The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis Paperback – June 14, 2006

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!

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.

thanks

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 commended 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!

The Federal Vision is a movement/theological system/conversation that sparked a controversy in the United States a decade ago, and is still creating ripples here in Australia. This book offers a critique of the Federal Vision.First of all, Waters - correctly, in my opinion - locates the heart of the Federal Vision in the idea that children of believers are members of the Covenant of Grace (p. 17).Immediately, it can be seen how this is tapping into an issue on which there has always been a difference of opinion in Reformed circles, and inconsistency among the Reformed confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism (Q & A 74) says infants "as well as adults, are included in the covenant and church of God," while Article 34 of the Belgic Confession says "Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults." The Westminster Larger Catechism, however, takes a different view, and says (Q & A 31) that the covenant was made "with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." The Westminster Confession is not explicit on this point.Waters takes issue with this central thesis of the Federal Vision position, but he does so mainly on the basis of its contravention of the Westminster Standards, and of "Reformed tradition". Waters objects to the Federal Vision using different language, having a different emphasis, and going beyond, not just the Westminster Standards, but Reformed theology.The reader may well be wondering, however, where is the biblical rebuttal? Waters does refer to two passages (p. 19) that, he says, speak of "the covenantally unfaithful as those who were never truly members of the covenant of grace in the first place": 1 John 2:19-20 ("They went out from us, but they were not of us") and Matthew 7:22-23 ("Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name'... And I will declare to them, `I never knew you'...")One example of a comparison with the Westminster Standards involves justification. Waters says, "Whereas our Standards speak of justification as an 'act', we have observed formulations that render justification a process" (p. 95). The Larger Catechism (but not the Confession) speaks in this way - "Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight..." (Q & A 70). The Canons of Dort, however, refer to justification as a state - "But God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from his own people, even in their melancholy falls; nor suffers them to proceed so far as to lose the grace of adoption, and forfeit the state of justification..." (V.6). So, justification is not merely an act, and Waters appears to be unaware of the broader Reformed tradition at this point.I was somewhat annoyed by Waters' constant appeal to (what he considers to be) Reformed tradition. Here are some representative quotes:- "Lusk appears to invest much more in the connection between justification and resurrection than students of the Standards have hitherto done" (p. 80)- "Shepherd undermines the traditional distinction between the church visible and invisible" (p. 102)- "Wilson's argument fails to overturn conventional Reformed readings of this passage..." (p. 154)- "This is a far stronger principle of covenantal continuity than has been admitted within the historical mainstream of Reformed interpreters" (p. 290)Waters appeals to the Reformed tradition, but he has a skewed view of what it consists of - on some of these points there have been a rich variety of opinions within Reformed communities. And while interpretive tradition has an important place in the life of the church, Waters seems to believe that anything new in theology must necessarily be wrong.However, quite apart from the Federal Vision-specific issues, one wonders about Waters' own qualifications to be a defender of Reformed Orthodoxy. He repeatedly talks about how the Federal Visionists reject the idea that grace is a substance (e.g. pp. 62, 171, 182, 214, 261, 295). So the reader is left wondering whether Waters himself believes that it is.Perhaps, as a sort of thought experiment, we might turn the tables and ask whether in fact Waters is truly Reformed himself. After all, he says (pp 85-86), "I have my doubts that 'definitive sanctification' is a biblical teaching at all."Of course, that would be going too far. Firstly, Waters doesn't deny definitive sanctification, he is merely questioning it here. Secondly, it could be that his reticence to use the phrase is merely a matter of terminology. Thirdly, it's not obvious that definitive sanctification is a necessary part of Reformed theology. Fourthly, as Waters indicates, the important thing is whether it is biblical - and to be biblical is to be truly Reformed.Are the Federal Visionists any less Reformed than Waters? I don't think so. And yet Waters argues that the Federal Vision is not merely a subset of Reformed theology, but constitutes a different system altogether. For my own part, the central idea of the Federal Vision - that the Covenant of Grace is made with believers and their children - is something I've always believed.