondarily is it a doctrine of justification, of predestination, or sanctification, and of perseverance… The federal vision is a distinctive doctrine of the covenant of God with his people in Jesus Christ… By ‘vision’ in the name of their theology, the men of the federal vision propose that their covenant doctrine is new and different. It is certainly and strange in comparison with the covenant doctrine of the Reformed creeds.” (Pg. 25)
He observes, “It is the distinctive teaching of the federal vision’s fundamental doctrine of the covenant that the covenant is conditional. The covenant of God depends upon us humans with whom God establishes his covenant. Because the federal vision is especially a doctrine of the covenant with regard to baptized babies of believers, the distinctive covenant doctrine of the federal vision holds that the covenant depends upon baptized infants.” (Pg. 28-29)
Later, he adds, “[the FV] teaches that salvation, in the covenant, depends on the sinner, upon the sinful, baptized infant, upon what that sinful infant will do, namely, perform the conditions of believing and obeying… it teaches that, in the covenant, one child makes himself to differ from other children with regard to salvation. According to the federal vision, all alike are united to Christ and all alike receive the grace of God. That one is everlastingly saved in distinction from the others is because one performed the conditions of the covenant, whereas the others did not…
"The federal vision’s doctrine of a conditional covenant is false doctrine… in that it teaches grace---SAVING grace---in the covenant that can be and often is resisted. Here, the federal vision nails its Arminian colors to the mast!” (Pg. 49-50) He adds further, “The federal vision tells the Reformed churches and members that the reason for its doctrine of the ‘real’ falling away of covenant saints is its doctrine of a conditional covenant.” (Pg. 69)
He argues, “the federal vision teaches a form of baptismal regeneration… It is essentially the same as the Roman Catholic doctrine. All the children are united to Christ and saved---temporarily. But this covenant established with all the baptized children alike can be annulled. The union with Christ can be severed. The child can lose the life and benefits of Christ that once he or she possessed. For the covenant established at baptism is conditional. If the child… should fail to perform the conditions of the covenant, the child will fall away from Christ and perish. There is a falling away of covenant saints. There is a loss of covenant grace and salvation.” (Pg. 89)
He suggests that Norman Shepherd’s 'The Call of Grace' is the playbook of the theology of the federal vision. It denies justification by faith alone and all the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism). It is the book that unleashed the controversy over the federal vision upon the public arena of Reformed Christianity in North America.” (Pg. 95) Later, however, he observes that “The treatment [at Westminster Theological Seminary] of Shepherd and his teachings by adversaries and supporters alike was appalling…. [it] was a travesty of justice and a trampling upon the basic rules of Reformed church order.” (Pg. 236)
He asserts, “The creeds settle issues. They determine what is biblical and Reformed, once and for all. Reformed churches and people do not have to be forever reinventing the wheel. Reformed churches and people are not in such a position … as allows Pelagianism and Arminianism to come up again and again in new forms in their midst as legitimate subjects of fresh discussion and debate. They are CREEDALLY Reformed.” (Pg. 121-122) He admits, “Although the phrase ‘covenant of grace’ does not occur in Scripture, it is found in the Reformed creeds, which by the phrase rightly express the teaching of Scripture.” (Pg. 127)
He acknowledges, “we do not know with absolute certainty the election and salvation even of the godly couple---the parents---who present their child for baptism. It is possible that one or both are hypocrites… only God and the godly couple themselves know with absolute certainty that the two who present the child for baptism are elect, saved children of God. Is there any Reformed church that has not had the painful experience that one whom they regarded as a godly man or a godly woman when he or she presented a child for baptism falls away and evidently perishes everlastingly?” (Pg. 166)
Relentlessly critical, this is also perhaps the most concise and clear critique of the Federal Vision that has yet appeared. It will be of great value to anyone who is following this subject.
January 10, 2025
I had many folks and friends talk disparagingly of Federal Vision, and a cursory review of Wikipedia's entry on it makes the whole matter seem like a hodgepodge of unrelated beliefs coalesced together arbitrarily. Obviously, that couldn't be the case, so I figured it'd be good to read up on it.
David Engelsma does a good job explaining what Federal Vision is, and why it's a problem.
If I had to give criticism, I'd note the following: 1) You will not be able to come away from this book confused by Engelsma's problems with FV, as he repeats his issues with FV a lot; 2) Engelsma goes over the consequences of Federal Vision, but he doesn't really explain why these theologians are concluding Federal Vision is correct. I can break down a fence if I need to, but I do like to know why they were constructed in the first place.
David Engelsma does a good job explaining what Federal Vision is, and why it's a problem.
If I had to give criticism, I'd note the following: 1) You will not be able to come away from this book confused by Engelsma's problems with FV, as he repeats his issues with FV a lot; 2) Engelsma goes over the consequences of Federal Vision, but he doesn't really explain why these theologians are concluding Federal Vision is correct. I can break down a fence if I need to, but I do like to know why they were constructed in the first place.
May 30, 2020
This particular critique of the Federal Vision focused on the conditional covenant aspect. Engelsma emphasizes this as the root of the Federal Vision heresy. He criticizes other FV critics for not dealing with this root (as they instead focus on the many heresies that stem from this root) and predicts that the heresy will not die out unless this root is addressed. I appreciated that Engelsma elucidated this for the Reformed world. I hope that they will listen to him or figure this out themselves.
I also greatly appreciated his tone and zeal for the gospel of unconditional grace. The Reformed world would do well to adopt this same zeal, no matter the cost.
I also greatly appreciated his tone and zeal for the gospel of unconditional grace. The Reformed world would do well to adopt this same zeal, no matter the cost.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews