What do you think?
Rate this book
"Reformed" Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant
Suppose a husband is committing adultery. Is he still a husband? Being a husband is not just a state of mind; it's not just a private decision. Being a husband is a public relationship made from a public exchange of vows, an objective covenant. An adulterous husband is a covenant-breaking husband but still a husband. Being a husband is what makes his infidelity so horrendous.
In the same way, when people are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are ushered into an objective, visible, covenant relationship. Regardless of the state of their heart, regardless of any hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they mean it, such people are now visible saints, Christians. A Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim. Membership in the Christian faith is objective-it can be photographed and fingerprinted. In baptism, God names us and imposes gracious obligations upon us.
This book by Douglas Wilson shows that many who call themselves Reformed have in fact lost the older Calvinistic teaching about the objectivity of the covenant and the promises made to Christians at baptism. Multitudes of faithless, corrupt Christians show that they do not believe what God said at their baptism. They live like adulterous husbands. But the tragedy is that many conscientious conservative Christians also do not believe what God said at their baptism.
In the same way, when people are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are ushered into an objective, visible, covenant relationship. Regardless of the state of their heart, regardless of any hypocrisy, regardless of whether or not they mean it, such people are now visible saints, Christians. A Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim. Membership in the Christian faith is objective-it can be photographed and fingerprinted. In baptism, God names us and imposes gracious obligations upon us.
This book by Douglas Wilson shows that many who call themselves Reformed have in fact lost the older Calvinistic teaching about the objectivity of the covenant and the promises made to Christians at baptism. Multitudes of faithless, corrupt Christians show that they do not believe what God said at their baptism. They live like adulterous husbands. But the tragedy is that many conscientious conservative Christians also do not believe what God said at their baptism.
203 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 22, 2002
42 people are currently reading
359 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Wilson
315 books4,489 followersI write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
January 31, 2012
One of the clearest statements on how the decrees of God intersect real life in the Church. He dusts off some reformation doctrines that need to be revived/remembered. He also exposes some areas of reformed theology that need to be refined and jettisoned all together. The section entitled "Apostasy and Assurance" was the one I learned the most from and I think will be most helpful in discussing FV theology with its detractors.
March 19, 2017
Too many people will dismiss this book because of what they've heard about the author or the theological circles it's associated with. Don't.
July 14, 2025
This book was an interesting read, and while I’m still thinking through the details, there is much I ended up agreeing with here. For context, I listened to Wilson’s 22 part talk (talks are the same title as the book), on the same topic, as well as his two discussions with Michael Horton over these issues - so my review is admittedly pulling from multiple sources, but only in the effort to better understand Wilson’s overarching points he is attempting to convey.
I’m not going to summarize everything Wilson’s wrote and said, as that is over 30 hours of content, but only mention some of the things that stood out to me most.
To begin with, if you are a Baptist, you might as well leave your luggage at the door because the premise that Wilson begins with is fully a Presbyterian federalist position. You won’t get to the front desk as a Baptist with these ideas in front of you, let alone through the front door.
That said, as a Presbyterian there are some overlapping terminology being used by both sides that need unfurled. The terms Faith, justification, covenant, obedience, works, salvation, objectivity, and many other terms are going to be used interchangeably with slight differences and variations between groups, so make sure you’re on the same page when you read and listen.
I think we all want our covenant and its members to be as objective as possible. I don’t know anyone arguing that “things better be more subjective around here!” Yet Wilson argues that this is exact what is happening when, for example, we talk about things like the visible and invisible church. While Wilson does not object to the truth of the matter, that there are those who say they are of Christ but aren’t in Christ, he says that it inevitably leads to subjectivism and turns the church into a group of potential Christians rather than the covenant people of God. Whether it does that or not, I agree that the latter is what we are pursuing. Wilson floats using different distinctions like historical church and eschatological church instead of we want to convey the aforementioned truth without causing a subjective error as a result.
Wilson distances himself from certain Federal Visionist adherents by differentiating between dark and light variants, and he calls himself an amber, somewhere in the middle. I haven’t read enough of the FV authors to determine if this is the case, but it is very easy to assert that you are the theological via media from the radicals on either side of you, but much harder to defend.
Without turning this into an essay, I do think this was a good and helpful read. I had my quibbles with phrases and sections to be sure, I don’t know anyone on any part of the covenantal spectrum who wouldn’t. I’ll likely return to this later at some point to provide any necessary addendums when time allows.
I’m not going to summarize everything Wilson’s wrote and said, as that is over 30 hours of content, but only mention some of the things that stood out to me most.
To begin with, if you are a Baptist, you might as well leave your luggage at the door because the premise that Wilson begins with is fully a Presbyterian federalist position. You won’t get to the front desk as a Baptist with these ideas in front of you, let alone through the front door.
That said, as a Presbyterian there are some overlapping terminology being used by both sides that need unfurled. The terms Faith, justification, covenant, obedience, works, salvation, objectivity, and many other terms are going to be used interchangeably with slight differences and variations between groups, so make sure you’re on the same page when you read and listen.
I think we all want our covenant and its members to be as objective as possible. I don’t know anyone arguing that “things better be more subjective around here!” Yet Wilson argues that this is exact what is happening when, for example, we talk about things like the visible and invisible church. While Wilson does not object to the truth of the matter, that there are those who say they are of Christ but aren’t in Christ, he says that it inevitably leads to subjectivism and turns the church into a group of potential Christians rather than the covenant people of God. Whether it does that or not, I agree that the latter is what we are pursuing. Wilson floats using different distinctions like historical church and eschatological church instead of we want to convey the aforementioned truth without causing a subjective error as a result.
Wilson distances himself from certain Federal Visionist adherents by differentiating between dark and light variants, and he calls himself an amber, somewhere in the middle. I haven’t read enough of the FV authors to determine if this is the case, but it is very easy to assert that you are the theological via media from the radicals on either side of you, but much harder to defend.
Without turning this into an essay, I do think this was a good and helpful read. I had my quibbles with phrases and sections to be sure, I don’t know anyone on any part of the covenantal spectrum who wouldn’t. I’ll likely return to this later at some point to provide any necessary addendums when time allows.
April 24, 2023
Very insightful.
Read
March 14, 2023As a baptist, this book wasn't for me. Too much of the argument hinges on accepting premises that I fundamentally disagree with, and so I couldn't follow Wilson in many places. There is also plenty I agreed with and thought was insightful, and the book itself is not in any way badly written or poorly presented. Wilson is a great writer and gets across his thoughts easily and poignantly.
I did think it was amusing how often he used the "baptism is marriage" analogy, as a baptist. It's like "Yes, that's what we've been saying! Baptism is a vow that you make—you can't make it for someone else!" Haha, oh well. I guess infants are being put in arranged marriages with Jesus?
I did think it was amusing how often he used the "baptism is marriage" analogy, as a baptist. It's like "Yes, that's what we've been saying! Baptism is a vow that you make—you can't make it for someone else!" Haha, oh well. I guess infants are being put in arranged marriages with Jesus?
August 25, 2023
More like 3.5 stars. Pastor Wilson has described himself as “ Federal Vision lite” which this book would affirm. He stays very close to the Westminster Standards, having only a few minor quibbles with it. Overall, not bad. Having read the Federal Vision essays, this does have much variance from those writings.
April 4, 2024
Enjoyed this. The chapters on the Law of God, covenant succession, and the critique on the new perspective on Paul, were probably my favorite.
April 15, 2023
Another well written work by Doug Wilson. I listened on audiobook and during the first month after my daughter was born so I couldn’t give it the attention I think it needs and I want to get a copy to make marks in. From what I did gather I agree with most of it and found it helpful in clarifying some of my thoughts as well as bringing me to new understandings on some other issues. This would not be a good starting place for reading Doug Wilson however, as it is more dense without a grounding in reformed theology, you will be more likely to get lost.
July 15, 2014
When the whole Federal Vision controversy oozed onto the scene it became clear that there were several types of opponents: the Reformed Scholastics who were threatened by someone as persuasive as Wilson from outside the guild, the southern TRs who had trusted the Scholastics to keep everything stable, and a few others. The response by these groups has been fascinating. The Scholastics have refused to debate anyone on this topic at all, holed in the fortress academy. The TRs have gone on the war path, hunting down those who have attempted a continued reformation of the Church.
These groups may have good reason to oppose some or all of what the FV has said. Since all the "professionals" (save Carl Trueman who sat down with Dr. Leithart at BIOLA recently) have refused to talk about these issues unless they are prosecuting cases (all unsuccessful to date) before their presbyteries, we probably will never know. Rarely have minds been so closed on such a worthwhile topic.
In this work, Wilson lays out very clearly and helpfully what the problems are with modern American evangelicalism and how the loss of a collective Christian identity that is objective leads to a divided and impotent Church. You may not agree with all he has to say but it is hard to imagine that anyone can come away from reading this work and say that his position is confusing (a frequent word I hear from opponents).
As I have spoken with FV opponents, I have found none - not one single soul - that has actually read a work by an FV advocate. Well, this is the place to start. I highly recommend this book for pastor/elder or lay-person alike who wants to know what all the fuss is about.
These groups may have good reason to oppose some or all of what the FV has said. Since all the "professionals" (save Carl Trueman who sat down with Dr. Leithart at BIOLA recently) have refused to talk about these issues unless they are prosecuting cases (all unsuccessful to date) before their presbyteries, we probably will never know. Rarely have minds been so closed on such a worthwhile topic.
In this work, Wilson lays out very clearly and helpfully what the problems are with modern American evangelicalism and how the loss of a collective Christian identity that is objective leads to a divided and impotent Church. You may not agree with all he has to say but it is hard to imagine that anyone can come away from reading this work and say that his position is confusing (a frequent word I hear from opponents).
As I have spoken with FV opponents, I have found none - not one single soul - that has actually read a work by an FV advocate. Well, this is the place to start. I highly recommend this book for pastor/elder or lay-person alike who wants to know what all the fuss is about.
March 5, 2017
I think everyone overreacted. Wilson was on to a few things but the context in American Calvindom didn't let him formulate it without everything turning into a big food fight.
Objectivity of the covenant: I suppose it's true on one level, though I was never quite persuaded that these guys integrated that belief within the larger Reformed spectrum.
Historical/Eschatological Church: I actually like this. It gives you what the visible/invisible distinction promises without some of the difficulties. I do wonder, though, if there is an incipient Hegelianism lurking within that no one notices: the historical progresses and unfolds into the Ideal.
Objectivity of the covenant: I suppose it's true on one level, though I was never quite persuaded that these guys integrated that belief within the larger Reformed spectrum.
Historical/Eschatological Church: I actually like this. It gives you what the visible/invisible distinction promises without some of the difficulties. I do wonder, though, if there is an incipient Hegelianism lurking within that no one notices: the historical progresses and unfolds into the Ideal.
October 5, 2023
A bowl of confusion with one scoop of question begging, one scoop of equivocation, and Galatians 4 crushed up and mangled on top.
To make application of Luther’s words to Erasmus, “I thought it outrageous to convey material of such low a quality in the trappings of such rare eloquence.”
There were some good things about the book. First, many true things about reformed theology were stated, and some of those statements were even quite helpful. Second, I always appreciate Doug’s consistency—even if such consistency leads him to frightening places.
To make application of Luther’s words to Erasmus, “I thought it outrageous to convey material of such low a quality in the trappings of such rare eloquence.”
There were some good things about the book. First, many true things about reformed theology were stated, and some of those statements were even quite helpful. Second, I always appreciate Doug’s consistency—even if such consistency leads him to frightening places.
November 5, 2022
Who would of thought the nail in the coffin on Wilson being orthodox was placed in this book back in 2002? But in all seriousness, an excellent and clarifying work on the objectivity of the covenant.
March 26, 2023
Good. He builds off of his writings on FV to further explain the objectivity of the covenant
October 25, 2025
I listened to this on Audible but I'm going to have to pick up a hardcopy (my Logos copy is the older version). The argument comes down to the "objectivity of the covenant." Fascinating.
June 8, 2023
I listen to this book with question in mind, "is this book as bad as its critics claim?" Admittedly, that is a pretty low bar to meet. And no, I didn't find it as bad as its critics claim. And some of its main points about the visible church/covenant administration were good, although not necessarily unique to this book (e.g. it is appropriate to call professing believers and their children "Christians" and hold them accountable as such; also, apostates are covenant breakers).
On the other hand, there were some things I disagreed with, found unclear, or thought was unhelpful, such as the phrases "covenantal election" and "corporate justification." I don't think the book or author is heretical, but I wouldn't recommend the book as particularly helpful. It is also somewhat dated, tied as it is to the Federal Vision controversy of the early 2000s.
On the other hand, there were some things I disagreed with, found unclear, or thought was unhelpful, such as the phrases "covenantal election" and "corporate justification." I don't think the book or author is heretical, but I wouldn't recommend the book as particularly helpful. It is also somewhat dated, tied as it is to the Federal Vision controversy of the early 2000s.
January 5, 2010
To which I say, "Reformed Is Not Enough is not enough."
March 9, 2019
Wilson's defense of his "federal vision" theology.
August 6, 2019
Not Reformed at all... is a better title
April 6, 2023
Read this as part of my research of the Federal Vision controversy. This, along with the joint statement itself, I could easily sign onto. Some of the other proponents however, like James Jordan and his rejection of personal regeneration and Rich Lusk with his shaky justification theology I can’t necessarily get behind.
I was on the hunt for a compromise in justification or sola fide in this book, I couldn’t find it. A deeper analysis is due with a paperback and pen for footnotes and citations.
The main argument around the objectivity of the covenant seems to be simply that baptism in some sense truly unites us to Christ (including infants) regardless of elect/reprobate status. John 15’s fruitless branches and the apostasy passages in Galatians and Hebrews are used as examples of unregenerate covenant members. This allows for a true “falling from grace” as the Biblical language states while also maintaining perseverance of the saints for the elect.
I appreciated the appendix discussing and distancing the objectivity of the covenant position from the New Perspective on Paul, although I never would have drawn a connection if people hadn’t thrown that out as an accusation. This section also clarified that Doug Wilson, at the very least, does affirm justification by faith alone apart from works.
God maintains our faithfulness to the covenant, and thus, the elect persevere.
I was on the hunt for a compromise in justification or sola fide in this book, I couldn’t find it. A deeper analysis is due with a paperback and pen for footnotes and citations.
The main argument around the objectivity of the covenant seems to be simply that baptism in some sense truly unites us to Christ (including infants) regardless of elect/reprobate status. John 15’s fruitless branches and the apostasy passages in Galatians and Hebrews are used as examples of unregenerate covenant members. This allows for a true “falling from grace” as the Biblical language states while also maintaining perseverance of the saints for the elect.
I appreciated the appendix discussing and distancing the objectivity of the covenant position from the New Perspective on Paul, although I never would have drawn a connection if people hadn’t thrown that out as an accusation. This section also clarified that Doug Wilson, at the very least, does affirm justification by faith alone apart from works.
God maintains our faithfulness to the covenant, and thus, the elect persevere.
March 30, 2023
Lé bomb.
Want to read
November 1, 2023Mentioned positively here.
January 31, 2024
It turns out, the objectivity of the covenant is not heretical at all if you take the time to understand it beyond the level of sound bites. I thought this book was very well reasoned.
October 14, 2022
Painful writing style.
Read
June 16, 2023I’ve heard it said that this is DWs most controversial book, but I didn’t find much that is out of line with historic Reformed theology. There are a few chapters that I need to go back and reread, but overall I thought it was a well written book.
June 14, 2023
If I was presby, which I’m leaning towards, I would have no problem with this at all.
This version of FV has gotten an overreaction. It’s well argued and thorough.
Loved it.
This version of FV has gotten an overreaction. It’s well argued and thorough.
Loved it.
December 7, 2021
Doug is seeking to recover a pre-enlightenment Protestant view of Scripture. Gnosticism has permeated our culture in America and American culture has permeated the Church. We have separated the spiritual from the natural to such an extent that water baptism no longer has meaning. We seldom partake of the Lord's Supper and when we do, it is with the lights off and done personally. We have lost all sense of covenants, federal headship, responsibility, and what it means to be a gathering of people united together making up the Body of Christ.
Holding fast to sola fide for the individual is necessary. A Christian should never look into themselves for justification, only outside themselves to Christ who is our Justification; extra nos. This is where every believer finds his assurance. Those who look to Christ by faith are promised to produce fruit in Him by the power of the Holy Spirit; some thirty, some sixty, and some a hundredfold. This is what living faith looks like. A believer does not produce fruit to earn his salvation, he produces fruit because, by faith, he is connected to the Vine who is our Salvation. Jesus is our Election and those who believe in Him are the elect of God in Him.
We must admit that we cannot righteously discern the thoughts and intents of the human heart, thus do not know who the elect unto glory are. This means that who we sit next to on Sunday and interact with all week that bear the name of Christ, really are our brothers and sisters in Him. They really are part of His Body. Because of this, those who come into the fold of God's sheep and trample Him underfoot as they pursue false gods, really do get severed from Christ; not in an imaginary way, but a real tangible, visible one. This has nothing to do with those who are predestined for glory losing their election, this has to do with the fact that those who are severed, God "never knew." This is not a judgment we get to make in this life, but will be one that is manifest in the eschaton. Making distinctions between the Church that is being saved and the Church at the end of history that is finally saved is important. If we don't do this, we run the risk of over realizing eschatology and implementing bad practices in ecclesiology.
I have been wresting with apostasy passages in the New Testament and the Covenant sign of baptism all year. Seeking to simply say what the Bible says without distorting Scripture and reading it through a particular lens, bending it to my bias. Passages that describe being "baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," "baptism now saves you," and so on. In my opinion, this book really helps uphold what Scripture says as a whole.
Really great work. Core doctrines are upheld and maintained in the midst of recovering a historical view of the New Covenant. This is book pretty much sums up a lot of the conclusions I have drawn on my own and through other readings. It is a nice one stop shop to get a lot of doctrinal issues defined and put in their proper place.
Works without grace is legalism and faith without works is dead. We must take care to remember that.
--------------------
Consider checking out by blog!
https://laymansprogress.com/
Holding fast to sola fide for the individual is necessary. A Christian should never look into themselves for justification, only outside themselves to Christ who is our Justification; extra nos. This is where every believer finds his assurance. Those who look to Christ by faith are promised to produce fruit in Him by the power of the Holy Spirit; some thirty, some sixty, and some a hundredfold. This is what living faith looks like. A believer does not produce fruit to earn his salvation, he produces fruit because, by faith, he is connected to the Vine who is our Salvation. Jesus is our Election and those who believe in Him are the elect of God in Him.
We must admit that we cannot righteously discern the thoughts and intents of the human heart, thus do not know who the elect unto glory are. This means that who we sit next to on Sunday and interact with all week that bear the name of Christ, really are our brothers and sisters in Him. They really are part of His Body. Because of this, those who come into the fold of God's sheep and trample Him underfoot as they pursue false gods, really do get severed from Christ; not in an imaginary way, but a real tangible, visible one. This has nothing to do with those who are predestined for glory losing their election, this has to do with the fact that those who are severed, God "never knew." This is not a judgment we get to make in this life, but will be one that is manifest in the eschaton. Making distinctions between the Church that is being saved and the Church at the end of history that is finally saved is important. If we don't do this, we run the risk of over realizing eschatology and implementing bad practices in ecclesiology.
I have been wresting with apostasy passages in the New Testament and the Covenant sign of baptism all year. Seeking to simply say what the Bible says without distorting Scripture and reading it through a particular lens, bending it to my bias. Passages that describe being "baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," "baptism now saves you," and so on. In my opinion, this book really helps uphold what Scripture says as a whole.
Really great work. Core doctrines are upheld and maintained in the midst of recovering a historical view of the New Covenant. This is book pretty much sums up a lot of the conclusions I have drawn on my own and through other readings. It is a nice one stop shop to get a lot of doctrinal issues defined and put in their proper place.
Works without grace is legalism and faith without works is dead. We must take care to remember that.
--------------------
Consider checking out by blog!
https://laymansprogress.com/
May 28, 2025
ARE WILSON AND HIS ASSOCIATES ‘HERETICS’?
Douglas Wilson is a conservative Reformed theologian who teaches at New Saint Andrews College, as well as pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He wrote in the Foreword to this 2002 book, “On June 22, 2002, Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS declared that certain teachings at a pastors’ conference presented by Steve Schissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach, and … the present writer, involved a ‘fundamental denial of the essence of the Christian gospel in the denial of justification by faith alone.’ Consequently, the four of us were declared to be heretics… the material presented here CAN be considered as… something of a response. The basic theme of this book is what brought about the charges in the first place, and … I have written responsively with the charges in mind….
“We believe our opponents to be sincere and honest Christians, but men who have erroneously made a bad truce with modernity and who have accommodated their theology to the abstract dictates of the Enlightenment… the dispute is not imaginary---there are real and important differences between us. We do not believe the differences to constitute heresy… I would suggest that this is a debate between the Enlightenment TRs [‘Truly Reformed’] and the historical Reformed.” He adds in Chapter 1, “One of the great reformational needs in the Church today is the need for us to understand the objectivity of the covenant, and so that is the thrust of this book." (Pg. 13)
He explains, “The Scriptures teach that there are two kinds of people ultimately, not to mention four kinds of people in the meantime. At the end of human history, the human race will have been divided into two categories, the inhabitants of heaven and hell respectively. Those who have everlasting life THEN are those who received everlasting life here, those who believed on the Son. Those on whom the wrath of God remains are those who did not believe the Son.” (Pg. 33-34)
He asserts, “We are arguing for the objectivity of the covenant. But how are we to define the objective covenant?... Our Bibles can be divided into two sections---the OLD Covenant and the NEW Covenant… ‘Covenants’ among men are solemn bonds, sovereignly administered, with attendant blessings and curses…. Scripture teaches that there is only one covenantal history, which we may call the ‘covenant of grace.’ … Before the Fall, God made a covenant with mankind in Adam, which we violated through our sin… After the Fall, God made covenants throughout the Old Testament … Ultimately, they constitute the same covenant… All of these covenants find their ultimate fulfillment in the Lord of the covenant, that is, in Jesus Christ.” (Pg. 63-65)
He suggests, “here is one of the rare places in which we would suggest an improvement in the language of the [Westminster] Confession. A problem is created when we affirm a belief in two churches at the same moment in time, one visible and the other invisible. Are they the same Church or not? If they are, then why are ‘membership rosters’ different? If they are not, then which one is the true Church? We know that Christ has only one Bride. The natural supposition is that the invisible Church, made up of the elect, is the true Church. But this leads to a disparagement of the visible Church, and eventually necessitates, I believe, a baptistic understanding of the Church. Because time and history are not taken into account, we wind up with two Churches on different ontological levels.” (Pg. 74)
He contends, “there is no such thing as a merely nominal Christian any more than we can find a man who is a nominal husband…. He is a covenant breaker, but this is not the same thing as saying that he has no covenant to break. In the same way, there are multitudes of faithless Christians, who do not believe what God said at their baptism. But the tragedy is that there are many conscientious conservative Christians who do not believe what God said at their baptism either.” (Pg. 96-97)
He summarizes, “baptism in water is objective, and it establishes an objective covenant relationship with the Lord of the covenant, Jesus Christ. Of course this baptism does not automatically save the one baptized; there is no magical cleansing power in the water… But it is the thesis of this book that … When you baptize an unrepentant pagan, what you actually get is a covenant-breaker. His baptism now obligates him to live a life of repentance, lost and trust, which he is refusing to do… baptism therefore accomplishes something.” (Pg. 99)
He concludes, “The objectivity of the covenant is a true deliverance from morbid introspection… We are to take at face value the baptisms of others… If there is conflict between what baptism means and what the baptized are openly doing and saying, then we are at liberty to point to the inconsistency and say it constitutes covenantal faithlessness. But we need to be extremely wary of pronouncing on the secret things…” (Pg. 193(
He continues, “Whenever someone is baptized, something really happens that puts them into communion with all other visible saints. This does not guarantee that they will be faithful to that communion, but they must be a participant of the communion in order to be able to betray it…” (Pg. 195)
“[W]e appear to be divided into two positions. The first is that we should accept all kinds of heretical ‘Christians’ with all friendliness. The other is that we should reject their heresies, along with any title to the name ‘Christian.’ … we should see that our disapproval of fellow covenant members is an OBJECTIVE disapproval. We no longer disapprove because their ‘lack of regeneration’ has been weighed in the balances of our discernment and been found wanting.” (Pg.. 195-196)
He concludes, “If covenant members are doing what is demonstrably wrong, and it is necessary for you to be involved, you may say that they are not being faithful to the covenant. And the response is to call them to faithfulness… call them back to their baptism and to the terms of the covenant, and not to an invisible experience, which neither you nor they would necessarily recognize.” (Pg. 197)
This book will be of interest to those who are VERY interested in ‘details’ of Reformed theology, etc,
Douglas Wilson is a conservative Reformed theologian who teaches at New Saint Andrews College, as well as pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He wrote in the Foreword to this 2002 book, “On June 22, 2002, Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS declared that certain teachings at a pastors’ conference presented by Steve Schissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach, and … the present writer, involved a ‘fundamental denial of the essence of the Christian gospel in the denial of justification by faith alone.’ Consequently, the four of us were declared to be heretics… the material presented here CAN be considered as… something of a response. The basic theme of this book is what brought about the charges in the first place, and … I have written responsively with the charges in mind….
