Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Correction Regarding R.C. Sproul, Jr. and Federal Vision

R.C. Sproul, Jr.

In my last post on Neo-Legalism, dated November 19, 2007, I indicated that R.C. Sproul, Jr. was a writer in favor of Federal Vision, one of the "branches" of anti-Justification Neo-Legalism.

This was NOT correct.

Dante Tremayne, of the Highlands Study Center, headed by R.C. Sproul, Jr., was at first a little righteously "miffed" :) at my error, and then graciously provided blog comments and email attachments from RC Jr.'s writings, showing clearly that RC Jr. is NOT a believer in Federal Vision, and IS a believer in biblical Justification by Faith alone.

I have edited my post accordingly, and apologize to RC Jr., and all my readers, for the error.

None of us wants to be misrepresented, especially in such an important docrinal issue.

Much thanks to Dante.


lydia joy said...

Thanks for your honesty and correction-!!

dante said...


It was a pleasure discussing the issue with you. You were open and willing to be corrected. A true Christian virtue.

Next time (hope not!!) I'll try to be less "miffed" at the onset.


Reformed IS Enough said...


The miasma that is Federal Vision is a cauldron of confusion, and it serves their own interests to keep everyone confused, especially since these men wish to hold themselves out as "Reformed" and "confessional." Yet many of their teachings are contrary to the Westminster Confession, especially when it comes to the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the practice of paedo-communion.

Adding to the confusion, there is no homogeneous system known as Federal Vision. It's advocates are all over the theological map. However, they share common ground when it comes to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, "sola fide." All Federal Visionists hold to a distorted view of justification by faith alone, yet they all deceptively claim that their views are orthodox. In R.C. Sproul Jr's case, as is the case with all Federal Visionists, he claims to believe in justification by faith alone, yet he redefines what that phrase theologically means. For example, Sproul Jr. holds to presumptive regeneration, and this was one of the things that he was deposed from the ministry for, as well as for teaching and practicing paedo-communion (another Federal Vision mainstay), in defiance of his ordination vows.

The Puritan Board has already discussed this matter at length, and it might be beneficial for your readers to review that discussion.

It serves R.C. Sproul Jr's interests to say, "I'm not Federal Vision," especially in light of the fact that he's the son of one of the most well known expositors of Reformed theology. Sproul just needs to be honest and admit what he really believes. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Daelon said...

Hi Terry,

I realize this has nothing to do with this post, but I wanted to ask you a question and have your opinion on the matter.

I have a good friend and brother who attends my church who says that faith to be saved is a 3 step process. "Accept, believe and obey."

He leads me to believe that he believes faith itself is a work. While I do believe the Holy Spirit works within us to will and to do according to His good pleasure, I'm not sure if it's safe to say that faith in Christ is a work. Romans says "To him who does not work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

It seems to me that if the wonderful news that Christ has done it all, that faith in that would result in a rest from works.

In no way do I want to say people lay back and do nothing. That's bondage to the believer. But would you say faith is "Accept, believe and obey"?

I hate intellectualizing faith, but this has confused me in the past and worried me. Not so much now. I'm simply curious.

Thank you,