Federal Vision and Theonomy: Not The Same
One of the worst arguments against Theonomy is the attempt to link it with the views of those among the proponents of the Federal Vision who deny justification by faith alone. Firstly, this argument is fallacious, because even if it is true that some Federal Visionists were Theonomists this would not prove Theonomy is wrong. To argue that because some Theonomists adhere to the Federal Vision, therefore Theonomy is wrong, is a bit like arguing because Roman Catholics are Trinitarians and infant baptists, therefore the Trinity and infant baptism are Roman Catholic. Such relevance fallacies are clearly illogical and do nothing to encourage constructive Christian discussion. Moreover, the argument that the Federal Vision and Theonomy are linked is factually inaccurate, as is evidenced by the following quotation from Wikipedia:
Most Federal Visionists believe in some form of law-code based upon Scripture, but not many (if any) advocate Biblical law to the extent of the Christian Reconstructionists. Both Peter Leithart an James B. Jordan have publicly repudiated Theonomy as developed by R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North.
On the basis of the above quote I could argue that since Federal Visionists are in favour of a law-code based on Scripture which is not Theonomic, and that since many Reformed non-Theonomists are also in favour of a law-code based on Scripture which is not Theonomic, therefore it must follow that all Reformed people who are not Theonomists are Federal Visionists. However, such reasoning is not only fallacious, it is factually inaccurate and a violation of the ninth commandment.
Not to mention the fact that the Federal Vision arose out of the theology of Norman Shepherd (a non-Theonomist) and N.T. Wright (a Christian Socialist). The issues of Theonomy and the Federal Vision are logically distinct and any attempt to link them is dishonest. Furthermore, while Greg Bahnsen and R.J. Rushdoony were not perfect (like the rest of us), I believe that there is enough in their writings and audio lectures to indicate that they would have been opposed to the Federal Vision’s view of justification.
June 29, 2007 at 6:06 pm
How confident are you in asserting that those connected with the federal vision deny justification by faith alone? I am thinking in particular of Douglas Wilson’s repeated and unambigious affirmations of this doctrine. Do you think he is being disengenous? Or does he just not recognize the alleged implications of his views on other issues?
June 29, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“the proponents of the Federal Vision who deny justification by faith alone”
No, I only associate theonomy with mindless slander.
June 29, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I do not assert that all Federal Vision people deny justification by faith alone; i.e. Doug Wilson. That, Mark, is why I said ‘those among’ the FV proponents, not necessarily all of them, though I disagree with other aspects of their theology.
June 30, 2007 at 1:47 am
Daniel, I deny that anyone really in FV denies JbFA.
But, the fact is, in our present context I appreciate your distinction and commend you for making it. I missed it on the first read and I’m sorry for my response.
For the record, and much more calmly, I have yet to see an argument that any FV suspect denies JbFA which would not prove that the Westminster Standards deny JbFA if the logic were applied impartially.
But again, I apologize.
July 6, 2007 at 12:23 am
The record is clear that many in the FV camp do deny JBFA ,or least re-define it contrary to the Westminster Standards (and every other reformed Confession)
cf. “Danger in the Camp” by John Otis
(FV advocates have yet to answer this book)
cf. “The Current Justification Controversy” by O.Palmer Robertson
Also, the public position of most Presbyterian and Reformed denominations (e.g. RCUS, PCA, OPC, RPCUS, ARP, WPCUS, BPC, etc) have with one voice condemned the FV error. Which is why many FV advocates find refuge in the CREC.
Colin
February 28, 2008 at 3:44 am
I understand that theonomy is true from the impossibility of the contrary. Like a band of hired accusers who fail to coordinate their testimonies in advance, the accusations levied against this biblical position consistently undermine the various platforms from which they extend. This leaves the critics of theonomy in the end in the uncomfortable position(s) of the man who believes he can ultimately defeat something with nothing.
In other words, Theonomy’s critics are the suicide bombers of epistemology.
There simply is no equally comprehensive, clear, biblically-sanctioned, and sufficiently detailed ethical alternative to the Theonomic position: all of the Bible is for all of life.
December 5, 2009 at 6:59 am
[...] Bahnsen is not in the Federal Vision Camp by John M. Otis Federal Vision and Theonomy: Not the Same by Daniel F.N. Ritchie [1] Greg Bahnsen defines “standing law” as the following: [...]