“We believe our opponents to be sincere and honest Christians, but men who have erroneously made a bad truce with modernity and who have accommodated their theology to the abstract dictates of the Enlightenment… the dispute is not imaginary---there are real and important differences between us. We do not believe the differences to constitute heresy… I would suggest that this is a debate between the Enlightenment TRs [‘Truly Reformed’] and the historical Reformed.” He adds in Chapter 1, “One of the great reformational needs in the Church today is the need for us to understand the objectivity of the covenant, and so that is the thrust of this book." (Pg. 13)
He explains, “The Scriptures teach that there are two kinds of people ultimately, not to mention four kinds of people in the meantime. At the end of human history, the human race will have been divided into two categories, the inhabitants of heaven and hell respectively. Those who have everlasting life THEN are those who received everlasting life here, those who believed on the Son. Those on whom the wrath of God remains are those who did not believe the Son.” (Pg. 33-34)
He asserts, “We are arguing for the objectivity of the covenant. But how are we to define the objective covenant?... Our Bibles can be divided into two sections---the OLD Covenant and the NEW Covenant… ‘Covenants’ among men are solemn bonds, sovereignly administered, with attendant blessings and curses…. Scripture teaches that there is only one covenantal history, which we may call the ‘covenant of grace.’ … Before the Fall, God made a covenant with mankind in Adam, which we violated through our sin… After the Fall, God made covenants throughout the Old Testament … Ultimately, they constitute the same covenant… All of these covenants find their ultimate fulfillment in the Lord of the covenant, that is, in Jesus Christ.” (Pg. 63-65)
He suggests, “here is one of the rare places in which we would suggest an improvement in the language of the [Westminster] Confession. A problem is created when we affirm a belief in two churches at the same moment in time, one visible and the other invisible. Are they the same Church or not? If they are, then why are ‘membership rosters’ different? If they are not, then which one is the true Church? We know that Christ has only one Bride. The natural supposition is that the invisible Church, made up of the elect, is the true Church. But this leads to a disparagement of the visible Church, and eventually necessitates, I believe, a baptistic understanding of the Church. Because time and history are not taken into account, we wind up with two Churches on different ontological levels.” (Pg. 74)
He contends, “there is no such thing as a merely nominal Christian any more than we can find a man who is a nominal husband…. He is a covenant breaker, but this is not the same thing as saying that he has no covenant to break. In the same way, there are multitudes of faithless Christians, who do not believe what God said at their baptism. But the tragedy is that there are many conscientious conservative Christians who do not believe what God said at their baptism either.” (Pg. 96-97)
He summarizes, “baptism in water is objective, and it establishes an objective covenant relationship with the Lord of the covenant, Jesus Christ. Of course this baptism does not automatically save the one baptized; there is no magical cleansing power in the water… But it is the thesis of this book that … When you baptize an unrepentant pagan, what you actually get is a covenant-breaker. His baptism now obligates him to live a life of repentance, lost and trust, which he is refusing to do… baptism therefore accomplishes something.” (Pg. 99)
He concludes, “The objectivity of the covenant is a true deliverance from morbid introspection… We are to take at face value the baptisms of others… If there is conflict between what baptism means and what the baptized are openly doing and saying, then we are at liberty to point to the inconsistency and say it constitutes covenantal faithlessness. But we need to be extremely wary of pronouncing on the secret things…” (Pg. 193(
He continues, “Whenever someone is baptized, something really happens that puts them into communion with all other visible saints. This does not guarantee that they will be faithful to that communion, but they must be a participant of the communion in order to be able to betray it…” (Pg. 195)
“[W]e appear to be divided into two positions. The first is that we should accept all kinds of heretical ‘Christians’ with all friendliness. The other is that we should reject their heresies, along with any title to the name ‘Christian.’ … we should see that our disapproval of fellow covenant members is an OBJECTIVE disapproval. We no longer disapprove because their ‘lack of regeneration’ has been weighed in the balances of our discernment and been found wanting.” (Pg.. 195-196)
He concludes, “If covenant members are doing what is demonstrably wrong, and it is necessary for you to be involved, you may say that they are not being faithful to the covenant. And the response is to call them to faithfulness… call them back to their baptism and to the terms of the covenant, and not to an invisible experience, which neither you nor they would necessarily recognize.” (Pg. 197)
This book will be of interest to those who are VERY interested in ‘details’ of Reformed theology, etc,
August 8, 2023
The reason that prompted me to read this book, was J.V. Fesko's numerous disparaging references to it from his - at times brilliant - tome 'Word, Water & Spirit'.
Fesko kicks proceedings off by claiming, 'The ignorance of the history of the doctrine of baptism is especially true of treatments coming from proponents of the so-called Federal Vision. See Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough'. Unfortunately for attentive and fair-minded readers, Fesko provides no further arguments to back up this claim.
He then makes the remarkable and frankly ridiculous claim that Wilson is of the same view as Roman Catholic theologians Rahner and Schillebeeckx, summarising Rahner's view as "No matter if a person is a schismatic or a heretic, he always retains his relationship to the church because he has been baptized." and then commenting, "This is also the view of proponents of the so-called Federal Vision (see Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough". Clearly Fesko hasn't read this book, or is being deliberately misleading? While there is an overlap between Wilson and Rahner, this belies the fact that Rahner and Wilson reach their conclusions based on wholly different understandings of the sacraments in general and the sacrament of baptism in particular.
Not one to stumble when you can blunder, Fesko puts his foot in it with a spot of semantic pedantry, leading him to the ridiculous claim that Wilson, following Leithart sees "the sacraments more in Roman Catholic sacerdotal terms, rejecting the means in the means of grace: (quoting Leithart), “Baptism is not, strictly, a ‘means of grace,’ a ‘bottle containing the medicine of grace’ or a ‘channel’ through which the fluid of grace flows. Rather baptism is a gift of God’s grace, since through it He adopts us as sons. And the ‘sonship’ conferred by baptism is not ‘external’ to our basic identity but constitutive of it.” This statement is a caricature and does not accurately reflect the Reformed view." By now, one must conclude that Fesko simply has not read Reformed Is Not Enough, despite his references to it.
