Customer Reviews

The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Guy Waters knows his stuff he studied under the leaders of the NPP while in college. Yes there is a connection even though Steve Wilkins denied it from the start. NT Wright shows up at Monroe to do some lectures. What does Wilkins say then???
Bottom Line is that this is a great book even though the FV guys hate it. They don't want to be exposed in public even though they will say to their darling followers that they are starting a "new Reformation." The Reformation they are starting leads back to Rome and away from Protestantism. Look at the website The Federal Vision in their own Words and they can't deny that. These guys redefine classic Protestant terms such as covenant, salvation, election and they hide behind the garb of Presbyterianism. Get this book and don't be fooled the lies of Wilson, Wilkins, etc. This shows how really unorthodox they are. The leaders of this movement and their merry followers love smoke and mirrors and double-talk. Waters flushes them out but does it in a scholarly tone.

After his excellent work on the New Perspective(s) on Paul Waters proves to be a real authority on these modern heresies - probably the world authority on Federal Vision, which is nothing but the old temptation of hyper-covenantalism mixed with works-righteousness. These FV proponents try to confuse whole denominations (especially the PCA) in spreading their semi-pelagianism through the internet and reviews like on this book. Everything happens anonymous and apart from church courts and accountability. It is very attractive to young men who love playing with doctrine more than submitting to biblical truth. Thank you Guy for this book!

Guy Waters is an incredibly gifted scholar and writer. As with his first volume he takes great care to represent the view he is critiquing with the utmost fairness. Though some unfortunately complain about long quotations, they are necessary in debates like these because they permit the opposing view to be heard properly. With a commanding knowledge and understanding of the broad corpus of Federal Vision works, Dr. Waters does an excellent job proving that though the concerns of this group may be valid at points, their answers are inadequate at best and dangerous at worst. He is to be commanded for undertaking this task with such an irenic spirit and yet with an equally powerful commitment to the truth of the gospel, which is in danger of being blurred in the hands of the Federal Vision. This book is a must-read!