This is a part of a series on Federal Vision. To read Part 1, click here.

Historical Categorizing of Federal Vision

There are many ways one could categorize the history of Federal Vision. I have chosen to summarize these three periods of the recent Federal Vision movement: 

1. Shepherd period (1975-2002)

2. Auburn Avenue period (2002-2015)

3. Re-branding period (2016-present day)

Today’s history look back starts in that ancient period known as the 70s and 80s...the 1970s and 1980s that is. When big hair ruled the day, and AC/DC would have been considered relatively “new kids on the block”. For some, the only cultural exposure to the 70s is through a TV program like “Stranger Things” or “That 70s Show”. 

Much of what follows has been taken from reports available on various denominational websites referring back to official records of note. Citations (or as the Gen Zers and Millennials say - the receipts) will be available at the bottom of the page. Disclaimer - the title of the post includes the word “brief”, that’s because in this piece more than 50 years of extended theological debate, discussion, and dissection is being recapped. While this piece isn’t brief in comparison with a twitter post, it is brief compared to what could be written on the topic.

The Shepherd Period (1975-2002)

The first period of note is named after the primary figure in a confusing controversy at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia: Norman Shepherd. Shepherd had started teaching at Westminster in 1963 succeeding John Murray as a systematic theology professor. It was in the mid-70s that questions began to arise regarding Shepherd’s teaching. The issues raised? Nothing short of the core doctrines of the Christian gospel.

In his book “The Current Justification Controversy” O. Palmer Robertson lays out the concerns that arose:“The ‘justification issue’ came to the attention of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1975, when certain students were reported to have set forth a position that justification was by faith and works when being examined by various church bodies.”(1)

Justification is often a technical term referring to the act in which a spiritually dead sinner is declared, by divine mercy, legally right before God. (2) While the term is often used synonymously with “salvation” or “born again” in colloquial speech, the nature of the controversy surrounding Shepherd (and then by extension Federal Vision) demands that readers carefully distinguish between technical terms deployed and colloquial uses of similar terms. Frankly, this is one of the reasons why Federal Vision is not viewed more widely as the dangerous poison that it is. Through clever, or clumsy use of language, Federal Vision carries a slippery ambiguity that seemingly allows proponents to take whatever position is most poignant in the moment. 

An investigation lasting several years was conducted, examining the teaching of Professor Norman Shepherd at Westminster. From 1975-1981 Shepherd continued to teach at Westminster in Philadelphia, until, on January 1st of 1982, Shepherd was dismissed from his position at the seminary. Because Shepherd was an ordained member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), charges were filed against him in his local church court (the Presbytery of Philadelphia). This would have led to a church court case, with evidence, testimony, and a potential ruling on Shepherd’s potentially heretical views. However, before the proceedings moved forward, Shepherd moved to a completely new denomination, outside of the jurisdiction of his former presbytery and local churches. Shepherd was brought into the Christian Reformed Church (CRCNA) and served as pastor in multiple locations until retiring in 1998. 

While Shepherd was still faculty at Westminster, he was given a leave of absence (in May of 1978) to revise his positions and report back to the Board. In February of 1979, the Board took time to go over Shepherd’s paper on his position (titled: The Grace of Justification), and his 34 theses on Juficiation. (3) It was concluded that:

Mr. Shepherd held essentially to the substance of his formulations as developed in the October 1976 paper. The modification of certain phrases as requested by the Board had not changed the substance of his position. Good works were necessary as the way of justification, and not simply as its fruit. Walking in the way of justification was necessary to maintain justification. The sinner seeking justification might just as well be told to follow Jesus as to believe in Jesus.(4)

In his post-retirement life, Shepherd published a book in 2000 titled “The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism”. In this book, Shepherd again reiterated the same statements that had come under scrutiny during his time at Westminster in the 70s and 80s. There was no recanting or repentance or change in the substance of Shepherd’s views on justification. 

What were some of those views?

Here is a short sampling of some of Shepherd’s statements: 

The works to be distinguished from faith in the Pauline passages are not good works, but works of the flesh that are done to provide a meritorious ground of justification. … Since faith, repentance, and good works are intertwined as a covenantal response, and since good works are necessary to justification, the ‘ordo salutis’ would better be regeneration, faith/repentance/new obedience, and justification.(5)

Shepherd’s Theses #19-23(6) Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are his disciples, who walk in the Spirit and keep covenant with God, are in a state of justification and will be justified on the day of judgment; whereas unbelieving, ungodly, unrighteous, and impenitent sinners who are covenant breakers or strangers to the covenant of grace, are under the wrath and curse of God, and on the day of judgment will be condemned to hell forever, unless they flee from the wrath to come by turning to the Lord in faith and repentance (Psalm 1; John 5:28,29).

The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, “the doers of the Law will be justified,” is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25).

The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).

The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).

Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1 John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9).

Consider for a moment how Shepherd constructs Thesis #22, first stating that “the righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification”, yet in the very next clause seems to deny that exclusive ground just affirmed. By stating “but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day” Shepherd undercuts whatever exclusive ground the righteousness of Christ granted to the believer. In a word, Shepherd’s theology continually creates constructs that promote a legalistic gospel that is no good news at all. 

Let me encourage you for a moment here. If Shepherd’s quotes are confusing, it is because his theology is confused. Biblical Christianity is not a belief in a God of confusion, but a belief in the only living God who establishes order, extends mercy, dispenses justice, graciously provides, and sovereignly rules all that was, is, and shall be. 

While Shepherd used terms like grace, faith, justification, holiness, belief, and repentance, he seemingly backtracks and reorders what the scriptures have to say about the sequential steps in salvation (including justification), and consequential realities of new birth in Christ. In a single sentence, Shepherd at worst blends justification and sanctification into a gospel of works of righteousness, and at best is confusing regarding the nature, effect, and essentiality of the grace of Christ. 

The Federal Vision landmark moment was about to occur as the spotlight would move from Norman Shepherd to an assortment of other preachers and scholars. 

Auburn Avenue period (2002-2015)

In the early 2000s, Shepherd’s false teachings about Justification had spread and began to influence those in the academy and the pulpit. The landmark moment that would define the next decade of Federal Vision controversies came at a pastor's conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (formerly PCA, now affiliated with the CREC and renamed in 2018 to Church of the Redeemer). (7) I’ll quote at length from the URCNA’s synodical report describing the events at Auburn Avenue (FV here stands for Federal Vision):

“It is important to observe that the language of ―Federal Vision‖ did not originate with those who have criticized some of its themes and emphases. In January 2002, Rev. Steven Wilkins, pastor at the time of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana, invited a number of speakers to the church‘s annual pastor‘s conference to articulate and defend their advocacy of the ―Federal Vision.‖ These speakers included Rev. Wilkins himself; Rev. Steve Schlissel, pastor of Messiah‘s congregation in New York City; Rev. Norman Shepherd, a retired CRC pastor and former professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary; and Rev. Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Since Rev. Shepherd was unable to attend this meeting, Rev. John Barach, at the time a pastor of the Grande Prairie URC, was invited to speak in his place.3 Though it is sometimes suggested that the FV is a movement outside of the URCNA and that it is largely an intramural debate among North American Presbyterians, the roster of speakers at this conference illustrates that the FV has had significant representation in a broad spectrum of Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in North America, including the URCNA.

The 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference can be regarded as the point at which a growing debate about the FV commenced within several Presbyterian and Reformed church communions. Shortly after the 2002 Conference, the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States strongly condemned the FV as being out of accord with the Westminster Standards on the doctrines of the covenant and justification.4 Among the objections raised against the FV, the following were most important: the denial of a pre-fall ―covenant of works; the blurring of the distinction between the law and the gospel; the rejection of the teaching of the imputation of the ―active obedience‖ of Christ as a ground for the believer‘s justification before God; the tendency to include the ―works faith produces as part of faith in its instrumentality for justification; a kind of sacramentalism that ascribes efficacy to the sacraments apart from the response of faith on the part of their recipients; and a tendency to identify covenant membership with election to salvation in Christ. Despite some diversity of expression and viewpoint among proponents of the FV, these issues have continued to lie at the center of the debate regarding the compatibility of the FV with the Reformed Standards or Confessions.”

Following the 2002 Auburn Avenue pastor’s conference on Federal Vision a flurry of activity ensued. Multiple conferences, conversations, books, articles, and response papers would be hosted, published, and released over the next decade. 

While he wasn’t able to personally attend the Auburn Avenue pastor’s conference, Norman Shepherd continued to write and speak about Federal Vision. In the Spring of 2002, he wrote a piece titled “Justification By Faith Alone” in which he challenged the Protestant Reformation doctrinal statement “justification by faith alone”. Shepherd continued to articulate a problem he had with the biblical doctrine of Sola Fide (By Faith Alone) recovered and emphasized during the European Reformation.

In 2003 Shepherd shared two lectures in which he distinguished the merits and effects of Jesus’ passive obedience in suffering on the cross (given to the believer) and Jesus’ active obedience. As the RCUS report states summarizing these lectures: “In these lectures, Shepherd makes explicit what was implicit in the Call of Grace, namely, his rejection of the active obedience of Christ as a grounds of justification. For Shepherd, it is merely Christ’s passive suffering on the cross that is the grounds for justification.” (8)

Shepherd had aimed to resolve differences between the traditions of Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant understandings of the relationship between faith and works. Yet, for all his attempts to claim setting forth a congruent theology in line with scripture and the reformed confessions of Westminster, Shepherd’s conclusions continually refute, reject, and as a result of logical consequence, are out of harmony with the truth of the Scriptures. 

Book and Papers Published on Federal Vision

Beyond Shepherd, a host of other writers chimed into the discussion about Federal Vision and the theology emerging from Auburn Avenue. Since 2002 a good many books and papers have been published on the topic of Federal Vision, not to mention a seemingly countless number of internet blogs. 

Those in favor of Federal Vision contributed books like

• The Federal Vision by Steve Wilkins (Author, Editor), John Barach (Author), Rich Lusk (Author), Mark Horne (Author), James B. Jordan (Author), Peter J. Leithart (Author), Steve Schlissel (Author), Douglas Wilson (Author), Duane Garner (Editor)

• The Auburn Avenue Chronicles, Volume 1 & 2 by Doug Wilson

• Reformed Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant by Douglas Wilson 

• Obedient Faith: A Festschrift for Norman Shepherd by P. Andrew Sandlin (Editor), John Barach (Editor)

Those opposed to Federal Vision contributed books like

• Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision: A Theological Analysis and Practical Evaluation by Dewey Roberts, Forward by Morton H. Smith. 

• Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root by David J. Engelsma 

• Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis by Guy Prentiss Waters 

• Danger In the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision by John M. Otis 

• The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons Debating the Federal Vision by E. Calvin Beisner

It was during this Auburn Avenue period that various reformed denominations began to study Federal Vision with specific study committees. The flurry of denominational activity generally took place between 2002-2008. Observing this timeline as a historic note is of some encouragement regarding denominational processes. Denominations didn’t single out anyone in a witch hunt. Nor was the rapid response a display of unprecedented rush to judgment. Through study and disciplined processes, various denominations examined the tenets of Federal Vision and then subsequently responses were issued. 

Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States Response

The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS) issued a “call to repentance” in 2002 to those involved in teaching Federal Vision. (9) Within a few years (2005) the RPCUS General Assembly released a formal response to Auburn Avenue Theology. In the introduction (it’s only a two-page document, very succinct!) the RPCUS stated:

In response to the current justification controversy that has engulfed the Reformed Church, arising from doctrines propagated by the New Perspective on Paul, Shepherdism, and what has come to be commonly called the Auburn Avenue Theology, or any combination thereof, which has compromised the pure Gospel of the satisfactory work of Jesus Christ as the sole basis for salvation, this Assembly of the Reformed Presbyterian Church (GA), has enacted the following affirmations and denials for the protection and preservation of the Gospel and this ecclesiastical body in accordance with the Holy Scripture, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Book of Church Order. 

Whereas some individual views may vary from person to person, nevertheless, the aforementioned theological issues have reintroduced the doctrine of semi-Pelagianism and a latent form of Roman Catholicism in both theory and practice, which has already been condemned by the historic Evangelical and Reformed Church as is manifested in their creeds. (10)

United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) Response

In 2007 the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) appointed a study committee to take up consideration of the teachings of Federal Vision. In 2008 the committee met, with a final concluding meeting prior to the presentation of the committee’s study work in 2009. 

With so many different authors writing and espousing various views relating to Federal Vision, it’s helpful to note that Federal Vision was not treated as a monolithic movement by the URCNA’s study committee. The committee was aware of the various beliefs propagated on numerous issues and limited itself accordingly in its narrow focus: 

The Committee is keenly aware of the fact that not all FV proponents agree on a number of features of these teachings and that it would violate biblical standards of conduct to proceed on this assumption. However, the Committee believes that the published writings of FV authors contain reformulations of the doctrine of justification and other related teachings that have not only created considerable controversy and confusion within the family of confessionally Reformed churches in North America but continue to exercise influence in these churches, including the URCNA. When there is uncertainty within the Reformed churches regarding the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, it is the duty of every confessionally Reformed office-bearer to exert himself in propagating the truth of the gospel and opposing error of every kind.  (11)

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) Response

In 2004 the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) made several statements regarding Justification. In addition to those statements, the OPC appointed a study committee with the task to: “critique the teachings of the “New Perspective on Paul,” “Federal Vision” and other like teachings concerning the doctrine of justification and other related doctrines, as they are related to the Word of God and our subordinate standards, with a view of giving a clear statement to the presbyteries, sessions, and seminaries, and report back to the Seventy-second General Assembly.”(12) That committee then sought and was granted an extension at the 2005 OPC national gathering (called the General Assembly). The full report laying out the critique of Federal Vision was then delivered in 2006. Several statements are made in a critique of Federal Vision at the end of the report:

The Committee believes that the following points that are held by someone or the other advocates of FV are out of accord with Scripture and our doctrinal standards:

1. Pitting Scripture and Confession against each other.

2. Regarding the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic.

3.  Mono-covenantal sees one covenant, originating in the intra-trinitarian fellowship, into which man is invited, thus flattening the concept of covenant and denying the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.

4. Election as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant.

5. Seeing covenant as only conditional.

6. A denial of the covenant of works and of the fact that Adam was in a relationship with God that was legal as well as filial.

7. A denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works.

8. A denial that the law given in Eden is the same as that more fully published at Mt. Sinai and that it requires perfect obedience.

9. Viewing righteousness as relational not moral.

10. A failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ’s.

11. A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification.

12. Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins.

13. The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion.

14. Including works (by use of “faithfulness,” “obedience,” etc.) in the very definition of faith.

15. Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace.

16. Teaching baptismal regeneration.

17. Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church.

18. An overly objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and that tends toward an ex opere operato view of the sacraments.

19. Teaching paedocommunion.

20. Ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.(13)

Any one of these various distinctions would be cause for further conversation and biblical study if held by an ordained minister in a Reformed denomination subscribing in any meaningful way to the Westminster Standards of three Forms of Unity. 

Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) Response

In 2007 the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) gave their own extensive report on topics relating to Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul. (14)The heart of the controversy is well spoken of on page 537 of the minutes of the 34th PCA General Assembly:

“We often hear proponents and sympathizers of the NPP and FV who are part of confessional Reformed communities say, that while they go beyond the Westminster Standards in what they affirm, they do not contradict the Westminster Standards. But it is evident that the version of covenant and election taught by the NPP and FV is incompatible with the views of the Westminster Standards. In fact, these two approaches to covenant and election are not complementary ways of looking at the biblical data, but irreconcilably contradictory alternative accounts of the biblical data....

Finally, the FV confuses the benefits of salvation by attributing them to non-elect members of the visible church and so undermines the security enjoyed by the believer in view of Christ’s perfect and personal fulfillment of the terms of the vitiated covenant of works” (15)

In these remarks, the PCA’s report points out both the irreconcilable assertions of Federal Vision teachings with biblical confessional reformed Christianity and the very tangible damage Federal Vision theology wrecks on its followers. Instead of Christians growing in their assurance due to growing faith, trust, love, and adoration of Christ, Federal Vision leads its followers to either arrogant presumption based on an individual's own faithfulness to obey, or into a legalistic paralysis vainly seeking what the scriptures say has already been secured by Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension. In a word, Federal Vision doesn’t build up faith, it tears down faith and attempts to replace faith in Christ with obedience to law.

In this way, there are quite striking similarities between a pre-modern Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification and the Federal Vision’s understanding of Justification. While Reformed exegetes have seen passages that speak of faith and works (like James 2), as being either A) not primarily discussing salvific justification as the focus of the context, or B) as seed and fruit, one leading to the other, Roman theologians of the late medieval period saw faith and works as accompanying components for establishing individual righteousness before God. If our works have anything to do with our being made right with God then we would be without hope. Praise God for the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ who makes us right with God by His grace received through faith! Our justification depends wholly on Christ’s obedience and merit. Any obedience to God that comes from us is in response to and enabled by the regenerating, sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.

Westminster Standards

By the year 2008, many US-based reformed denominations that held the Westminster Standards as confessional documents had weighed in about Federal Vision. The verdict was clear from the denomination’s adopted reports and recommendations. From 2008-2015, responses from those within the Federal Vision camp were as varied as the strains of beliefs themselves. Some who espoused and taught Federal Vision left their denominations to become independent, while others would band together forming new groups or joining groups that welcomed Federal Vision without distinction. 

The Federal Vision movement continued to splinter and diversify from 2008 to 2015. While Norman Shepherd had a relatively consistent singular strain of teaching (as evidenced by his 1976 paper submitted to Westminster’s board and his book released in 2000) from the 70s-2000s, those who followed in his footsteps have a myriad of beliefs. This meant that there has not been a unified “Federal Vision” denomination that was formed as a result of Auburn Avenue’s conferences or theology.  

Rebranding Period (2015-Present Day)

Over the last 8 years, Federal Vision hasn’t been much of a talking point. The specific language noting “Shepherdism”, “Auburn Avenue Theology” or  “Federal Vision”, has seemingly dropped from popular level discussions amongst reformed believers. In the midst of massive social upheaval in the United States, many other topics have come to the forefront within reformed denominations. In the increasingly secularizing United States, topics relating to human sexuality have far and away dominated the study committees of many a reformed denomination in recent years. 

Perhaps a combination of factors has led to the current climate around Federal Vision, one of those factors simply being time. Another factor has been that many who were very loud about their affiliation and affection for Federal Vision teaching have now become much quieter. Some have moved their talking points from Federal Vision to general ecumenicalism, even advocating for an end of Protestantism and a return to Roman Catholicism. (16) Others have explicitly stated they will no longer represent or refer to their views as “Federal Vision”, while, in the next sentence, reiterate no change in belief. (17) Auburn Avenue church (where the Auburn Avenue pastor’s conference in 2002 expanded the formal discussion about Federal Vision) decided to change its name in 2018. I have no knowledge of the conversations that took place to inspire and motivate the church to change its organizational name. If anyone wanted to claim the name change was a result of bad press the onus would be on that person to demonstrate evidence to that effect. Churches do change names from time to time, and perhaps the church formerly known as Auburn Avenue simply was going through a normal re-naming process unrelated to Federal Vision.

Nonetheless, it can be said definitively that in recent years there has been a recognition among advocates of Federal Vision that the term has baggage that the proponents of Federal Vision would rather do without. There has also been a recognition of the substantively different understandings among Federal Vision teachers. Those who once considered one another allies in signing a joint statement emerging from the 2002 Auburn Avenue conference, now are seemingly at odds in their approach. 

Whether or not the plague of Federal Vision will pass on to another generation is a question that only time will tell. Heresies do have a tendency of “running their course” to utter destruction within a generation or two, only to be revived in a different format for a new generation down the road. Whether or not this current generation of North American believers will adopt the substance of the teaching of Federal Vision, or remain steadfast to biblically orthodox views will remain to be seen. 

I hope in this historical presentation of some (not all by a long shot!) of the details about the Federal Vision controversy leaves you more informed (and maybe more Reformed too!). Then, it is my hope, that by being better informed, you can make wise and Godly decisions about sources of trustworthy, sound, biblical teaching, and reject those false teachers who are propagating a different gospel. 

Citations: 

1)  The Current Justification Controversy (Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 2003)

2)  “God’s righteousness means justification. Righteousness is forensically ascribed to believers. God’s judgment achieves this by remission. The justification is no mere “as if,” for God’s sentence is sovereign. Nor is it the attainment of moral rectitude. The justified are “right” before God.” Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 173.

3) You can view Shepherd’s 34 theses here - http://hornes.org/theologia/norman-shepherd/the-34-theses

4) See page 8 of the following accessible link -  https://www.rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RCUS-Position-Justification-Shepherd-2004.pdf 

5) See page 9 of the following accessible link - https://www.rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RCUS-Position-Justification-Shepherd-2004.pdf

6) Can be accessed at http://hornes.org/theologia/norman-shepherd/the-34-theses

7) Read a bit about the history of Auburn Avenue here - https://redeemertwincities.org/church-staff

8) See page 23of the following accessible link - https://www.rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RCUS-Position-Justification-Shepherd-2004.pdf

9) See more details here https://www.presbyterianreformed.org/post/critique-of-the-teachings-of-barach-schlissel-wilkins-and-wilson

10) RPCUS GA response to Auburn Avenue Theology - https://web.archive.org/web/20161022142412/http://www.rpcga.org/documents/Resolution%20on%20Justification.pdf

11)See page 6 of the URCNA’s report to Synod accessible here - https://web.archive.org/web/20200730051003/https://urcnasynodreports.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/justification-report-final-draft.pdf

12)See page ii of the OPC’s report on Justification accessible here - https://web.archive.org/web/20150324233456/https://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf

13) See page 88 of the OPC’s report on Justification accessible here - https://web.archive.org/web/20150324233456/https://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf

14) The New Perspective on Paul is another issue that is often associated with Federal Vision due to similar timelines of development, scholarship involved, overlapping hermeneutical commitments, and areas of challenge for biblically reformed confessional Christians. 

15) See pages 16 and 17 of this accessible PDF to the PCA’s report from the 34th General Assembly - https://web.archive.org/web/20140712071054/http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/FV-523-554.pdf

16) See Peter Leithart & Carl Trueman’s discussion here. It’s a long discussion, but it will lay out in very clear terms distinctions of substantial weight between a teacher of Federal Vision, and a faithfully biblically reformed confessional minister of the Word - https://youtu.be/YKekHEco87U

17) See Doug Wilson’s post linked here in which Wilson wrote in 2017 “This statement represents 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.” https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html

This is a part of a series on Federal Vision. To read Part 1, click here.