Finally, Fesko, commenting on 1 Corinthians 10, claims "Baptism therefore must be coordinated not with election into the invisible church but with covenant, the context in which election is revealed. Even then, election is ultimately and definitively revealed at the consummation, not during the present already/not yet.", but then claims - bizarrely - in the footnote "This position is in contrast to those who reject the visible-invisible church distinction and argue that Christians genuinely do fall away and lose their salvation because they were not granted perseverance (see Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough". Bizarrely for this reason, namely, that Wilson argues exactly this point, that baptism be coordinated not with election into the invisible church but with the covenent.
So thanks to Fesko for leading me to this clear, logical and well-argued book.
As Wilson says at some point towards the end, the fundamental point of this book is that 'Election is one thing and covenant membership is another.' Why this statement is both Scriptural and the doctrinal confession of the historic Reformed faith, as summarised in the Westminster Confession, and what the implications of this confession are, make up the subject of this book.
The book is classic Wilson - meaning most of the chapters are a couple of pages too short, as Wilson, having roughly chopped up the meat of his doctrine, leaves the chips to fall where they may, to mix metaphors. Despite that, good pastors should be able to join up the dots.
And do read Fesko; he's not at his strongest when it comes to historical theology and historical dogmatics, but his biblical theology is very good, and the covenantal and eschatological significance he draws out in his understanding of baptism is some very fine and helpful theology indeed.
Fesko kicks proceedings off by claiming, 'The ignorance of the history of the doctrine of baptism is especially true of treatments coming from proponents of the so-called Federal Vision. See Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough'. Unfortunately for attentive and fair-minded readers, Fesko provides no further arguments to back up this claim.
He then makes the remarkable and frankly ridiculous claim that Wilson is of the same view as Roman Catholic theologians Rahner and Schillebeeckx, summarising Rahner's view as "No matter if a person is a schismatic or a heretic, he always retains his relationship to the church because he has been baptized." and then commenting, "This is also the view of proponents of the so-called Federal Vision (see Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough". Clearly Fesko hasn't read this book, or is being deliberately misleading? While there is an overlap between Wilson and Rahner, this belies the fact that Rahner and Wilson reach their conclusions based on wholly different understandings of the sacraments in general and the sacrament of baptism in particular.
Not one to stumble when you can blunder, Fesko puts his foot in it with a spot of semantic pedantry, leading him to the ridiculous claim that Wilson, following Leithart sees "the sacraments more in Roman Catholic sacerdotal terms, rejecting the means in the means of grace: (quoting Leithart), “Baptism is not, strictly, a ‘means of grace,’ a ‘bottle containing the medicine of grace’ or a ‘channel’ through which the fluid of grace flows. Rather baptism is a gift of God’s grace, since through it He adopts us as sons. And the ‘sonship’ conferred by baptism is not ‘external’ to our basic identity but constitutive of it.” This statement is a caricature and does not accurately reflect the Reformed view." By now, one must conclude that Fesko simply has not read Reformed Is Not Enough, despite his references to it.
Finally, Fesko, commenting on 1 Corinthians 10, claims "Baptism therefore must be coordinated not with election into the invisible church but with covenant, the context in which election is revealed. Even then, election is ultimately and definitively revealed at the consummation, not during the present already/not yet.", but then claims - bizarrely - in the footnote "This position is in contrast to those who reject the visible-invisible church distinction and argue that Christians genuinely do fall away and lose their salvation because they were not granted perseverance (see Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough". Bizarrely for this reason, namely, that Wilson argues exactly this point, that baptism be coordinated not with election into the invisible church but with the covenent.
So thanks to Fesko for leading me to this clear, logical and well-argued book.
As Wilson says at some point towards the end, the fundamental point of this book is that 'Election is one thing and covenant membership is another.' Why this statement is both Scriptural and the doctrinal confession of the historic Reformed faith, as summarised in the Westminster Confession, and what the implications of this confession are, make up the subject of this book.
The book is classic Wilson - meaning most of the chapters are a couple of pages too short, as Wilson, having roughly chopped up the meat of his doctrine, leaves the chips to fall where they may, to mix metaphors. Despite that, good pastors should be able to join up the dots.
And do read Fesko; he's not at his strongest when it comes to historical theology and historical dogmatics, but his biblical theology is very good, and the covenantal and eschatological significance he draws out in his understanding of baptism is some very fine and helpful theology indeed.
March 1, 2021
Just finished this one. This review is off the cuff, so I don't plan to do a deep dive or a thorough review of the book.
I appreciate that Wilson wrote this book in the context of addressing a controversy (FV, accusations of heresy, etc.), and so his inclusion of chapters dealing with his Calvinistic, Evangelical, and Reformation Bona Fides (chapters 2-4) makes sense. I found those chapters helpful and clarifying in coming to understand what he believes and teaches.
He spends a good deal of time interacting with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is also good, and clarifies what he does and does not teach.
A number of times he explicitly disagrees with B.B. Warfield on sacerdotalism and the means of grace. I found that troubling to say the least. (Pretty bold move, Cotton!) He has since retracted that in a blog post here: https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur...
Now I have heard/read no small amount of criticism of Wilson in Reformed circles, some valid, some not so much. To some he is downright radioactive, even heretical. After reading this book, I tend to think that is overblown.
