The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis [Paperback]

Guy Prentiss Waters (Author), E. Calvin Beisner (Foreword)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 2006

A comparative and critical study of “Federal Vision” that contrasts it with the concept of covenant theology.

--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Product Details

• Paperback: 397 pages
• Publisher: P & R Publishing; annotated edition edition (June 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1596380330
• ISBN-13: 978-1596380332
• Product Dimensions: 8.7 x 5.9 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #810,552 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

109 of 151 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Long on quotes, short on understanding, July 6, 2006

By 

William R. Smith, II "Bill Smith" (Louisville, KY) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Paperback)

When I picked up this book at the yearly meeting of the denomination of which Waters and I both are members, I began reading his book immediately and with great interest. It is impossible to miss the fact that he has familiarized himself with much material. His quotations of the men he critiques are extensive. I was disappointed, however, with Waters' seeming inability to get beyond the surface semantics to the fundamental arguments. In critiquing the FV proponents from their writings and lectures, he consistently uses words that indicate that he thinks these men are "coming close" to a particular aberrant view. He will say things like "they don't deny this but they overemphasize this." Then, in his final analyses, he condemns them for being aberrant. His analyses are based upon exegetical assertion (of the Scriptures and the Westminister Standards), employ quite a bit of question begging, create false dilemmas, and don't account adequately for the qualifications and nuances given by the men in question (though he records many of those qualifications and nuances). Waters may win many people pre-disposed to being against these men, but by just a little closer scrutiny the reader will find that he employs poor argumentation.

86 of 121 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Disappointing Critique, July 15, 2006

By 

J. Meyers "PCA Pastor" - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Paperback)

I wish I could recommend this book, but I cannot because it is so full of mischaracterizations and exaggerated claims about the men and positions being reviewed. Apparently the author did not read his opponents charitably and with an open mind. Consequently, I believe he failed to follow the first commandment of scholarly debate, which is to try to understand and appreciate what one's intellectual opponents are trying to say before attacking them from a position outside of their own circle of presuppositions and theological commitments. All one has to do is look at the responses of the men critiqued at www.federal-vision.com to appreciate the failure. Perhaps, however, this book will lead to a more objective and honest evaluation of what has been labed the "Federal Vision" in Reformed theological circles. One can only hope.

4 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars It misses the internal critique, January 4, 2010

By 

Baroque Norseman (Louisiana) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Paperback)

I read this book 2 years ago. In fact, Dr Waters signed my copy. At the time of the FV controversy, I stood on the fence. I had problems both with the critics and proponents. I waited a long time to review the book. I wanted to make sure I hadn't changed on the issues. Here's my thoughts:

1) Dr Waters is correct to note that the Federal Vision diverges from the Reformed tradition on many points; however, simply quoting where they disagree with the confession is not enough. This is what the critics of FV fail to note: to really destroy a position in debate, you have to stand within that position and show the internal tensions in it. Merely arguing across systems, as Wittengstein taught us, fails miserably.

2) While it might be true that Leithart dismisses Aristotelian causality in his work, Waters fails to note that Leithart is working with the most rigorous understanding (and sometimes critique of) philosophy, ancient and modern. Where he does dismiss Aristotle, it is where Aristotle himself is weak. How about we critique Leithart's use of Ziziolous, Heiddeger, Marion, etc?

3) I've never believed that Wilson truly abandoned the Reformed tradition, and given Wilson's recent attacks on NT Wright, I am correct.

4) Waters is to be commended for separating the theonomic controversy from the Federal Vision controversy. It's staggering how many critics fail at this elementary distinction.

5) Apropos of (1) Waters could have scored huge points by showing how difficult for Calvinism is Leithart's view of apostasy and Leithart's critique of the invisible/visible church distinction as Nestorian (which it looks like). He let this slide (or didn't know the seriousness of the issues). However, had he addressed this issue, he would have been forced to answer it on grounds independent of the Confession--a move no critic of FV has yet to make.

6) Be very careful of charging your opponents as closet-Catholics. For if you assign to them the nomenclature of "Roman Catholic," and note that their theology is very similar to the Patrum Consenus, then you have just vindicated both FV and Rome as being historically normative.

Conclusions:
This book has received heavy criticism, and rightfully so. However, there are a number of issue FV guys need to address: mainly, if the invisible/visible church distinction is Nestorian, and Leithart is correct on apostasy, how can you legitimately stay Protestant? For once you admit the Nestorian charge and posit something like "historical/eschatological church," you are already on the EO and RCC terms of debate?

Waters did ask the right questions, he simply failed to give an internal critique.