A Critique of the Covenant of Works in Contemporary Controversy

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
The men of the FV have pointed this out.
However, it is necessary to show that, although the FV rejects
certain features and terminology of the covenant of works, its essential
position is closer to the traditional formulation of the covenant of
works than may appear at first glance. Indeed, it can be argued that it
is its development. Besides, a rejection of the covenant of works as
such is not the problem with the FV, but the root of its heresy is the
rigorous application of a conditional covenant promise of God to the
covenant of God with Adam.
Critique of the Federal Vision’s Understanding
of the Covenant with Adam
The teaching of the FV on the covenant of God with Adam is
erroneous on a number of points.
Its doctrine of the covenant of God with Adam has an evil root. The
contemporary prominence of the covenant of works is due in part to the
fact that many theologians today treat the FV as a heresy that at its root
denies justification by faith alone. This leads to their weak and ineffective
defense of that vital doctrine by recourse to a defense of the covenant of
works along with loudly championing Luther’s law/gospel distinction over
against the FV’s denial of the covenant of works. 49
Besides being a weak and ineffective defense against the errors
of the FV, an appeal to the covenant of works and the insistence by
many that the denial of the doctrine is almost at the heart of the FV
controversy plays into the hands of the FV. This is so because, while
defending the covenant of works, some opponents of the FV are ignoring
what is at the root of the FV’s denial of that doctrine.
The FV is a covenantal heresy, the root of which is the FV’s denial
of a gracious and unconditional covenant of grace. The denial of
justification by faith alone and of the imputation of Christ’s righteous-
49 For example, the report of the United Reformed Churches on the FV
says, “To appreciate the significance of the FV criticism of the formulation of
the pre-fall and post-fall covenants, it is important to note the way FV authors
treat the distinction between the “law” and the “gospel.” (https://www.urcna.
org/urcna/StudyCommittees/FederalVision/Federal_Vision_Study_Committee_Report.pdf,
20).
24
Vol. 44, No. 2