I will say this, however. I did not find the book to be very clear or persuasive as to the main objective. He certainly makes some fine points throughout, but his assertion about the Reformed views on the covenant (i.e. the lack of objectivity of it) being the result of 17th century enlightenment thinking (or something like that) was simply not demonstrated, in my opinion.
Ironically enough, this same kind of argument reminded me of what some critical reviews of recent books on gender roles in the church pointed out - that they claim that our predominant view of these things has been warped by Victorian ideals, but fail to demonstrate this to be the case. Having said that, however, in this book (also similarly to those books), he is addressing some valid concerns in many Reformed circles. I'm just not convinced that he provides the right solution to those concerns overall in this book.
His assertion about the influence of enlightenment rationalism probably explains why he does not interact much with (or at least not quote approvingly or for support) the teaching of our Reformed forefathers over the past 300 years in order to show that his views on covenant are in line with theirs. (You could argue that he wasn't claiming such anyway for the most part, I guess.)
I found that rather off-putting and concerning. If I found myself teaching something that was in some ways seemingly foreign to mainstream Reformed theologians over the past 300+ years, I would be alarmed, and would tread rather carefully. Just saying. (It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it's not usually a good sign.)
I found my antennae up, so to speak, in a number of places in the book. Part of that is probably due to the controversy involved with Wilson and with FV (which he no longer professes to be a part of). But some of it was due to the language he uses in some places. For example, he speaks of "covenantal" election as distinguished from individual election. If all he means by that is that God sovereignly foreordained that some are included in the covenant community (the church) who are not regenerate and not ultimately elect unto salvation, so be it. But using terminology that is seemingly novel (although he says he is using Calvin's language here) can be jarring for the reader. I am certainly no Ph.D., but I am not a novice in the study of theology.
I didn't find the book to be all that clear at points, and I didn't find it to be terribly edifying on the whole. I would not recommend this book to anyone for simple edification. I would, however, recommend it to anyone who actually wants to understand what all the fuss is about with Wilson, FV, etc. That does, after all, seem to be the purpose of the book. And for that, I am glad that I finally read it.
I appreciate that Wilson wrote this book in the context of addressing a controversy (FV, accusations of heresy, etc.), and so his inclusion of chapters dealing with his Calvinistic, Evangelical, and Reformation Bona Fides (chapters 2-4) makes sense. I found those chapters helpful and clarifying in coming to understand what he believes and teaches.
He spends a good deal of time interacting with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is also good, and clarifies what he does and does not teach.
A number of times he explicitly disagrees with B.B. Warfield on sacerdotalism and the means of grace. I found that troubling to say the least. (Pretty bold move, Cotton!) He has since retracted that in a blog post here: https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur...
Now I have heard/read no small amount of criticism of Wilson in Reformed circles, some valid, some not so much. To some he is downright radioactive, even heretical. After reading this book, I tend to think that is overblown.
I will say this, however. I did not find the book to be very clear or persuasive as to the main objective. He certainly makes some fine points throughout, but his assertion about the Reformed views on the covenant (i.e. the lack of objectivity of it) being the result of 17th century enlightenment thinking (or something like that) was simply not demonstrated, in my opinion.
Ironically enough, this same kind of argument reminded me of what some critical reviews of recent books on gender roles in the church pointed out - that they claim that our predominant view of these things has been warped by Victorian ideals, but fail to demonstrate this to be the case. Having said that, however, in this book (also similarly to those books), he is addressing some valid concerns in many Reformed circles. I'm just not convinced that he provides the right solution to those concerns overall in this book.
His assertion about the influence of enlightenment rationalism probably explains why he does not interact much with (or at least not quote approvingly or for support) the teaching of our Reformed forefathers over the past 300 years in order to show that his views on covenant are in line with theirs. (You could argue that he wasn't claiming such anyway for the most part, I guess.)
I found that rather off-putting and concerning. If I found myself teaching something that was in some ways seemingly foreign to mainstream Reformed theologians over the past 300+ years, I would be alarmed, and would tread rather carefully. Just saying. (It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it's not usually a good sign.)
I found my antennae up, so to speak, in a number of places in the book. Part of that is probably due to the controversy involved with Wilson and with FV (which he no longer professes to be a part of). But some of it was due to the language he uses in some places. For example, he speaks of "covenantal" election as distinguished from individual election. If all he means by that is that God sovereignly foreordained that some are included in the covenant community (the church) who are not regenerate and not ultimately elect unto salvation, so be it. But using terminology that is seemingly novel (although he says he is using Calvin's language here) can be jarring for the reader. I am certainly no Ph.D., but I am not a novice in the study of theology.
I didn't find the book to be all that clear at points, and I didn't find it to be terribly edifying on the whole. I would not recommend this book to anyone for simple edification. I would, however, recommend it to anyone who actually wants to understand what all the fuss is about with Wilson, FV, etc. That does, after all, seem to be the purpose of the book. And for that, I am glad that I finally read it.
June 21, 2024
You hear so much negativity about the Moscow crowd, yet I have never seen many Christians as serious about their faith in Christ. It's always good to read original sources rather than outside subjective critiques. From the reading and listening I've done, the many warnings I have seen floating around are unfounded. I found nothing alarming in this book for the arguments only make good Biblical sense. The point is getting back to what the original writers of the Westminster Confession meant, not seeing the Confession through the lense of the enlightenment, etc. As I strive for a more mature faith, I find resources such as this assets that prod me on. This book is a good start to understanding the applications of the Covenant. Much to meditate on.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews