My wife and I have recently started reading through J. C. Ryle’s Holiness, one of the greatest Christian books of all-time in my opinion. In his first chapter on “Sin,” Ryle wrote: “People will never set their faces decidedly towards heaven, and live like pilgrims, until they really feel that they are in danger of hell. . .Those whom the Spirit draws to Jesus are those whom the Spirit has convinced of sin” (J. C. Ryle, Holiness, James & Clarke Co., Ltd., 1956, p. 10). There is a great dearth of preaching on the doctrine of sin in these days. That is particularly true of those who are proponents of the Federal Vision.
When I wrote my book on the Federal Vision almost a decade ago now, I did not have a chapter on the FV’s doctrine of sin for one important reason. I could not find quotes from the FV writers concerning their doctrine of sin. I wanted to write my book in such a way that I was quoting their own statements about every doctrine covered. The doctrine of total depravity or original sin is not covered very much by them. I think the reason why is because the doctrine of sin is so much against their basic theology. I am going to state in this article what I would have written if there had been a chapter on “The Federal Vision and Sin.”
Before I do that I want to deal with an issue of some confusion concerning the views of one of the leading proponents of the Federal Vision, Doug Wilson. Many people have read his article, “Federal Vision No Mas.” Few people are better at marketing things than Wilson is. ‘No mas’ is a reference to that famous statement of Roberto Duran when he was getting beaten badly by Sugar Ray Leonard and wanted out of the fight so he waived his hands, walked away and said, ‘No mas.’ That is Spanish for, ‘No more.’ Wilson wrote that article on January 17, 2017. It was later carried on The Aquila Report. Many people read it there as well. I fear that many people read the ‘No Mas’ part of his headline and jumped to the conclusion that Wilson had changed his mind on his views and had rejected the Federal Vision heresy. I see things completely differently. I think Wilson realized in early 2017 that he was losing the fight in his defense of the Federal Vision as an orthodox theological system and had to change the script someway, somehow. So, he wrote, ‘No Mas.’
My book, Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision, had been published in in March of 2016. Some people close to Wilson bought the book and shared it with him. Chapter by chapter my book showed that the Federal Vision is not only erroneous, but heretical. No one has even attempted to respond to my book. Portions of it have been published on The Aquila Report without anyone coming forth to dispute any of it. In fact, Wilson and the Federal Vision proponents tell their followers not to read my book (which I know for a fact through the father of one of Wilson’s and Steve Wilkins’ followers). I think my book is what caused him to throw the white flag. So, he said he did not want to be called Federal Vision anymore. Here is a quote from him:
This statement will represent a change in what I will call what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe. . . I would still want to affirm everything I signed off in the Federal Vision statement.
So, let’s carefully look at what he said. Nowhere in his article does he ever renounce his views or what he believes and has believed concerning the Federal Vision. He claims to still believe in the Joint Statement of the Federal Vision. Interestingly, that Statement has been removed from the internet by Wilson and the Federal Vision proponents, but is still available on the Heidelblog. Wilson still agrees with his former statements so much that he does not even want you to know what that document states. He has neither renounced those views as heresy nor retracted them. In fact, there is a complete lack of specificity in Wilson’s paper, ‘Federal Vision No Mas,’ as to what he does or does not believe. That is purposeful. He knows most people will be generous towards him and conclude that he has changed his views—when he clearly says he has not changed them. In fact, I know multiple people who say that Wilson is no longer a Federal Vision proponent. Yet, that is not what he said. He said that he did not want to be called Federal Vision anymore. Then, he quickly stated that the content of what he believes has not changed.
One thing I have noticed through the years with Wilson and other Federal Vision proponents is that they do not write articles or books about the great doctrines of soteriology—the doctrine of salvation. Look at their titles. You will not find anything they have written about salvation, other than an obligatory use of the word while teaching, for instance, that water baptism saves. The same can be said about their sermons. Where are their sermons on election or justifications by faith alone through Christ alone by grace alone? Where are their sermons on holiness? Where do they preach about sin as a depravity of the soul that must be remedied by the blood of Christ? I could go on and on. So, here are the things I have against the Federal Vision, including Doug Wilson, in AD 2024.
First, the Federal Vision proponents (and Doug Wilson) do not preach the gospel. They might say they believe it, but it is not the substance of their preaching. They do not preach about sin and its eternal punishment. They do not preach about the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Yes, they condemn the failures of our modern society, the abominations of the LGBTQ movement, and the rise of cultural Marxism. They are involved in the Christian Nationalism movement. There are many things they say that are correct, though I am not a Christian Nationalist in the terms of the modern definition of it. Yet, they are wrong for making society more of a concern than the sin within the breast of every person on earth.
Second, as I have already stated, they have a defective view of sin. Once again, J. C. Ryle in Holiness is helpful:
In the next place, a right view of sin is the best antidote to that sensuous, ceremonial, formal kind of Christianity, which has swept over England like a flood in the last twenty-five years, and carried away so many before it. (Ryle, Holiness, 11).
Ryle is correct and he would have written the same things about the Federal Vision as he wrote against similar errors in the Church of England in his day if he were alive today. The Federal Vision would have never have been developed if the leaders in it had had a correct view of sin. The person who truly sees his sin will search for a Savior—not a ceremony or a sacrament. The fact that Wilson and the Federal Vision proponents promote the sacraments more than the Word is proof that they have a defective view of sin. And that is why I could never find any quotes from them concerning their doctrine of sin.
Third, Wilson and the Federal Vision proponents focus on the third use of the law—a rule for the obedience of God’s people—to the near exclusion of the second use of the law—to convict us of our sin. The Federal Vision is a legalistic system wherein they endorse covenant faithfulness and write about the objectivity of the covenant while dismissing anything that smacks of subjectivism in their opinion. Well, the work of the Holy Spirit is subjective grace. No one can be a Christian without having the Spirit work subjectively on their heart and conscience. Regeneration is a subjective work of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is from the heart and is, therefore, subjective in nature. By focusing on the outward obedience to the law, the Federal Vision proponents make everything objective, outward, formal, and ceremonial. It is a type of Christianity that is unworthy of the name. The third use of the law is irrelevant if the second use of the law has not been fully preached. Indefinite views of sin will help no one. Most everyone knows that they do things that are not right. Few people want to admit that they make mistakes because they have a sin nature. I was that way. Before I came to faith in Christ, I knew I did bad things and got into trouble on occasions, but I was not willing to call myself a sinner. Then, the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin nature and I knew I needed a Savior. All three uses of the law must be preached. God’s holy character must be displayed as One who hates sin and One who must punish it. Man’s native sinfulness must be clearly preached so that sinners can be turned from their sins and the unrighteous can be converted to Christ. And, finally believers must be discipled by being taught what duty God requires of them. Yet, you cannot get to the third use of the law without going through the first two uses of the law. You have to know who God is and that you are a sinner before you can come to faith in Christ and start obeying the law. When people emphasize the third use of the law while neglecting the first two uses of the law, they become guilty of legalism.
The bottom line is that the teaching of Wilson and the Federal Vision proponents is contrary to experiential religion. I realize that they will claim to love the Puritans, but I just cannot find anywhere in their writings where they quote from the great body of the spiritual works of the Puritans. If they ever quote a Puritan it is some obscure statement to mistakenly try to support their baptismal efficacy views or to wrongly claim that the Westminster divines were really Federal Vision proponents. What you will not find in their writings is an emphasis on what the Puritans called the three R’s of salvation—ruin by the fall, regeneration by the Spirit, and righteousness through Christ. Those are the fundamental truths of the Scripture which characterize true experiential Christianity. We should be very wary of anyone or any movement that takes our eyes off the death and resurrection of Christ. And. . . we should preach the great doctrines of salvation above everything else.
A number of years ago, Doug Wilson held a conference across the bay from where I live. He had four messages he was going to bring. I received a brochure from the pastor of the church where Wilson would be speaking. Wilson’s four topics were these: The bedroom; the bath room; the living room; and, the kitchen. Maybe some people feel that such preaching is profitable, but give me the sermons of McCheyne, Davies, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Ryle, and Lloyd-Jones any day. I will gladly stick to the old paths that have profited the church for centuries over this new legalism of Wilson and the Federal Vision.
Dewey Roberts, Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Destin, FL