I was privileged to get to hear Don Carson (along with several excellent speakers) at the Evangelical Ministry Assembly held in London this week.
On the second day, there was an interview with him conducted by Richard Cunningham (Director of UCCF). Among many topics posed, Carson was asked whether the Federal Vision presented sufficient problems that it requires a ‘99 call‘ by non-Federal Visionists – a reference to the British Lions’ tactic of combating the Springboks’ physicality by punching the nearest opposition player when the 99 call was shouted.
Carson, after taking issue with the analogy, suggested two thoughts to bear in mind.
Firstly, the content of the message matters. Secondly, the way the message is promulgated matters.
Under the first heading, Don noted that there are a range of views amongst FV advocates, some of which are wrong, some of which are perhaps worse than that (I don’t want to mis-quote him). More interestingly, he noted that various streams of orthodoxy are susceptible to different errors. High Presbyterians will be more attracted to the presumption of the salvation of believers’ children (one of the FV’s main distinctives) than Baptists. Other streams will be more attracted to other errors – e.g. Arminians to Openness Theology, Messianic Jews to the Galatian heresy etc (I just made those up).
Carson then went on to suggest that he thinks English Anglicans will be susceptible to following the FV errors because ‘they don’t have a strong theology of baptism’. If you tend away from the main stream of what the Bible teaches in one area, you will be inviting a ’swingback’. If we don’t talk about the Spirit, we invite the extreme charismatic movement, if we ignore the issues involved in the end-times, we invite dispensationalism.
So similarly, he thinks English Anglicanism could be tempted by aspects of the Federal Vision: a practice of child baptism without a clear theology of it (unlike that ground out by American Presbyterians I assume). I’m not really qualified to comment on that!
He didn’t mention this, but obviously the presence of historical Catholic and Lutheran views of child salvation through baptism in the Anglican denomination may also make FV views on this issue attractive to conservative evangelical Anglicans who are seeking unity in a denomination that is so theologically fragmented.
Under his second heading, the way the message is promulgated matters, Carson was similarly irenic and helpful.
Don repeated what is a familiar line of his when he deals with various movements – students pick up what you teach, not your assumptions. So the next generation may have gotten your views on the gifts of the Spirit, or the timing of the millennium, or the salvation of believers’ children, but having forgotten the basic gospel of Christ appearing to save sinners and judge evil.
His concern is that for some Federal Visionists, their distinctives may become more central in their teaching than the gospel.
My general comments would be that Carso’s guarded approach to the Federal Vision echoes that of John Piper, who has invited Doug Wilson to speak at a Desiring God conference. It may be that Reformed Baptists are disposed to be generous to Federal Visionists, since they think the key error is in infant baptism, and may almost welcome the increased link between baptism and regeneration seen in FV theology. They both clearly think there are errors in the Federal Vision, but are not rushing to trumpet them.
I certainly appreciated Carson’s rejection of the idea of making a ‘99 Call’ on the FV, and his willingness to be perhaps harsh on Anglicans in giving them a loving warning. I’d encourage anyone interested in the Federal Vision debate to read this superb primer on the Federal Vision issues and importantly how to approach them.
