The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis

by Guy Prentiss Waters

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

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Biblical Studies

416 pages, Paperback

First published June 14, 2006

About the author

Guy Prentiss Waters (PhD, Duke University) is James M. Baird Jr. Professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson. He is the author or editor of fifteen books and numerous chapters, articles, and reviews. He is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

Reviews

[Megan Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Um hey, so this book took me... three months to read.
But I finished it!
I read this on recommendation of my pastor (one of my favorite humans ever). I asked him if he could give me a quick explanation of Federal Vision, and he was like, "Here, go read this 300 page book." So I did.
No regrets, honestly. I learned a ton. Waters writes really well, though not always in normal people words. Haha
It seemed really fair to all sides, and just kind of laid things out for examination. I still wouldn't say I'm able to give a clear explanation of what FV is, but I understand more than I did. Which was the goal.
I think I'll take a break from thick theology books for a bit.

[Zack · Rating 5 out of 5]

A devastating but fair critique. Nothing else really needs to be said about the Federal Vision theological movement. Waters covers all of the bases.

[Tyler Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was SUPER helpful in a few ways and disappointingly unhelpful in some others. I picked it up because several of my former students have been sucked into the gravitational pull that is the Moscow mood: fanboying over Doug Wilson, flirting with Christian nationalism, and always walking around with a Canon Press voice in their ear. I had hoped that this book, by one of my former seminary professors, would help me understand what the Federal Vision is. Specifically, I wanted to know whether this was 1) the historic reformed faith in new branding, 2) another Christian denomination - not reformed, but not anti-Christian, or 3) a non-Christian religion. This book helped me take option 1 off the table, but didn't give much light on the 2-3 distinction.

Where this book was really helpful was orienting me to the debate (or at least where it was in 2006 when it was published). Waters does a masterful job of citing his opponents at length and representing them fairly. No one could argue he has not read them carefully. He also walks the narrow line of commenting on the breadth of views within the FV movement but also highlighting common strands. His organization and primary source work is a great benefit!

Where this book left me disappointed, and it isn't the fault of the book, is that it is very dated. It's from 2006! But a lot has happened in this movement since then. Doug Wilson, the person I was most eager to understand in the FV crowd, has not stopped talking, publishing and posting since 2006. I can't really think about his theology without thinking about his comments on race, theonomy, and other crude behavior since this date. Paedocommunion, which I entered thinking to be a central tenant of the FV turns out to be an optional view, only addressed in the final pages.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Atrocious.

[Andy Styer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Got a lot of slack from FV proponents when it first came out, but having sat in their camp over the last 15 years or so, I see that this book is all the more valuable now.

[Han · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every so often I get an itch to dive into this subject.

This may be the best one I’ve read so far. I’ve read Dewey Roberts, the Knox colloquium (partially) and have picked up others but haven’t finished them.

This subject is dry and also technical. So it makes for a boring read. It just can’t be helped.

This book was very complicated and presupposed that you had some working knowledge of what Waters was alluding to. With that, I found it a little challenging while also understandable. Although, I have studied this subject for a many years. To someone with no context or knowledge in the subject it may be too much. Unfortunately, this subject kinda has to be dealt with all at once and there is no “primer” to help a person understand these complex doctrines and theology.

Don’t be intimated. Read it. It’s worth it, though it you have no understanding may be very challenging.

This subject is so important, and I will not stop harassing people to engage with the subject.

Sometimes I was confused if Waters was talking or if one of the proponents was being quoted. That could have been because I was reading on my tablet and it was hard to perceive the different font size and paragraph breaks.

[Andy Dollahite · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mixed bag containing several astute and necessary criticisms (e.g. the departure at times from classical trinitarian theism or the opacity attending some discussions of justification), while at other times caricatures or oversimplifications only muddying the waters (no pun intended).

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Waters provides a thorough working through of the FV heresy from Wilson, Lusk, Liethart, crec, etc.. Waters names names and cites often to be clear in what the opponents of the faith are claiming. If you need an overview of FV, this book covers it well.

[Alex]

While a number of FV proponents found this work offensive when it was published, and in the words of one author, "atrocious", I am persuaded this remains the go to "Comparative Analysis" to obtain a field guide or survey of the various topics of systematic theology where FV proponents have in some one way recalibrated their presentation of traditional Reformed doctrine or raised the suspicions of their Reformed & Presbyterian brethren as having done so. This is not a book aimed to "prove" FV wrong necessarily, but to demonstrate a difference, yes, even at times a departure from Westminster and/or historic Reformed theology. Some FV proponents are more open of doing this, albeit arguing they are only supplementing or furthering Reformed doctrine (not contradicting it). Waters helps bring these authors' own words forward with plenty of sources to read into if desired. He also attempts to offer his own assessment at various points of what might explain certain FV phenomenon which are not as important (for my purposes) as the frequent citations and quotations he brings up in the spectrum of theological topics. Waters may not have gotten everything right in this work, but I for one am thankful for the overall labor involved in producing this kind of book. Perhaps, as one critic has suggested, Waters would have made this book more valuable if he had interacted with some of these authors with his assessments prior to publishing. Maybe someone down the road may provide a better overview and comparative analysis, but I am not yet aware of any. Given this was written in 2006, Steven Wedgeworth's six part piece for The Calvinist International in 2019-20 would provide a helpful supplementary reading.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A STRONG CRITIQUE OF THE “FEDERAL VISION” THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM, COMPARED TO THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS

At the time this book was published in 2004, Guy Prentiss Waters was a professor of biblical studies at Belhaven College; he is an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in America. He has also written books such as 'Justification And The New Perspectives On Paul: A Review and Response.'

He wrote in the Foreword to this 2006 book, "The goal of this project is to show that the FV [Federal Vision], when measured against the Scripture and against the Westminster Standards, not only falls short of the 'whole counsel of God,' but, at any number of points, counters biblical teaching... It is my hope... that readers will take two things from the work. First, they will see that the FV fails not only to rise to the measure of its own professed aims and intentions but also to withstand the light of biblical and confessional scrutiny. Second, they will have awakened in them an interest in studying more deeply our confessional standards as theologically and practically relevant statements for the twenty-first century church." (Pg. xiv-xv)

After the first portion of the book, he summarizes, "We inaugurated our study of the Federal Vision by examining what, according to FV proponents, a covenant is and how this understanding informs or transforms our understanding of the Trinity. We moved in the first of two trajectories in the previous two chapters: the nature and order of the covenants in biblical history, and the doctrine of justification. We are now prepared to launch a second and no less important trajectory. We begin with a study of the way in which covenant and election are related. This study will stem from two conclusions drawn in the opening chapter: the FV doctrine of covenantal objectivity and the FV doctrine of the undifferentiated nature of covenantal membership.” (Pg. 96)

He argues that “[John] Barach embraces two distinct but overlapping doctrines of election. He affirms both decretal election and what he calls covenantal election. Decretal election for Barach has little practical value. He prefers to speak of covenantal election. Covenantal election, as Barach expresses it, bears remarkable similarities to the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. It is in this sense, notwithstanding his profession of the Reformed doctrine of (decretal) election, that we may say that Barach’s overall doctrine of election is Arminian or at least semi-Arminian.” (Pg. 120)

He says that “[Rich] Lusk not only uses the term ‘regeneration’ in at least two (and perhaps three) senses but defends his preferred uses as in keeping with biblical terminology and the purported usage of the early Reformers. Such usage, however, is irresponsible. It unnecessarily invites confusion by rejecting long-standing and conventional uses of a theological term (regeneration). It redefines and uses terms and phrases in ways that are bound to generate confusion within the contemporary church (baptismal regeneration).” (Pg. 227-228)

He adds, “Lusk himself concedes that water baptism is not SO necessary that an elect infant, for instance, will perish in the absence of its administration… there is an inherent tension in his view. Lusk’s REAL doctrine must insist on an absolute necessity of baptism. Practically, however, he recognizes that such a necessity is impossible. The problem is unbaptized or pre-baptized covenant children in utero…

"To affirm that absolute necessity of baptism for receiving the benefits of salvation is necessarily to exclude nonbaptized or prebaptized infants who may be regenerate. On the other hand, to allow some nonbaptized or prebaptized infants to possess the benefits of salvation means… that their baptism is a sign…of what they already possess. Their baptism, then, puts them in possession of nothing salvific.” (Pg. 229-230)

He points out, “the Westminster Standards understand the application of redemption in terms of the ‘means of grace.’ As we have argued in our discussions of baptism, however, one need not affirm FV views concerning sacramental and baptismal efficacy in order to give the Standards’ doctrine of the means of grace its due. FV doctrines may be seen as not only as other than what the Standards teach, but also as overreactions to the minimalistic doctrine that can circulate within Reformed churches.” (Pg. 281)

He summarizes, “In each of these four case studies we have observed examples of what we have termed a flat hermeneutic---an approach to biblical interpretation that so stresses continuity between the Testaments that the teaching of Scripture becomes distorted. We are offered what amounts to a doctrine of conditional election; an unbiblical doctrine of sacramental efficacy; an approach to worship … that is much closer to Rome than it is to Geneva; and the admission of infants to the Lord’s Supper.

"When we inquire what was the breeding ground of this hermeneutic, we need look no further than theonomy, to which Peter Leithart, Douglas Wilson, and Steve Wilkins have subscribed. The theonomic hermeneutic, with its strong emphasis on the continuity of the Testaments, makes possible the phenomena observed in these case studies.” (Pg. 291-292)

He concludes, “The Federal Vision … is first and foremost a theological system…we have raised a number of concerns about explicitly articulated FV statements (the covenant of works, imputation, justification, assurance, sacramental efficacy) as well as concerns about certain implications of FV statements for other doctrines (election, regeneration). On this analysis, it is impossible to reconcile a number of FV statements with Reformed theology as summarized in the Westminster Standards… FV views are out of accord with those Standards… the [FV] system promotes decreased confidence in the Spirit’s working by and with the Word to regenerate the sinner. The FV system promotes increased confidence in the salvific value of one’s covenantal membership and of the sacrament of baptism. It promotes an increased and unwholesome confidence in one’s covenantal faithfulness. It undercuts and diminishes the believer’s trust in Scripture as propositional revelation.” (Pg. 299-300)

This detailed critique will be of great value to anyone studying this controversy---whether or not one agrees with all of Waters’ positions.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important book for anyone who is in the reformed presbyterian circles. I wouldn't say it is the end of all books on the FV subject, but a good and reasonable place to start. You will come away with a better understanding of the issues. It is not a light-hearted read, as it addresses a weighty subject, but it is worthwhile.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Those presbys are messed up. Glad we baptists don't have any such controversies within our ranks.

[Tim Wilder]

One of the important books exposing what is wrong with Federal Vision theology. Based on the author's area of expertise, so not especially informed about the background influences on the movement.

[Micah Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting and thought provoking compilation of various Federal Vision authors, for the purpose of critiquing its general teaching.

[Jacob Aitken]

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.

This raises another point. Few critics of the Federal Vision have been able to distinguish between the Bible and the Confession, so they think that quoting the Confession is quoting the bible, only better!

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.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book 3 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. (That doesn't stop one from getting tenure at Reformed seminaries, though.)

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. 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.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was a very good treatment of the various claims those who identify themselves as part of "The Federal Vision" have made in the context of the current controversy. Waters does a very good job setting forth the Reformed creedal understanding of many of these hot-bed issues (justification, sanctification, baptism, the nature of the church, perseverance, etc.,) as opposed to the contra-creedal claims of the Federal Vision. I thought his discussion on perseverance and apostasy was priceless. Waters was also helpful in his defense of the traditional distinction of the visible/invisible church, as well as internal/external union with Christ. There are some slight flaws, and the desire to pinpoint "the cause" of the Federal Vision seems to have become the opportunity for everyone to name their favorite whipping-boy for the errant ways of the Federal Vision. These points are easily overlooked. If you want to see a good Reformed response to the Federal Vision, Waters definitely makes the cut.

[Kent · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reading this on a dare, or something like that.

I have mostly skimmed so far, so this is hardly a thoughtful opinion...but so far, with quotes like the following, it's scarcely impressive:

"The Standards are careful to say that the sacraments are 'effectual means of salvation,' but this is a far cry from saying that [quoting Wilson] 'worthy receivers...are effectually saved by these sacramental means.'" (p. 201.)

Is it just me, or would that go something like "The Standards are careful to affirm 'A', but this is a far cry from affirming 'A'".

(Nope, context doesn't resolve this.)

[Jason Rivera · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book to counter the satanic Roman Catholic filth of the federal vision.

[Matthew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Waters misses the mark. But still a worthwhile read for anyone serious about this topic, just make sure you balance it out with books from his opponents.

[John Dekker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read the review: Who, if anyone, is really Reformed?