What's the Big Deal with the Federal Vision? Is it Heresy?

by Steve C. Halbrook

One of the greatest controversies in contemporary Christianity—especially in Presbyterian and Reformed circles—is in regards to the theology called “Federal Vision.” For some time, a debate has raged over whether it is heresy—with some strongly affirming “no”—and others strongly affirming “yes.”

And yet, others who are undecided might be honestly wondering, “what’s the big deal—why are so many people getting upset over this? Can’t we just get along and agree to disagree?” The answer to this question is an emphatic “no.” In this article we explore why. 

Bad Fruit of a Bad Tree

As we consider whether the Federal Vision is heresy, let us first consider the movement’s major influences. The apple, as the saying goes, doesn’t fall far from the tree; or, as Scripture puts it, “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit” (Matthew 7:18, NASB).

Among the Federal Vision’s greatest influences are Norman Shepherd, N. T. Wright, James Jordan, and Peter Leithart. 

Norman Shepherd

Norman Shepherd leaves a trail of controversy that goes back at least as early as the 1970s. In 1977 charges were filed against him in the Philadelphia Presbytery of the OPC. Following these charges Shepherd presented the Presbytery his “Thirty-Four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good Works.”[1] Here he makes obedience necessary for justification:

The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience … is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Thesis 21).[2]

In 1982, Norman Shepherd was dismissed from his teaching post at Westminster Theological Seminary after a 7 year investigation over whether he was teaching justification by faith and works.[3] In his 2000 book The Call of Grace, Shepherd both advocates salvation by works, and calls into the question the Protestant view that distinguishes saving faith from good works:

At the very outset of his book, Shepherd is unashamedly open about his belief that his brand of covenant theology is the solution to “the problem of faith and works,” or the problem of how to relate faith and works, a problem which Shepherd claims is one of the “unresolved questions” of “the Protestant Reformation.”[4]

N. T. Wright

N. T. Wright, an Anglican theologian, is the most popular member of the New Perspective on Paul movement—which holds that the reformers were mistaken about the book of Galatians. Instead of Paul opposing salvation by works in Galatians, for Wright, Paul is simply concerned about Jewish identity markers, or ceremonial law. Wright is also a notorious critic of the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience and holds that water baptism saves.[5]

Wright, like Shepherd, favors overturning the Protestant Reformation. He advocates Protestants uniting with the heretical Roman Catholic church—unsurprisingly, given his erroneous view of salvation:

The doctrine of justification ... is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavor. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family…the doctrine of justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine.[6]

James Jordan

James Jordan is a Federal Vision adherent and considered by some to be “the godfather of the Federal Vision.” He is the inventor of a biblical interpretive philosophy known as “interpretive maximalism.” This scheme essentially allows one to play fast and loose with Scripture by its emphasis on the imagination in interpreting the Bible. 

Greg L. Bahnsen warned of Jordan's method long ago. Back in 1994, he called Jordan's interpretive maximalism 

one of the most dangerous things in the theological world today that might entice otherwise evangelical and Reformed people. ... One must always be concerned when a certain method is so ambiguous as to allow for conflicting conclusions or arbitrary conclusions to be drawn from it. I have maintained for quite a long time that Jordan’s approach to the Bible is a matter of rhetorical and creative flourish on his part and does not reduce to principles of interpretation which are public or objective and predictable, and for that reason you can go just about anywhere once you try to interpret the Bible in the manner observed in his publications.  It’s just a matter of whose creativity you are going to follow this week. That really concerns me as a theologian. ... [O]nce you have a method of biblical interpretation which, as long as you’re creative enough, permits you to go just about anywhere you wish, then yes I do think that his interpretive maximalism is tied to his rather bizarre views that have been tagged “sacramental” and “high church” and so forth.[7]

Peter Leithart

Finally, there is Peter Leithart, a longtime associate of James Jordan[8] and also a Federal Visionist. Guy Prentiss Waters writes that "he has undertaken studies that have acquainted FV audiences with the sacramental theology both of Eastern Orthodoxy and of post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism."[9] He has recently stirred controversy in the PCA for teaching salvation by works.

For Leithart, one is not saved through faith alone in Christ, but by obedience to the law—which he sugarcoats by citing Scripture (out of context) and by saying that such works are done in union with Christ:

Yes, we do have the same obligation that Adam (and Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Jesus) had, namely, the obedience of faith. And, yes, covenant faithfulness is the way to salvation, for the “doers of the law will be justified” at the final judgment. But this is all done in union with Christ, so that “our” covenant faithfulness is dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us, and our covenant faithfulness is about faith, trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.[10]

Reversing the Reformation: the Federal Vision's false gospel opposes
the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, returning to the
Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by works.

A False Gospel

The Federal Vision camp has several errors regarding the biblical doctrine of salvation; but, if we were to sum up the Federal Vision gospel in a nutshell, it is this: you are initially saved by water baptism, and you must keep up your salvation by works.

By making the work of water baptism the beginning of salvation, and ongoing works the end, the Federal Vision makes the spiritually lethal mistake of confusing justification and sanctification. That is, instead of holding that good works are the natural result of being saved through faith alone, the Federal Vision holds that good works are crucial to attaining salvation. And according to the apostle Paul, this is heresy (Galatians 1:6-9; 3:1-13, 5:1-4).

This is why the Protestant reformers opposed Rome; they understood that justification is a once and for all act of God, instead of, according to Rome and the Federal Vision, a lifetime process. Because it makes salvation a lifetime process, the Federal Vision, like Arminianism, denies perseverance of the saints. If you can earn your salvation, you can un-earn it as well.

While the Federal Visionists would acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the ground of salvation, they deny that faith is the alone instrument of justification. And that is the issue in Galatians—the Judaizers denied the sufficiency of “hearing with faith” for justification. 

Faith as the Sole Instrument of Justification

Contrary to the Federal Vision, Scripture very clearly speaks of faith as the alone instrument of justification. Once one believes in the saving work of Christ, God declares that person righteous and his sins forgiven (Romans 4:1-12). No religious rite or work is necessary for salvation; thus Scripture goes out of the way to say that Abraham—the exemplar of faith—was saved through faith alone, and not through religious rites (in Abraham's case,  circumcision—baptism's predecessor) nor works:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. (Romans 4:1-12, KJV)

In Galatians chapter 3, Paul gives a standard for distinguishing between the true Gospel and false gospels: 

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?  Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? (Galatians 3:1-6)

Note that Paul pits the true Gospel against any so-called gospel that adds or takes away from “hearing with faith”: "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” That is, belief (“just as Abraham ‘believed God’”) in the finished work of Christ alone (“before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified”) on one’s behalf is sufficient for salvation. More specifically, one is saved by Christ, with faith being the alone instrument of justification. 

No works. No religious rites. No nothing. Only Christ. Anything else is a different gospel.

This includes the Federal Vision view that says water baptism and works are needed for salvation. Such a view adds to “hearing with faith” with the requirement of water baptism and works; it denies that one receives the Spirit by hearing with faith, and instead says one receives the Spirit by water and obedience. 

In differing with the sufficiency of “hearing with faith,” it is a different gospel. Those who hold to it are under a curse. Their only hope is the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness and sacrificial death, received through faith alone. One is not saved by water and his own works, but by blood (namely, the blood of Christ) and Christ's works.


"Faith Alone" does not Promote Disobedience

As for the common allegation by legalists that the doctrine of justification by faith alone promotes disobedience to God's law—nothing could be further from the truth. Those whom God has given the gift of faith also receive from God the gift of sanctification:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

And so God justifies his people apart from works, and yet after salvation God's people go on to do good works because they have been predestined to do so. Ezekiel 36:27 puts it this way: "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." 

Hence, a good tree bears good fruit (Matthew 7:18); conversely, a bad tree bears bad fruit, and as such, it is not the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone that promotes disobedience, but rather false gospels such as the Federal Vision. False gospels result in false converts, and false converts are unable to obey God from the heart. And so regardless of how much the Federal Vision emphasizes obedience, it can only result in disobedience.

     

The Joint Federal Vision Profession

The Joint Federal Vision Profession—signed by many, if not virtually all of the movement’s founding and most influential members—reveals much about Federal Vision theology. Released in 2007, it was written by Doug Wilson (minister, CREC), and signed by the following: Peter Leithart (minister, PCA), Jim Jordan (minister, teacher at large), Steve Wilkins (minister, PCA), Randy Booth (minister, CREC), John Barach (minister, CREC), Rich Lusk (minister, CREC), Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA), Tim Gallant (minister, CREC), Ralph Smith (minister, CREC), and Mark Horne (minister, PCA). (Credentials are those held by the signers when the profession was released.)

In the Profession's section “Justification by Faith Alone,” saving faith is called “a living, active, and personally loyal faith.”

But there is a world of difference between trusting in the saving work of Christ—which is all that is needed for justification—and personal loyalty to Him! “Loyalty” does not mean belief, or faith, at all—it means, as the dictionary puts it, “faithfulness to commitments or obligations”![11]

To give an analogy, Wes White writes:

It is one thing to say to my wife, “I trust you.” It is something entirely different to say, “I will be loyal to you.” The former is about what I receive from my wife; the latter is what I give. When we turn faith into faithfulness, justification becomes about what we give to God instead of what we receive from Him.[12]

Indeed, saving faith receives from Christ, which results in salvation—while works-righteousness has to do with giving to Christ in order to earn salvation. Saving faith is not an ongoing process of works implied in “personal loyalty”—but a moment in time where, because of Christ, God declares one righteous and his sins forgiven. In short, one is not saved by his own loyalty to God, but by Christ’s loyalty to God. As we stated before, however, obedience to God is the fruit of saving faith—but never, as the Federal Vision makes it, the root.

The Joint Federal Vision Profession further confirms its advocacy of works righteousness when it states, “We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.” This statement is very explicitly unscriptural. According to Scripture, the effectual call precedes saving faith—and saving faith precedes a Christian's good works.

But the FV Profession asserts that faith is at least present "at the moment of the effectual call," and that faith includes works at the outset ("We deny that faith is ever alone"). In short, the implication is that before someone can be justified by faith, works are necessary.

In its section on apostasy, the Joint Federal Vision Profession affirms that water baptism saves, and that one can lose his salvation. It reads, “All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace.” It adds, “The connection that an apostate had to Christ was not merely external.” (Holding to salvation by water baptism, and that one can fall from grace, logically follow from believing that salvation is by works.) 

Here again we see that the Federal Vision rejects faith as a sufficient instrument of justification, as the profession holds that water baptism makes one "united with Christ" and brings a person to a "position of grace." 

But the works for salvation don't end here; this position can be lost, as one can "fall from that position of grace." But falling from a position of grace is only possible if salvation depends on man, and not on Christ. Christ's perfect obedience and sacrifice make falling from saving grace impossible. 

Individual Statements

Statements by Federal
Visionists about salvation
are more Popish than
Reformed Protestant

Given the heretical statements of the Joint Federal Vision Profession, we should not be surprised to find the doctrine of salvation by works in the writings of the document’s signers. Here is but a sampling, along with statements by Steve Schlissel who, while not a signer of the profession, is one of the infamous "Auburn Four" (along with Wilson, Wilkins, and Barach) which instigated the Federal Vision controversy in 2002.

Doug Wilson

Advocating baptismal regeneration
Wilson argues that water baptismal saves (and misunderstands both Lane[13] and the Westminster Confession[14] in the process):

But I was heartened to see Lane move closer to the Westminsterian position on baptism than other FV critics have been thus far willing to do. He repeats some of the qualifiers that the Confession gives (those to whom the grace belongs, in His appointed time), but he does appear to acknowledge that this baptismal grace is saving grace, and not just sanctifying grace. It is hard to do otherwise when the Confession says that the grace promised in the sign and seal of baptism (covenant of grace, ingrafting, regeneration, remission of sins, and commitment to walk in newness of life) is really exhibited and conferred on that group of people demarked by all the qualifiers. And for the record, I agree with all those qualifiers. I also agree with exhibited and conferred. Me and the Westminster divines, we're like that.[15] 

Advocating obedience as an instrument of justification
While Wilson's so-called "living faith" (with its works) cannot be the ground of justification, it is still, with its works, the "instrument of our justification":

Neither can the living faith that gives rise to all these actions be the ground of our justification. But it is obedient in its life, and in that living condition it is the instrument of our justification.[16]

Peter Leithart

Advocating baptismal regeneration
For Leithart, water baptism makes one a child of God:

If the church is the family of God, baptism, by inducting people into the church, makes them children of their heavenly Father.[17]

Advocating salvation by works
See our previous quote from Leithart, where he affirms justification by works.

Steve Wilkins

Advocating baptismal regeneration
Wilkins denies the visible/invisible church distinction, and holds that water baptism unites one to Christ:

Modern Presbyterian theology has made a distinction between external membership and real membership in the covenant. Obviously, by baptism we become members of the church, but to be a member of the church is to be a member of the body of Christ and biblically speaking, that means that the baptized are united to Christ.[18]

Holding that some true Christians will be lost
Wilkins states that one can be saved (have forgiveness of sins, etc.) and yet fall away:

[The apostate] may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God. The apostate, thus, forsakes the grace of God that was given to him by virtue of his union with Christ. It is not accurate to say that they only "appeared" to have these things but did not actually have them ... [19]

John Barach

Advocating baptismal regeneration
For Barach, everyone baptized by water is saved:

Every baptized person is in covenant with God and is in union then with Christ and with the triune God.[20]

Holding that some true Christians will be lost
For Barach, some who are truly saved will end up losing their salvation:

According to Scripture, not everyone who is in the covenant has been predestined to eternal glory with Christ. God establishes His covenant with believers and their households, including some who will later apostatize and be cut off from covenantal fellowship with Him. Put another way, all those who are baptized are genuinely baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27), are brought into Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor. 12:13), and are members of God’s covenant, at least until they are cut off, whether by Christ’s church (excommunication) or directly by Christ (death as judgment).[21]

Rich Lusk

Advocating baptismal regeneration
For Lusk, water baptism is an instrument of justification:

Baptism has reference to justification precisely because God has promised to make Christ available in the rite (as well as the other means of grace).[22]

Advocating salvation by works
Lusk twists the meaning of Matthew 7:24 to make works a condition of salvation:

When Jesus describes two paths—one leading to life, the other to death—he isn't propounding a hypothetical way of salvation by walking the narrow path of obedience (Mat. 7:24). Rather, he is demanding obedience as a non-negotiable condition of salvation.[23] 

Steve Schlissel
Advocating atonement by law
For Schlissel, forgiveness of sins is found in the law:

The very idea of a first, second, and third use of the law is illegal and unbiblical. It demands that the law conform to what we want from it, and if it doesn’t do so then we will have none of it. But the law itself is to be our life.   “This is your life,” God says. “In the law I have given you atonement. In the law I have given you promises of forgiveness. In the law I have given you the way to live. In the law I have given you the key to life. In the law you will find grace abounding to the chief of sinners.”

We turn it around and say, “No, we will have none of this! That’s law as opposed to Gospel.”[24]

Confusing faith and obedience
Schlissel holds that faith and works are one and the same:

Nothing in the Bible teaches a kind of faith that does not obey.  Obedience and faith are the same thing, biblically speaking.  To submit to God’s Word is what it means to believe.  To believe is to obey.[25]

Condemned by Several Denominations

Several Reformed denominations have condemned the Federal Vision. The following are those we are aware of, although there could be more. Included are official statements, as well as reports for further study on the Federal Vision:

• The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS)
  A Call to Repentance
• The Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS)
  RCUS Study Committee on the Federal Vision's Doctrine of Justification 
• Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS)
  The Westminster Presbyterian Covenant of Union (point 2)
• Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA)
  RPCGA Statement on Justification (Refers to the Federal Vision as "Auburn Avenue Theology")
• The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
  Report on Justification
• The Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCA)
  
  Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology
• United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA)
  
  Report of the Synodical Study Committee on the Federal Vision and Justification
• Orthodox Christian Reformed Church (OCRC)
  Statement Concerning the Federal Vision

Note that a condemnation does not necessarily mean that the best efforts have been made to oppose the Federal Vision. The Federal Vision has leavened the PCA, where the arch-Federal Visionist Peter Leithart was exonerated from teaching heresy.

The Spurious Connection of Theonomy to the Federal Vision

Since this is a pro-theonomy site, it would be appropriate to address the common slander that associates theonomy with the Federal Vision. Many  resort to guilt by association attacks, saying, “see all those theonomists within Federal Vision circles!  This proves theonomy promotes, or at least leads to, salvation by works!”

There are so many logical problems with this argument, it is hard to know where to begin. Here are some reasons why attempts to connect theonomy with the Federal Vision are fallacious:

• A guilt-by-association argument is a logical fallacy 
• We would expect any biblical doctrine to have some adherents who also hold to heretical views. Do we attack the biblical doctrine of the Trinity since Roman Catholics adhere to this doctrine, while at the same time holding to heretical doctrines as well?
• It is wicked to blame sin, such as the Federal Vision heresy, on God’s commands (theonomy). We can’t blame legitimate laws of God (such as upheld by theonomists, not to say that theonomists get all laws right) for man’s perversion of them (by teaching that they play a role in salvation).
• Advocates of the most biblical theologies will have wolves in their midst (Acts 20:29, 30)
• There are tons of heresies outside of theonomy circles
• The Federal Vision is rampant in non-theonomic circles as well.  The argument, then, can be reversed against theonomy critics, to say that not holding to theonomy leads to the Federal Vision heresy.
• The men  who perhaps had the most direct influence on the Federal Vision are two non-theonomists (Norman Shepherd and N.T. Wright) and two former theonomists (James Jordan and Peter Leithart).
• A while back, five contributors to the anti-theonomy book "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique" signed the "Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together" document.  This document was for either Federal Visionists or Federal Vision sympathizers.[26]
• The first denomination to condemn the Federal Vision was the theonomic RPCUS
• Some of the most outspoken critics of the Federal Vision are theonomists. John Otis of the RPCUS has written the largest critique of the Federal Vision that I am aware of, titled Danger in the Camp. Brian Schwertley of the WPCUS has also written a very pointed critique of the Federal Vision, titled Auburn Avenue Theology: A Biblical Critique. 
• Those who claim that theonomy leads to Federal Vision turn around and claim to hold to Reformed theology—which historically advocates theonomy. The Westminster divines were theonomists. John Calvin was a theonomist. Heinrich Bullinger was a theonomist. John Owen was a theonomist. John Gill was a theonomist. We could go on and on. See the Theonomy Library's ever-expanding historical section. 

Granted, not all of the most influential theonomists have condemned the Federal Vision for the heresy that it is. Their silence has done a disservice to the Gospel. But it should also be noted that some of the more theologically-grounded influential theonomists have very adamantly opposed the Federal Vision; two major examples are Joe Morecraft and Brian Schwertley. 

Unholy Alliances with Federal Visionists in the Name of Cultural Dominion

Theonomists who are willing to ignore the Federal Vision's dangerous doctrines because some Federal Visionists claim to advocate Christian cultural dominion should seriously reconsider. In Galatians, the Apostle Paul does not endorse working with the Judaizers (the Federal Visionists of that day) in order to overturn the paganism of the Roman Empire. Instead, he anathematizes them. 

It is also self-defeating, in the name of Christian civilization, to align with someone who claims to support it, but who undermines some of its foundational doctrines. In a Christian society, promoters of heresy would be suppressed by the state as subversives. And so what sense does it make to ally with natural enemies of the Christian state, who would overthrow it from within? On the other hand, if we look forward to the state someday opposing promoters of heresy, how much more should we verbally oppose heresy right now? 

Moreover, the wolf within the fold (those within Christian circles who promote heresy) is more dangerous than the wolf outside of the fold (e.g., the tyrannical secular state). While the latter may persecute the body, the former leads the soul astray to everlasting torment. Let's not let reformation of society (as important as it is) trump the salvation of souls.


A Plea for all Christians to Oppose the Federal Vision

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we implore you to take this threat against the Gospel seriously, and honor our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by taking a stand against the Federal Vision: "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3b, KJV).

The Federal Vision gets one to look at his own works, instead of the finished work of Christ. It emphasizes man's ability to save himself, and thus denies that one is from beginning to end saved by an “alien righteousness”—a righteousness outside of oneself, namely, the righteousness of Christ. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15).

Use the power of God's word to slay the beast that is the Federal Vision by exposing its leaders and refuting its errors—and in the process, rescue Christ's lambs from the slaughter. As Scripture says, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40b), and "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee" (1 Timothy 4:16, KJV).

Whether we admit it or not, then, the Federal Vision heresy is infecting Reformed Christianity. And "A little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Galatians 5:9); "avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene" (2 Timothy 2:16b-17a). Will we ignore the Federal Vision and let it devour our posterity, or will we oppose it—and leave a legacy of the true Gospel for future generations? 

Helpful Resources

Facebook
Theonomists against the Federal Vision

Charts
Federal Vision Theology Compared with Biblical Christianity by Brian Schwertley
Roman Catholicism and Federal Vision Theology Compared with Protestantism by Brian Schwertley

Audio
Federal Vision Debate: John Otis versus Steve Schlissel
Norman Shepherd's Federal Vision Double-Talk by John Otis
Steve Wilkins' Dangerous Federal Vision Theology (part 1, part 2) by John Otis

The Implications and Consequences for the Church of Not Confronting the Federal Vision by Joseph Pipa

Articles
A Reply to the Joint Federal Vision Profession by Wes White

Beware of Doug Wilson by Steve C. Halbrook
Peter Leithart and the PCA's Failure to Deal with the Federal Vision by Sean Gerety
The Federal Vision Threat to Reformed Baptists by Steve C. Halbrook
Greg Bahnsen is not in the Federal Vision Camp by John M. Otis

Books
Auburn Avenue Theology: A Biblical Critique by Brian Schwertley
The 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

Denominational Reports
RCUS Study Committee on the Federal Vision's Doctrine of Justification 
Report on Justification (OPC)
Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology (PCA)
Report of the Synodical Study Committee on the Federal Vision and Justification (URCNA)
Statement Concerning the Federal Vision (OCRC)

Notes
____________________________________

[1] "Report of the Special Committee to Study Justification in Light of the Current Justification Controversy: Presented to 258th Synod of the Reformed Church of the United States May 10-13, 2004," 7. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://www.rcus.org/rcuswp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/RCUS-Position-Justification-Shepherd-2004.pdf

[2] Cited in Ibid., 8.

[3] Ibid., 2.

[4] Ibid., 11. Citations from Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2000), 4.

[5] See our article "Beware of N. T. Wright"  http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2011/05/beware-of-nt-wright.html

[6] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 158.

[7] Greg L. Bahnsen, "An Interview with Greg L. Bahnsen," Calvinism Today, Vol. IV:1 (January 1994), Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938. Retrieved March 27, 2014 from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe179.htm.

[8] Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 9.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Cited in Sean Gerety, "Peter Leithart and the PCA's Failure to Deal with the Federal Vision," The Trinity Review (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, April 2009), Number 283, 1. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%2000283%20LeithartandthePCA.pdf.

[11] dictonary.com, "loyalty," Dictionary.com Unabridged (Random House, Inc.). Retrieved March 29, 2014 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Loyalty
[12] Wes White, "Sola Fide or Sola Fidelity? (All To Him I Owe or Trust and Obey)," The Aquila Report (February 23, 2011). Retrieved April 23, 2014 from http://theaquilareport.com/sola-fide-or-sola-fidelity-all-to-him-i-owe-or-trust-and-obey.
[13] See Lane's clarifications in Lane Keister, "The Lord's Supper and the Sacrament of Baptism," Green Baggins (December 16, 2008). Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/.
[14] For an excellent historical analysis demonstrating that the Westminster Confession does not advocate baptismal regeneration, see D. Patrick Ramsey, Baptismal Regeneration and the Westminster Confession of Faith, at http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/baptismal-regeneration-and-the-wcf/.

[15] Cited in Keister, "The Lord's Supper and the Sacrament of Baptism."

[16] Cited in Sean Gerety, "Corpse Faith," God's Hammer (2008). Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/faith-of-a-corpse. 

[17] “Trinitarian Anthropology: Toward a Trinitarian Re-casting of Reformed Theology” in E. Calvin Beisner, ed., The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004), 70-71. Cited in Brian Schwertley, "The Sacraments," in Reformed Online Library (Lansing, MI: 2005), footnote 26. Retrieved March 31, 2014 from http://www.entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Sacraments,%20ch%201.htm.

[18] The Monroe Four Speak Out, Christian Renewal Magazine (2003). Cited in John M. Otis, Danger in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision (Corpus Critis, TX: Triumphant Publications, 2005), 203, 204.
[19] Colloquium on the Federal Vision, 263-266. Cited in Otis, Danger in the Camp, 213.
[20] John Barach, Covenant and History, tape 3, 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors' Conference. The RPCUS transcription of the 2002 AAPC, p. 46-47. Cited in Otis, Danger in the Camp, 226.
[21] John Barach, Covenant and Election, 150. Cited in Otis, Danger in the Camp, 231.
[22] Rich Lusk, Do I Believe in Baptismal Regeneration? Cited in Otis, Danger in the Camp, 373.
[23] Rich Lusk, Future Justification to the Doers of the Law (2003). Cited in Otis, Danger in the Camp, 290.
[24] Steve Schlissel, “Auburn Pastors Conference 2002—Covenant Series: Covenant Reading” (January 2002), 11.

[25] Steve Schlissel, “A New Way of Seeing,” pp. 26-27.  Cited in Otis, Danger in the Camp, 315, 316.

[26] Those contributors include Tremper Longman III, John Frame, Dan McCartney, William S. Barker, and Samuel T. Logan; we are not sure where they stand now. For a critique of this document, click here. It doesn't appear that the actual document itself is still online.

A Reply to the Joint Federal Vision Profession (the Entire Eight-Part Series)

For those who want to know more about the Federal Vision, we highly recommend Wes White's  8 part critique of the Joint Federal Vision Profession. Written concisely and precisely, it clearly shows some of the dangerous errors of this heresy which is leavening Reformed circles. 

A Reply to the Joint Federal Vision Profession by Wes White 


Part 1: Introduction


Part 2: The Use of Non-Scriptural Terminology


Part 3: How do we Speak to the Visible Church?


Part 4: The Common Operations of the Spirit


Part 5: The Denial of the Visible/Invisible Church Distinction


Part 6: The Federal Vision's Rejection of Biblical Bi-Covenantalism


Part 7: None Dare Call it "Baptismal Regeneration"


Part 8: The Federal Vision Denies the Law/Gospel Distinction

Don't Get Your Theology from the Cast of Duck Dynasty

Todd Friel and John MacArthur discuss the Duck Dynasty's cast's connection with the so-called church of Christ, which teaches that water baptism saves and that one must keep up his salvation by works.




In addition to the comments in this video, the connection of the Duck Dynasty members to the theology of the so-called "church of Christ" seems pretty clear on the website of the church that Phil Robertson is an elder. Its page titled "what we believe" states:

WE BELIEVE the Holy Spirit co-exist with God the Father and God the Son.  The Holy Spirit is a gift given to physically indwell Christians when they are baptized.  He is a deposit from God the Father guaranteeing Jesus’ return.  His role in our life is to help and guide us in sanctification (holiness).[1]

For a refutation of the teaching that says water baptism saves, see: 

Beware of Ted R. Weiland (this refutes the overall hermeneutic) 
Baptismal Regeneration: A False Gospel

Water Baptism does not Save: Part 1: Mark 16:16

Water Baptism does not Save: Part 2: Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21 teaches that Holy Spirit Baptism Saves, not Water Baptism (Jay E. Adams)

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Water Baptism Saves (this I wrote a while ago, so there may be some arguments I would now frame differently, or more precisely; but it still shows well enough the futility of interpreting any Scripture to mean that water baptism saves)

Notes
_______________________

[1] White's Ferry Road Church, "What We Believe." Retrieved March 22, 2014 from http://wfrchurch.org/what-we-believe.htm. 


photo credit:
Willie Robertson in 2013 (cropped from original)
© geopungo / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Willie_Robertson.jpg

Beware of Ted R. Weiland

"But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene." (2 Timothy 2:16, 17a)

by Steve C. Halbrook

Ted R. Weiland - if you (rightfully) advocate God's law in the sphere of civil government, you may know his name. Maybe you've met him at a biblical worldview conference, or have seen his comments on internet discussions about biblical civil law. Or, maybe you know about his lengthy book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution.

Weiland's writings may appeal to some theonomists. He rightfully opposes today's secular humanist approach to civil government—which to one degree or another has infected most of American Christianity. This is indeed an area that needs reformation. He also rightfully points out the anti-Christian nature of the U. S. Constitution; not that we deny that it is has some good procedure law, but it is at the very least dishonoring to Jesus Christ in its neglect of recognizing Him as the highest political authority in the land. (Covenanters pointed out this fatal flaw long ago.)

But, here's the problem: Weiland's promotion of heresies.

While the unsuspecting theonomist who visits Weiland's Mission to Israel site to read an article on biblical civil government finds it safe enough, a careful investigation of the site reveals otherwise. The site is used as a platform to peddle a false gospel of works and race—namely, the soul-damning doctrine of baptismal remission, and a form of, or something similar to, the racist and schismatic "Christian identity" ideology. And, as we show in this article, this racist theology Weiland is so invested in, that he is willing to blaspheme God for it.

So unsuspecting theonomist, beware: there is more to Weiland than meets the eye. He may initially appear to be your friend in the culture war, but his doctrines promote the total subversion of the Christian faith. 

Before proceeding, let us be clear: though to some this article may seem to use strong language against Weiland, this is not some shoot-from-the-hip, heresy hunting article that is out to get him. Rather, this is written as a warning about the very serious spiritual dangers of Weiland's teachings. Scripture considers the spreading of heresy an urgent matter. Consider the book of Galatians, where the Apostle Paul, alarmed by the teachings of the Judaizers, wastes no time in pointedly warning the Galatians. And the teachings of Weiland—like the teachings of the Judaizers—are extremely dangerous, as this article shows.

Finally, we must note that this is not the first critique of Weiland from a Reformed theonomist perspective. In the May/June 2012 issue of Chalcedon's Faith for All of Life, Martin Selbrede and Archie Jones penned a critique of Weiland in an article titled "Faithful in Little Things?" While the article mainly takes issue with Weiland's view of the Constitution, Jones also argues that in his book, Weiland seems to be teaching salvation by works. Whether or not Jones took the particular comments he had in mind from Weiland in context, Weiland at the very least makes water baptism a necessary work for salvation (as we show here). Thus we are not the only one to see Weiland as problematic.

"Of all lies which have dragged millions down to
hell, I look upon this as being one of the
most atrocious--that in a Protestant Church
there should be found those who swear that
baptism saves the soul."
-- Charles Spurgeon

Ted R. Weiland teaches that water baptism saves

On his Mission to Israel site (as well as another site, called Bible Law VS. the United States Constitution), Weiland has a page titled "The Purpose of Baptism." Here he fires off several prooftexts to "prove" that water baptism saves. He adds, 

Whether these passages are ignored, explained away, or pitted against other passages, the Bible clearly and unequivocally asserts the following about baptism: 

• Baptism is a part of our salvation in Yeshua (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) the Christ. 

• Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.

• Baptism is when the Holy Spirit indwells us.

• Baptism is when we are added to the church of Yeshua the Christ.

• Baptism is when we are born from above to walk a new life.

• Baptism is when we put on Yeshua the Christ.

• Baptism is when our hearts are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ.

Like the scribes and Pharisees described in Matthew 23:15, Weiland is very eager to win you over to his false gospel. His site includes an obvious "salvation survey" promoting baptismal remission. And he just can't wait to promote his heresy in Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution—where on the first footnote of the first page, he remarks:

Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the Biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins. 

The careful student of Scripture can see right through the interpretations Weiland gives to his barrage of prooftexts. Since Scripture teaches justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28, 29; 4:1-12; 5:1; John 3:16; Philippians 3:9, etc.), to the extent that any given passage of Scripture has baptism in view and connects it in some way to salvation (although not all passages raised by baptismal remissionists necessarily have water baptism in view), then Scripture must be either A) speaking of Holy Spirit baptism (the greater baptism, Matt. 3:11 & Acts 10:44-48), or B) water baptism as symbolic of salvation. 

"The outward participation of
that ordinance with them is
regeneration and implantation
into Christ, without any regard
unto the internal grace that is
signified thereby; so that
which in itself is a sacred
figure, is made an image to
delude the souls of men."
-- John Owen on those who
believe that water baptism
saves

Regarding the former, the word baptism in Scripture is never self-defining. It can mean more than one thing. There are at least two other meanings. John 3:11 refers to baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism with fire. Context, then—as determined by surrounding verses, and Scripture as a whole—must determine the word's meaning. Thus imposing water baptism on every mention of baptism in Scripture from the outset is either due to bias or ignorance. Nicodemus failed to see the word "born" as having more than one meaning, and terribly interpreted Christ's words as thus: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” (John 3:4b). 

Regarding the latter (again, water baptism as symbolic of salvation), the Bible often uses symbolic language. Here's a very obvious example: Christ says in John 10 that "I am the door" (v. 9a). Clearly this is not literal, and neither is His language in John 6, “I am the bread of life" (v. 35b)—clearly, Jesus is not bread. The Lord's Supper is spoken of symbolically of salvation when Christ says "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." As we noted, the Bible does not contradict itself. As such, it is easily deducible that Scripture cannot refer to water baptism in a literal saving sense. Scripture very clearly speaks of faith as the alone instrument of justification; once one believes in Christ as Savior, God declares that person righteous and his sins forgiven (Romans 4:1-12). No subsequent religious rite or work is necessary for salvation; thus Scripture goes out of the way to say that Abraham—the exemplar of faith—was saved through faith prior to his circumcision (baptism's predecessor) (Romans 4:10). 

(Romans 4 teaches that saints in both testaments are saved through faith alone, apart from works of the law. Since perfect obedience to the law is required for salvation, and since no man can obey the law perfectly, man, to be saved, needs Christ—Who was sinless and obeyed God's law perfectly—as a substitute on his behalf. First, for breaking God's law, man needs Christ's sacrificial death to pay the penalty for all of his sins past, present, and future. Second, for failing to obey God's law perfectly, man needs Christ's perfect obedience imputed to his account. Faith is the sole instrument that results in this great transaction.)

And the Apostle Paul, in Galatians, very adamantly pits the true Gospel against any so-called gospel that adds or takes away from “hearing with faith”: "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2b). Weiland's water gospel adds to “hearing with faith” with the requirement of water baptism; it denies that one receives the Spirit by hearing with faith, and instead says one receives the Spirit by water. 

In differing with the sufficiency of “hearing with faith,” Weiland advocates a different gospel—and Paul says, "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:9b).

(With Weiland, we do oppose the idea that one is saved by "asking Jesus into his heart." Rather, one is saved through believing in the finished, saving work of Christ. These are two different concepts entirely.)

And if you hold to justification by faith alone, know that Weiland is not shy about your need to turn away from a Pharisaical tradition that can't result in salvation. He states:

[P]eople have replaced what the Bible clearly declares about baptism and its relationship to salvation with man-made traditions, much as the Pharisees and Sadducees did during the ministry of Yeshua: 

     This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their         lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for          doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9)

For more refutations of the false gospel of baptismal remission or baptismal regeneration, see the following:

Baptismal Regeneration: A False Gospel

Water Baptism does not Save: Part 1: Mark 16:16

Water Baptism does not Save: Part 2: Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21 teaches that Holy Spirit Baptism Saves, not Water Baptism (Jay E. Adams)

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Water Baptism Saves (this I wrote a while ago, so there may be some arguments I would now frame differently, or more precisely; but it still shows well enough the futility of interpreting any Scripture to mean that water baptism saves)

Like Roman Catholicism (depicted above), Weiland
holds that water baptism saves (even if he articulates
his error differently). John Calvin, in arguing
against the dangers of Roman Catholic baptism, writes,
"The Papists ... distinguish not as they ought between
the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element,
and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the
sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the
blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not
regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings
therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death
to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to
the visible sign."

Ted R. Weiland's Racism

On his site Mission to Israel, Weiland writes: "We denounce all forms of racism, white supremacy, or any other form of unbiblical elitism, which is essentially nothing more than a form of humanism, or self worship." We are glad that Weiland makes this statement. However, when judged by Scripture, his teachings advocate racism—and therefore the very thing that he condemns. 

In Chapter 22 of his book Bible Law Vs. the United States Constitution (available on his website), Weiland very overtly advocates racism by advocating a white-only nation and by opposing "interracial" marriage. Throughout the chapter, he makes the following statements:

I would have endorsed outlawing African slavery because both Old and New Testaments generally promote segregation rather than integration, uniculturalism rather than multiculturalism, and racial purity rather than amalgamation.

The more racially mixed and multicultural America becomes, the more religiously pluralistic she becomes, and the more pluralistic she becomes, the more pagan she becomes.  

Before 1965, when immigration quotas favored Europeans, America was predominately Christian. (Why are most Europeans Christian and most non-Europeans non-Christian? Could the answer be found in Hebrews 8:8-9?) The instructions given by Moses in Deuteronomy 7:1-5 are still valid. Nothing has changed. The consequences of interracial and multicultural immigration (regardless the race) and its promotion of integration are just as cogent today as they were in Moses’ day. This is a reality most Americans do not want to face. Such information is usually met with accusations of racism and white supremacy, but the real racists are those whose agenda destroys the distinct God-created races and their cultures through amalgamation.

The race problem is best solved through segregation. With segregation, there can be no race problem. Integration inevitably leads to amalgamation and ultimate amalgamation is equivalent to genocide.

If for no other reason, the African slave trade that was practiced in early America was wrong because it led to the integration and mixing of peoples whom Yahweh never intended to be integrated and mixed. 

Miscegenation [interracial marriage] was forbidden long before man became aware of these statistics. For the Israelites, the command for racial purity is inherent and principally found in Yahweh’s mandate that they remain a distinct and separate people.

"Holiness, we know, was much
recommended to the Jews, in order
that they might not abandon
themselves to any of the pollutions
of the heathens. Hence God had
forbidden them under the law to
take foreign wives, except they
were first purified, as we find in
Deuteronomy 21:11, 12."
-- John Calvin, on prohibitions
against taking foreign wives
being a religious matter but
not a racial matter.

In addition to opposing the slave trade on the basis of segregationalism, Weiland opposes it on the basis that the bible opposes kidnapping (Exodus 21:16). Regarding the latter, we agree with Weiland.

Now, in his desire for a white-only nation and in opposing "interracial" marriage, Weiland agrees with the dangerous kinist heresy. Although it seems he may allow for some exceptions to segregation; above he argues that the "Old and New Testaments generally promote segregation," and elsewhere he says that "non-Israelites can be proselytes to the New Covenant just like they could under the Old Covenant." (For Weiland, Israelites are whites, which we explore later.) Whether or not he would ever allow "proselytes" to dwell with whites, we are not sure; but his main emphasis is racial segregation. 

Regarding Weiland's statement that most Europeans are Christian, that is simply not the case. Rather, most are apostate secularists. Moreover, if there are not more Christians in non-European countries today, it is possible there could very well be more in the near future. Just consider Christianity's growth in China and Africa. (Also of interest is Kevin Swanson's index of the most and the least evil nations in the world.)

In his appeal to the Old Testament to oppose interracial marriage, Weiland misses the point made by Scripture. The Israelites were not forbidden to interrmarry with foreigners on the basis of skin color, but on the basis of their pagan religions: "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods" (Deuteronomy 7:3, 4a) (emphasis mine). This principle continues in the New Testament, which restricts marriage on the basis of religion (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)—but nowhere on the basis of race.  

Ironically, despite his advocacy of segregation, Weiland in that very chapter (again, Chapter 22 of his Constitution book) cites passages that contradict race-based segregation: Exodus 12:43, 44 (which allows foreign slaves to join the Israelites in taking the Passover); Leviticus 25:44 (which allows the purchase of slaves from other nations [although in light of Exodus 21:16, this would seem to preclude purchasing kidnapped slaves]); Deuteronomy 20:14 (which allows enslavement of war captives); and Deuteronomy 23:15, 16 (which allows fugitive slaves from other nations to "dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him") (emphasis mine). 

And, in the subsequent chapter of his book (Chapter 23), Weiland cites Exodus 22:21-24 (which requires just treatment of foreign sojourners) and Deuteronomy 1:16-17 (which requires judges to be impartial to everyone—strangers in the land included). 

Weiland then can't say that the "Old and New Testaments generally promote segregation rather than integration," when the aforementioned passages (and others) can hardly be reconciled with racial segregationalism—whether in an absolute sense, or even in a general sense. Note that in none of the aforementioned passages racial exceptions are made; those of any race could sojourn in Israel. 

And Weiland would be hard-pressed to find any New Testament passages supporting his claim. Indeed, in Colossians 3:11-16 Paul affirms the lawfulness of fellowship between Christians of different people groups (e.g., Greek, Jew, barbarian, Scythian). In the text he teaches that all Christians—regardless of race—are to be patient with one another, bear with one another, and forgive one another. They are to engage in “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Such matters of interpersonal relationships and corporate worship between those of different people groups are not possible in racial segregation. 

"Men have tried over and over
again to establish a community
on the basis of blood. Modern
attempts to do so include the
national states, Nazi Germany,
the Arab States, and Israel."
R. J. Rushdoony, on racist
ideas of community that
destroy society.

Moreover, the Great Commission advocates crossing all national borders to share the Gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19a) (emphasis mine). 

Also in chapter 22 of his book Bible Law Vs. the United States Constitution, Weiland, lamenting the decline of white Christian Protestantism, writes: 

In 1776, approximately 2.5 million people resided in America. More than 99 percent of that population were white Christian Protestants. The remaining 1 percent was collectively represented by 20,000 Roman Catholics, 3,000 Jews, and some deists. In light of these statistics and America’s present-day demographics (51.3 percent Protestant, 23.9 percent Roman Catholic, 3.3 percent other Christian, 1.7 percent Jewish, 0.7 percent Buddhist, 0.6 percent Muslim, 0.4 percent Hindu, 1.2 percent other religions, and 16.1 percent no religion, it is inescapable that the more non-European immigrants allowed to enter and remain in this country, the less Christian this nation becomes. The more racially mixed and multicultural America becomes, the more religiously pluralistic she becomes, and the more pluralistic she becomes, the more pagan she becomes. 

Ironically, while advocating white Protestantism, Weiland, if consistent, would consider much of historic Protestantism to be heretical (if he belongs to the Pelagian Campbellite movement [they call themselves "the Church of Christ"], then he would consider virtually all Protestants as heretics). As we noted earlier, Weiland believes in the necessity of water baptism for salvation, and holds that those who believe in justification by faith alone hold to a Pharisaical tradition that opposes the biblical doctrine of salvation. Thus according to Weiland's own standard, "whiteness" didn't save Protestantism from (what he considers to be) a false gospel. 

Of course, Weiland is wrong, and it is actually he who advocates a false gospel; but even if America remained a mostly "all-white" nation, I'm not so sure we wouldn't have such a problem with heretical groups spawned by whites. Just consider the Campbellites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Heresy, apostasy, and idolatry are not respecters of races. 

A great irony is that Weiland opposes the so-called moral declension from racial integration in the very book based on the idea that the Constitution promotes, as he puts it, "sedition against Yahweh" (chapter 34 footnote). And yet, no racial integration can be blamed for this. The Constitution was written and approved by whites.

Now, there has been a problem with racist violence in America for some time on both sides (e.g., whites lynching blacks, and blacks attacking whites in the name of Trayvon Martin). Racist violence, however, is not caused by racial coexistence, but by wicked hearts. And these same wicked hearts naturally promote violence on members of their own race as well. 

The first murder ever committed was intraracial;
and no outside race could be blamed for
influencing Cain's decision to kill his brother
Abel. Rather, it was due to Cain's own wicked
heart (1 John 3:12)

Mass murder has occurred throughout the history of the world—and not just in the context of interracial strife, but intraracial strife as well. When we consider abortion and 20th century communism, the latter seems to have seen more violence than the former. Of course, the first murder ever committed was intraracial; and no outside race could be blamed for influencing Cain's decision to kill his brother Abel. Nor did Abel's "kinship" with Cain stop Cain; Cain's problem was his wicked heart (1 John 3:12). The greatest evil ever committed in the world was the murder of Jesus—where His death was instigated by His own people. 

If Weiland is interested in alleviating racial violence, he can start by publicly retracting his racist statements. I don't think he himself approves of racial violence, but his writings fuel the kind of hatred that leads to such violence. Moreover, if Weiland really wants a society with minimal violence, he would not advocate segregation of race, but segregation of religion—namely, an all-Christian nation that rejects non-Christian religions (which naturally promote violence). Since Christianity has adherents from all so-called races—and since many whites reject Christianity—then there is no reason to advocate an all-white society in order to attain societal peace (relatively speaking). 

Weiland's White Israelitism 

Weiland's racism is tied to his belief that the New Covenant is just for whites. The notion of whites being exclusively God's chosen people is foundational to what is known as "Christian Identity." Weiland makes the following outrageous claim in his book Israel’s Identity – It Matters!:

“the Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples (hereafter identified as Celto-Saxons) [are] today’s genetic Israelites” 

"Just as Yahweh promised, He has made the New Covenant with Israelites." [which Weiland calls 'Celto-Saxons']

In the comment section of his blog post Constitution Myth Busters, Swallowing Camels, Part 3, Weiland distances himself from the term "Christian Identity," and makes other important qualifications:

That said, I don't want to mislead anyone here on this blog or anywhere else. Whereas, I do not hold to the term "Christian Identity" for the reasons I stressed to Angela (I prefer the term "Christian Israel," if a term must be used at all), I do accept Hebrews 8:8-9 at face value--that is, that the New Covenant was made with a remnant of Israelites from the house of Judah and the house of Israel via Christ's blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave. In other words, no automatic salvation by race or lineage. I also believe that whereas the covenant is specific to Israelites (Romans 9:3-4, Hebrews 8:8-9, etc.), unlike most Identity folk, I also believe that non-Israelites can be proselytes to the New Covenant just like they could under the Old Covenant.

But regardless of Weiland's belief that not all whites will be saved, and that some non-whites can be saved (not that Weiland understands the biblical doctrine of salvation), Weiland's theology holds that being non-white drastically reduces one's likelihood of salvation. Thus even if he doesn't realize it, he attributes a kind of racial superiority to whites—mixing racism with the Gospel by making the Good News of the Gospel, in general, good news just for whites. Race replaces grace, as Christ's sacrifice alone is not good enough—white skin is, at least generally, needed for the news to be "good."   

I'm not sure exactly where Weiland stands on the biblical doctrine of God's total sovereignty over man's salvation (Romans 9:16, John 6:44, Ephesians 1:11). However, if he denies it, then his teaching amounts to genetic determinism—predestination by whiteness. That is, there is something inherent in the white race that makes one more inclined to believe in Christ and serve Him than those of other races. (Some sharing Weiland's views may try to escape this implication by irrationally holding to God's predestination and man's freewill simultaneously; but this would be equivalent to holding to God's predestination and genetic determinism simultaneously—which still has the stigma of affirming genetic determinism.) The notion of racial genetic determinism where whites are morally superior to other races sounds more like Darwinian evolution than biblical Christianity. 
                                                                                                     

Scripture indeed presents an entirely different picture than Weiland. Distinctions based on skin color and such are superficial in the grand scheme of things: "man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7b). When the Jewish Apostle Paul evangelized the Greeks, he emphasized all of humanity's "one blood" (Acts 17:26, KJV)—not separate bloodlines that attribute superiority and/or favoritism to a particular group of people. 

Indeed, as Scripture points out, Christians "are all sons of God, through faith" (Galatians 3:26b)—not by race, race in addition to faith, or race that increases the likelihood of faith. Hence, 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:28, 29)

And so, believers—irrespective of race—are the true Israel. To make race a condition (whether absolutely or generally) of being part of the true Israel is to deny grace; it is to put confidence in the flesh. As Paul writes, 

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. (Phillippians 3)

The Great Commission—by the nature of the case—is for all peoples, or so-called races: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19a). Nothing in Scripture indicates that the saved are solely or mainly whites. Rather, Scripture teaches that Abraham—the exemplar of faith—is to be a father of many nations (Genesis 17:7; Romans 4:17); and thus there will be a great multitude of saved individuals from all people groups: 

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands ... (Revelation 7:9)

If in fact God has predestined for salvation a certain people group in greater numbers than another, we have no way of knowing, since it has not been revealed in Scripture: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). In short, Weiland and those like him de-emphasize grace for race; they have adopted the sense of racial superiority of the Pharisees and Judaziers. But the true Gospel of Jesus Christ knows no racial boundaries. It is to be proclaimed to those of all races (often in the context of interracial "mixing" and immigration)—without favoritism. God determines the "great multitude ... from every nation" at His own good pleasure. His hands are not tied by white supremacists like Weiland, who "devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith" (1 Timothy 1:4b).

While we are not sure where Weiland stands on
the biblical doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty
in salvation, if in fact Weiland denies this, then
his white Israelitism amounts to a racial genetic
determinism, which sounds more like Darwinian
evolution than biblical Christianity. 

Weiland willing to blaspheme God over his racism
(Warning - Offensive Language)

Weiland is so hardened in his racism that he is willing to blaspheme God for it. In another one of his sites, "Constitution Myth Busters," Weiland astonishingly says:

I also believe it can be proven Biblically, archeologically, and historically that today's Israelites are found in today's Celtic, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples. In fact, I believe I can also Biblically prove that if this is not the case then Yahweh is an impotent liar who cannot fulfill His New Covenant promises. (post date: 7 months prior to this article)

Such language against God is deplorable; I am not used to even the most depraved heretics talking this way. If this is not a reason to avoid this man's poison pen, then I don't know what is. Willingness to blaspheme God is equivalent to actually blaspheming God—intent to commit a particular sin is equivalent to actually committing the sin (cf. Matthew 5:28). 

For critiques of racial segregationalism, see

Refuting Kinism by Steve C. Halbrook (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4)

The Kinist Heresy: A Biblical Critique of Racism by Brian Schwertley 

Also see this clip by Brian Schwertley, which shows the absurdity of national segregationalism. Nations have been borrowing from other cultures and intermixing for centuries, and so it would be impossible to have—let alone identify—a nation that is culturally and racially pure. 


For critiques of Christian Identity and white Israelitism, see

An Open Letter to Those in the Identity Movement by Greg Price

Christian Identity by Watchman Fellowship

Christian Identity: A “Christian” Religion for White Racists by Viola Larson

(note: we don't know enough about the authors of the Identity articles to endorse their overall theology)

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own
selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them" (Acts 20:29) -- the Apostle Paul

Conclusion

Weiland is a wolf within the theonomy fold who, while not wielding an enormous influence, is nevertheless very dangerous: "A little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Galatians 5:9). He may be winsome, he may use Christian terminology (at least at times), but don't be fooled—it is all part of the sheep's clothing. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15, 16a). If Weiland's teachings are not the fruit of a wolf in sheep's clothing, then I'm not sure what is.

Just as Nicodemus made a grave theological mistake in confusing the spiritual with the physical (John 3:4), so does Weiland, who clouds the Holy Spirit's work on the inward person with the externals of water baptism and skin color. Weiland's advocacy of salvation by water baptism and his white racism takes the focus off of Christ and puts it on water and white skin. But contrary to Weiland, Scripture says, 

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:28, 29)

Weiland can't save himself from charges of denying the Gospel simply by saying he believes in salvation by Christ alone. For the Apostle Paul in Galatians, to deny faith as the sole instrument of justification is to deny salvation in Christ alone. And Weiland clearly rejects faith alone for justification by demanding that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Moreover, no one would charge those who hold to justification by faith alone as not believing in salvation by Christ alone; and yet for Weiland, they hold to a false gospel that cannot save. Thus even for Weiland, the instrument of salvation is a crucial matter.

Futhermore, Weiland can't save himself from charges of racism simply by denying that he's a racist. He may simply consider himself a "separatist," and feel no ill will towards other races. However, since loving or hating our neighbors is determined by how we interact with them in terms of God's law (Matthew 22:37-40)—and since Weiland violates God's law in relation to other races by advocating segregation (whether totally or generally)—Weiland hates his non-white neighbors, which is racism. 

Of course, Weiland's biggest problem is that he opposes God in about the worst possible way. Weiland has publicly declared war on God by using the internet to aggressively promote dangerous heresies and by voicing his willingness to blaspheme God. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a man who so strongly opposes the Awesome, Almighty God.

Weiland advocates a theonomic society—and yet the irony is that a theonomic society would not tolerate Weiland's heresies and blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13; cf. Zechariah 13: 2, 3). Weiland gets away with peddling his heresies because of the religiously pluralistic, secular society that he opposes. Ultimately Weiland's worldview is just as opposed to a Christian nation as secularism. And, in advocating white superiority (however unintentionally), he agrees with scientific racism, Charles Darwin, the KKK, and Adolph Hitler. (Not that he is the same in every respect; he does not, for instance, advocate the persecution of other races like Adolph Hitler did of the Jews. Nonetheless, his theology of white supremacy has a trajectory in the same direction.) 

Theonomists who are willing to ignore Weiland's dangerous doctrines because Weiland ostensibly advocates Christian cultural dominion should seriously reconsider. In Galatians, the Apostle Paul does not endorse working with the Judaizers in order to overturn the paganism of the Roman Empire. Instead, he anathematizes them. It is also self-defeating, in the name of Christian civilization, to align with someone who claims to support it, but who undermines some of its foundational doctrines. And the wolf within the fold (e.g., an author within Christian circles who promotes heresy) is more dangerous than the wolf outside of the fold (e.g., the tyrannical secular state). While the latter may persecute the body, the former leads the soul astray to everlasting torment. 

Now, do we wish for Weiland's salvation? Absolutely. We hope and pray that God converts him and uses him mightily for Christ's kingdom. We don't want him to be lost. We hope for his salvation—both for his own sake, and for the sake of those he would otherwise lead astray. Until his salvation, though, we implore Christians to heed Romans 16:17, 18:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.