The Federal Vision is a scheme of salvation by works, both moral and ceremonial, set within the framework of a conditional covenant that depends on the covenant faithfulness and perseverance of the baptized for its efficacy and for their final justification. 

Several years ago, a fellow Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) minister told me, “I know I disagree with the Federal Vision, but I struggle to understand it.” One of the chief reasons for the confusion about the Federal Vision (FV), in my opinion, is that there has been a failure to define it. As a result, there are a wide range of opinions about it. Some people think it is just a new twist on reformed theology. Others have defined it as Semi-Pelagianism. One professor told me that the FV holds to an Augustinian view of sin and grace. Respectfully, I completely disagree with that opinion.

Yet, what I have noticed in almost every instance is that there has been a systematic failure by most opponents of the FV to accurately and carefully define it. That is why I wrote, Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision, in which I show that the theological positions of the FV vacillate between Semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism with a strong movement towards the latter.

Here is my definition of the Federal Vision:

The Federal Vision is a scheme of salvation by works, both moral and ceremonial, set within the framework of a conditional covenant that depends on the covenant faithfulness and perseverance of the baptized for its efficacy and for their final justification.[1]

Pelagianism has been reduced to a simplistic level by 20th and 21st century theologians (but not by pre-1900 theologians). Almost the only thing that most people know about the British monk, Pelagius, is that he taught that people are born without sinful natures. That is certainly a true statement about the system founded by Pelagius, but it is far too simplistic of a statement to comprehend all that it teaches. Thus, it has resulted in a shallow understanding of the Pelagian system. A. A. Hodge was certainly correct when he stated the following:

There are, in fact, as we might have anticipated, but two complete self-consistent systems of Christian theology possible. 1st. On the right hand, Augustinianism completed in Calvinism. 2nd. On the left hand, Pelagianism completed in Socinianism. And 3rd. Arminianism comes between these as the system of compromises, and is developed Semipelagianism.[2]  

At the beginning, therefore, we must understand that Pelagianism is a complete, self-consistent system of theology which takes a position on all the doctrines relating to salvation – not just anthropology. How many of us know what the Pelagian position is on all the various doctrines in the Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation)? I certainly did not before I started writing my book. Since Semi-Pelagianism is a system of compromises, we must consider how it agrees with and how it differs with Pelagianism before we can define the FV as either one or the other.

The Classic Reformed Definition of Pelagianism

Classical Reformed theology ever since Augustine has defined Pelagianism as the denial of subjective grace, not the denial of all grace. For instance, Francis Turretin quotes Augustine as follows:

Therefore let them read and understand and confess that not by the law and doctrine sounding externally, but by an internal and hidden, a wonderful and ineffable power, God works in the heart not only true revelations, but also a good will.[3]

In another place, Augustine conceded that the Pelagians spoke incessantly and ambiguously of grace, but it was not the internal grace of the Spirit:

That which he seems to regard as the grace which helps us to turn aside from evil and do good, he describes in such a manner as to keep to his old ambiguity of language, and thus have it in his power so to explain to his followers, that they may suppose the assistance which is rendered by grace, for the purpose of helping our natural capacity, consists of nothing else than the law and the teaching.[4]

B. Warfield, in his “Introductory Essay” to Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Writings, succinctly summarized the Bishop of Hippo’s objections to Pelagianism:

Pelagius consistently denied the whole doctrine of original sin. And still again, it follows from the same assumption of ability that man has no need of supernatural assistance in his striving to obey righteousness; and Pelagius consistently denied both the need and reality of divine grace in the sense of an inward help (and especially of a prevenient help) to man’s weakness.

It was upon this last point the greatest stress was laid in the controversy, and Augustin was most of all disturbed that thus God’s grace was denied and opposed. No doubt the Pelagians spoke incessantly of “grace,” but they meant by this the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ’s example. Anything further than this external help they utterly denied; and they denied that this external help was absolutely necessary, affirming that it only rendered it easier for man to do what otherwise he had plenary ability for doing.[5]

One false doctrine necessarily leads to another. In denying original sin, the Pelagians also denied the need of God’s internal grace; that is, the subjective grace of the Holy Spirit in applying salvation to the believer’s heart. Grace for Pelagius was objective and external; not subjective and internal.

There are many reformed theologians who could be referenced in support of the definition that Pelagianism consists primarily in the denial of subjective grace; indeed, the denial even of the need of such grace. In addition to Augustine himself, Warfield’s quote above places himself in that same camp concerning this definition. Others, among many, who viewed Pelagianism in this way are Francis Turretin, John Calvin, Bernard of Clairvaux, Herman Bavinck, Charles Hodge, George Smeaton, William Cunningham, A. A. Hodge, John McLeod, and James Buchanan.

The Doctrines that Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism Hold in Common

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism hold many doctrines in common. Semi-Pelagianism does not always take a position exactly in the middle between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. (A chart in my book illustrates the similarities and differences between them.) Here are some of the doctrines which they hold in common:

1. Both systems hold that election is conditional, based on God’s foresight of faith and / or perseverance.
2. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism both deny efficacious grace or effectual calling inasmuch as they both believe a true Christian can lose his salvation.
3. Both deny that justification is by faith alone, in Christ alone, and is once-for-all at the moment the sinner believes.
4. Both systems take the same position concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. They hold that Christ’s passive obedience (His sufferings) is imputed to believers to forgive their past sins only, but deny that Christ’s active obedience (His obedience to the law in our place) is imputed to them.
5. Both believe that salvation is a result of the combination of faith plus good works which will result in the final justification of that person on the basis of the totality of his life.
6. They both also deny the assurance of salvation, the certainty of perseverance, and they hold that real Christians can apostatize.

The FV agrees with many or all of these same doctrines and could, therefore, be called either Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian if these were the only doctrines in consideration. It would be easy for someone to only consider this select group of doctrines when analyzing the Federal Vision and, therefore, draw the conclusion that the FV is Semi-Pelagian.

The Doctrines on which Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism Disagree

But there are other doctrines on which Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism disagree, such as the following:

1. They differ concerning original sin. Pelagianism teaches that man is born in a state of innocence, while Semi-Pelagianism holds that man is a born in sin but is not spiritually dead. In the latter system, man is still considered capable of spiritual good prior to conversion.
2. They differ concerning free will. Pelagianism says that man has the same free will that Adam had in Eden, but Semi-Pelagianism says that man still retains free will despite his sinful condition. Yet, such free will is not the same as Adam possessed.
3. They differ concerning regeneration. Pelagianism teaches that regeneration is unnecessary because of man’s birth in a state of innocence. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man needs a new heart, regeneration, but can lose that new life.
4. They differ concerning baptismal efficacy. Pelagianism teaches that baptism is objectively or outwardly effective for all the baptized, but that baptismal grace often proves to be only temporary. Semi-Pelagianism says that baptism is subjectively effective for all the baptized, but that baptismal grace also can be lost. Pelagius developed a system that all the graces of Christ were bestowed through baptism (which is clearly seen in his commentary on Romans), but those graces are not internal since man does not need regeneration.
5. They differ with respect to union with Christ.  Pelagianism defines such union as external and objective because internal grace is not needed in that system. Semi-Pelagianism defines such union as internal and subjective. Both teach this union can be lost.
6. They differ with respect to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Pelagianism says internal, subjective grace is not needed. Semi-Pelagianism says subjective grace is needed but it can be lost.
7. They differ with respect to the relationship between sanctification and justification. Pelagianism blurs the distinction between these two doctrines, whereas Semi-Pelagianism makes sanctification (the subjective grace of regeneration, etc.) the basis for God’s justification of us.

Anyone familiar with the Federal Vision will be aware how much emphasis they place on the objectivity of grace and how they deny subjectivism. Their position on many of the doctrines in this section is closer to Pelagianism than Semi-Pelagianism. This becomes even clearer in my book as I go into detail with respect to their positions on each of these doctrines.

Conclusion

Modern Reformed theologians have accurately analyzed most of the problems with the Federal Vision system, but have sometimes failed to connect their analysis with the specific teachings of either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. In his excellent book, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Guy Waters addresses this emphasis of the FV on external and objective grace to the limiting or downplaying of subjective and internal grace. The report of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church concerning the FV also highlighted the same concern.

What has not been done in most instances is to connect that analysis of the FV with Augustine’s writings against Pelagius or other theological battles in church history. The FV is often treated as a contemporaneous theological problem with no connection to the past. Thus, there seems to be a reluctance to consider in what ways the FV might be similar to Pelagianism, while broadly defining this movement as only Semi-Pelagian in some respects.

Yet, it is my studied opinion that the FV as a whole is a theological movement trending towards Pelagianism. Some of its adherents may have a system that is in dynamic tension while they inconsistently hold to both Reformed theology and the FV. Others, may still hold to supernatural regeneration in some sense and be closer to Semi-Pelagianism. Still others, who deny that regeneration is a permanent change of the heart, are more in line with Pelagianism. The denial of regeneration is always a Pelagian position as Warfield clearly illustrates above. Yet, the system of the FV as a whole is, in my opinion, moving in the direction of Pelagianism. It is moving in the direction of external, objective grace to the exclusion of the need of internal, subjective grace. That is the classic Reformed definition of Pelagianism.

Dewey Roberts is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Destin, Fla.

[1] Dewey Roberts, Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision: A Theological Analysis and Practical Evaluation (Destin, FL: Sola Fide Publications, 2016), 31.

[2] Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), 96.

[3] James T. Dennison, Jr., ed., George Musgrave Giger, trans., Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2 (Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 1994), 527.

[4] Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume 5, Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Wriitngs (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 232.

[5] Ibid., xv.