# The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology by Guy Waters



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 16, 2006)

_The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, A Comparitive Analysis _ by Guy Prentiss Waters has just hit the shelves. Bought my copy today! Looks good


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2006)

See this post on the Reformation 21 blog for some comments on Waters' book.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 22, 2006)

Any more comments on this book? Is it the most definitive work on the subject from the "orthodox" perspective?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 22, 2006)

Cool R. Scott Clark reccomends it!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 28, 2006)

A comment and a question

Comment: The book has some unnecessary and unwarranted words about how Theonomy is somehow the trigger for the FV problem, then has to somewhat backtrack and admit that some of the most vehement critics of FV are Theonomists. He should have just left Theonomy out of it.

Question: A quote from Dr. Calhoun's comments on Reformation 21 blog:

"One. The Federal Vision theology tends toward speculation, especially in its views of the Trinity. Its discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (as covenant within the Godhead) goes beyond the limits of biblical revelation and probes into "God as He is in Himself""”a depth of understanding that, according to Calvin, has not been revealed to us. We can only know "God as He is toward us," and with that knowledge we must be satisfied."

How widespread of a view is it, that talking about a covenant within the Godhead is overly speculative?

CT


----------



## DTK (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> A comment and a question
> 
> Comment: The book has some unnecessary and unwarranted words about how Theonomy is somehow the trigger for the FV problem, then has to somewhat backtrack and admit that some of the most vehement critics of FV are Theonomists. He should have just left Theonomy out of it.


I would disagree with you for this reason. Though are some critics of the FV who are theonomists (for that matter, I embrace the term, because I have a love for God's holy law), nonetheless most of the FV men do share a theonomic background as a common denominator. So I'm not convinced that Dr. Waters observations in that respect are unwarranted.


> Question: A quote from Dr. Calhoun's comments on Reformation 21 blog:
> 
> "One. The Federal Vision theology tends toward speculation, especially in its views of the Trinity. Its discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (as covenant within the Godhead) goes beyond the limits of biblical revelation and probes into "God as He is in Himself""”a depth of understanding that, according to Calvin, has not been revealed to us. We can only know "God as He is toward us," and with that knowledge we must be satisfied."
> 
> ...


I think the following quote from Calvin may be what Dr. Calhoun may have had in mind...

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* Moreover, Satan, in order to tear our faith from its very roots, has always been instigating great battles, partly concerning the divine essence of the Son and the Spirit, partly concerning the distinction of the persons. He has during nearly all ages stirred up ungodly spirits to harry orthodox teachers over this matter can today also is trying to kindle a new fire from the old embers. For these reasons, it is important here to resist the perverse ravings of certain persons. Hitherto it has been my particular intention to lead by the hand those who are teachable, but not to strive hand to hand with the inflexible and the contentious. But now the truth which has been peaceably shown must be maintained against all the calumnies of the wicked. *And yet I will exert especial effort to the end that they who lend ready and open ears to God´s Word may have a firm standing ground, Here, indeed, if anywhere in the secret mysteries of Scripture, we ought to play the philosopher soberly and with great moderation; let us use great caution that neither our thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself extends. For how can the human mind measure off the measureless essence of God according to its own little measure, a mind as yet unable to establish for certain the nature of the sun´s body, though men´s eyes daily gaze upon it? Indeed, how can the mind by its own leading come to search out God´s essence when it cannot even get to its own? Let us then willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself.* For, as Hilary says, he is the one fit witness to himself, and is not known except through himself. But we shall be "œleaving it to him" if we conceive him to be as he reveals himself to us, without inquiring about him elsewhere than from his Word. On this question there are extant five homilies of Chrysostom Against the Anomoeans; yet not even these could restrain the presumptuous Sophists from giving their stuttering tongues free rein. For in this matter they have behaved no more modestly than they usually do everywhere. We ought to be warned by the unhappy outcome of this presumption so that we may take care to apply ourselves to this question with teachableness rather than with subtlety. *And let us not take it into our heads either to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from that Word. But if some distinction does exist in the one divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit "” something hard to grasp "” and occasions to certain minds more difficulty and trouble than is expedient, let it be remembered that men´s minds, when they indulge their curiosity, enter into a labyrinth. And so let them yield themselves to be ruled by the heavenly oracles, even though they may fail to capture the height of the mystery.* _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book I.13.21, pp. 145-146.

DTK


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Is this any different than saying that HyperCalvinists have a common denominator of Calvinism?

It is also much easier to blame the whole thing on Van Til, which quite a few people have, for Shepherd was VanTillian while never being a Theonomist.




> > Question: A quote from Dr. Calhoun's comments on Reformation 21 blog:
> >
> > "One. The Federal Vision theology tends toward speculation, especially in its views of the Trinity. Its discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (as covenant within the Godhead) goes beyond the limits of biblical revelation and probes into "God as He is in Himself""”a depth of understanding that, according to Calvin, has not been revealed to us. We can only know "God as He is toward us," and with that knowledge we must be satisfied."
> >
> ...



I understand where the sentiment came from, my question was how widespread is Calvin's view (or Calhoun's interpretation of Calvin's view) in reformed circles.

CT


----------



## MW (Jun 28, 2006)

I believe the idea of covenant as a metaphysical concept originated with the Dutch, especially the Kuyperian school. William Young contributed an excellent artice to WTJ on the differences between traditional and neo-Calvinism.

I would maintain that consubstantiality rules out an inter-Trinitarian covenant. It doesn't rule out an ad extra covenant, however, as is avowed in the so-called "covenant of redemption."


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I believe the idea of covenant as a metaphysical concept originated with the Dutch, especially the Kuyperian school. William Young contributed an excellent artice to WTJ on the differences between traditional and neo-Calvinism.
> 
> I would maintain that consubstantiality rules out an inter-Trinitarian covenant. It doesn't rule out an ad extra covenant, however, as is avowed in the so-called "covenant of redemption."



Do you have a link or name of any works on how consubstantiatlity rules out an inter-Trinitarian covenant or how the one can accep the COR while rejection inter-Trinitarian covenants?

CT


----------



## DTK (Jun 28, 2006)

> Is this any different than saying that HyperCalvinists have a common denominator of Calvinism?
> 
> It is also much easier to blame the whole thing on Van Til, which quite a few people have, for Shepherd was VanTillian while never being a Theonomist.


Dear CT,

I am not going to enter into a dispute on this point. I simply noted that I'm not convinced that Waters' observation that most of the FV men share a common theonomic influence is without warrant. Nor am I going to comment on Van Til.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Nor am I convinced that the connection is unwarranted, and Waters certainly is not the first to make the connection. That is one of the things I first noticed about FV/NPP, is that many of the proponents have a background in theonomy and reconstructionism. I can't think of any offhand that aren't postmil. That's not a knock on postmillenialism, but covenantal nomism fits in quite well with it, especially theonomic postmillenialism. But it would be inaccurate to say that theonomy=FV since many of the strongest opponents are postmil and theonomic, like Dr. F.N. Lee and Joe Morecraft, to name a couple.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 28, 2006)

For what it's worth,

North and Jordan held to paedo-communion while Rushdoony and others denied the CoW. To me there are some linkages but people go afoul when they trace it to theonomy proper. Views on the continuation of and application of God's law does not entail the connection nor does postmil...


----------



## MW (Jun 28, 2006)

Not off the top of my head. But the purpose of a covenant is to bring two different parties into agreement. Consubstantiality tells us "these three are one." Hence there is no room for a covenant.

One chapter of Patrick Gillespie's Ark of the Covenant is to be found here:

http://www.truecovenanter.com/supralapsarian/pgilles_aoc_cap03.html

I remember he has some good preliminary points for discussing it, but can't recall him saying anything about the Trinity.

There are also chapters in Dickson's Therapeutica Sacra and Rutherford's Covenant of Life Opened. The COR tends to take on a life of its own under these authors.

Marrowmen like Thomas Boston rejected the idea of it being different from the covenant of grace, and I tend to agree with him. There is one everlasting covenant according to Scripture, and two historical covenants which bring the everlasting covenant to realisation.


----------



## AdamM (Jun 28, 2006)

CT, I think Pastor King is correct. It isn't that Waters is equating Theonomy with FV per se, but rather making the observation that most of the FV men that you will run into would at the very least fit into the small "t" theomonist camp. 

For my $02:

a. Theonomy / theonomy 
b. Paedocommunion
c. Strong presumptive regeneration 
d. Very formalized - covenant renewal approach to worship, with the Lord's Supper becoming the primary focus of the service (as opposed to the sermon) 
e. Biblicism 
f. Usually people who have come into Presbyterianism from either a Jesus People sort of background (- Wilson) or hard shell fundamentalism.

Holding to any one or all of the first five distinctives doesn't make one into a Federal Visionist and as mentioned earlier some of the most strident opponents fit into those categories too, but I do think it's accurate to say that almost every FV'ist will fit into the template.



[Edited on 6-29-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## turmeric (Jun 29, 2006)

Profiling! You can't do that!

Oh, that was _racial_ profiling. Nevermind!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 29, 2006)

Adam,

Perhaps being hyper-paternalistic is assumed with a. and/or c. in your list but I've noticed that's a common thread among them as well.


----------



## AdamM (Jun 29, 2006)

Rich, I agree completely. At some level all of the distinctives boil down to hermeneutics and after rubbing on this stuff for years now, I am convinced that that's the root of the problem. Our confessional standards function as a shared hermeneutic and when that hermeneutic is rejected and replaced by another system, you get all of these disconnects and bizarre contortions trying to bring the two together.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Rich, I agree completely. At some level all of the distinctives boil down to hermeneutics and after rubbing on this stuff for years now, I am convinced that that's the root of the problem. Our confessional standards function as a shared hermeneutic and when that hermeneutic is rejected and replaced by another system, you get all of these disconnects and bizarre contortions trying to bring the two together.


I like the term "shared hermaneutic" you used. That's a good way of looking at it.

Recently a class I had been teaching in Adult Sunday School caused me to delve into the Protestant understanding of Private Interpretation. Reading Matt's article on the value of tradition and what Sola Scriptura meant to the Reformers as opposed to Sol*o* Scriptura as is practiced by many today, I've begun to appreciate, even more, the value that the Church plays in guarding us from error. Obviously the Church can err but some have moved so quickly away from the Reformed hermaneutic to a "...it seemed right in their own eyes..." hermaneutic that it takes the breath away.

In my estimation, when all the established Reformed Churches are condemning your understandings of the Scripture and those you once called brother and worshipped among are saying your'e in error it should cause you some no small amount of pause. Instead, it seems to steel the resolve of some to rebel. After all, we just don't get it.

I hope if I ever found myself led to the point where I had to go to some micro-denomination in a Church so distinct and peculiar in practice that it scared away all but the truly dedicated that I would start to see the movement for what it is.

Looking from the inside out, I'm sure it appears much different. Looking from the outside in it is very frightening to see how some previous "pillars" have almost become cult leaders in just a few short years.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 29, 2006)

Rich, what's hyper-paternalism?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 29, 2006)

paedo communion I think


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 29, 2006)

Dear Matthew and All,

As I understand the history of Reformed theology, there basically two different and complimentary ways of speaking about the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis or consilium pacis - council of peace). One way is to think of it with respect to Son's obedience, in which case it is spoken of in more legal terms or when it has the elect in view, as in WLC and in Boston, it can be identified with the covenant of grace. It's not that there are really different covenant theologies at work, but the same PS/CP from different angles.

The assumption behind the PS is the strong trinitarian theology found in Calvin and others where the trinitarian persons are conceived as subsistences, consubstantial, but quite distinct persons with distinct properties such that they are able to enter into legal personal relations with one another.

To use consubstanitality to rule out the PS is saying more than needs to be said and using consubstantiality in a way that is foreign to our tradition. Consubstantiality guarantees the success of the PS but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of intra-trinitarian covenant. 

I discuss this at some length in the forthcoming volume (to be published in Nov? by P&R)

cheers,

rsc



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Not off the top of my head. But the purpose of a covenant is to bring two different parties into agreement. Consubstantiality tells us "these three are one." Hence there is no room for a covenant.
> 
> One chapter of Patrick Gillespie's Ark of the Covenant is to be found here:
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 29, 2006)

Thank you, Scott.

Right on the money.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Rich, what's hyper-paternalism?


Sorry, tried to respond before I went to bed but server wasn't working.

Not sure if it's a technical term but seems like the best way to describe it. Most FV folk I know have an over-developed sense of the husband/father as the vicarious head of the household.

Lord's Supper: Administer to the father who brings it to his family and gives it to them?

Discipline: Don't talk to my wife Mr. Elder. Talk to me and then I'll let her know the issue.

I've also detected a bit of over-reaching when it comes to trying to seem manly. My experiences are not scientific but it seems that usually the men are not naturally tough or rugged but then go out of their way to seem like the salt of the earth types. I knew one couple who wouldn't let the mom hold the infant son during Church, even though the son would cry repeatedly as the father lacked a tender touch, because they wanted to make sure the son bonded with the father more closely.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 29, 2006)

I think we mean "intra-Trinitarian," rather than inter-Trinitarian (which would be between two Trinities).

I see this language even in academic books so it's no one's fault, but I can't help being a teacher, even on vacation. Pick. Pick. Pick.

rsc



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 29, 2006)

> It is also much easier to blame the whole thing on Van Til, which quite a few people have, for Shepherd was VanTillian while never being a Theonomist.



Norm's relations to theonomy are complicated. I guess it's true that he isn't a theonomist (as far as I know) strictly speaking. He has some things in common and, as I understand the history of the original episode (ca. '74-81 at WTS/P) he did have a lot of support from theonomic students and those sympathetic to theonomy. Otoh, as some have noted, some theonomists (e.g., those in Atlanta associated with Joe Morecraft) have been staunchly critical of NS. Roger Wagner, otoh, probably represents a greater portion of the theonomic movement when he says that, paraphrasing, were GB alive today he would support the FV. Who knows? 

Norm articulated and defended in an encyclopedia entry a vigorous (to say the least) form of postmillennialism with which the CR and theonomic folks resonate. 

Since that time, theonomists and some CR folk have alternately criticized him and then supported him, e.g. Andrew Sandlin. I'm also thinking of Steve Schlei (no, not Schlissel) comes to mind. He was a minister in the RCUS and then was deposed for heresy. Steve was on both sides of the issue at different times. Last I knew he had denied the imputation of active obedience and was even more explicit than Norm (at least since about '75) about making obedience the instrument of justification. At one time, anyway, Steve was regarded as a leading theonomist/CR-ist.

rsc


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> I discuss this at some length in the forthcoming volume (to be published in Nov? by P&R)
> ...



Which/what volume is this?

CT


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 29, 2006)

Whatever happened to Steve Schlei? Or do I just not go in the right Internet circles.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm glad you asked!

R. Scott Clark, ed., _Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculy of Westminster Seminary California _(Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, forthcoming).

We're hoping and praying for a Nov '06 release.

rsc




> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

Greetings Prof. Clark,



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> As I understand the history of Reformed theology, there basically two different and complimentary ways of speaking about the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis or consilium pacis - council of peace).



That sounds right. My regret is that many today speak about a Covenant of Redemption without understanding the two complimentary ways.



> One way is to think of it with respect to Son's obedience, in which case it is spoken of in more legal terms or when it has the elect in view, as in WLC and in Boston, it can be identified with the covenant of grace. It's not that there are really different covenant theologies at work, but the same PS/CP from different angles.



I think in Boston and Hog's case there is a slightly different perspective.  The emphasis is upon the covenant of grace preached to sinners of mankind. That simply wasn't a theological problem in the previous century. By maintaining a separate covenant of redemption theologians could separate Christ's work from the preached covenant. That wasn't feasible for the Marrowmen.



> The assumption behind the PS is the strong trinitarian theology found in Calvin and others where the trinitarian persons are conceived as subsistences, consubstantial, but quite distinct persons with distinct properties such that they are able to enter into legal personal relations with one another.



This is not really at issue. A covenant made with Christ on behalf of the elect is ad extra, not intrinsic.



> To use consubstanitality to rule out the PS is saying more than needs to be said and using consubstantiality in a way that is foreign to our tradition. Consubstantiality guarantees the success of the PS but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of intra-trinitarian covenant.



Perhaps it is the way I understand the language, but I wouldn't regard the covenant made with Christ as intra-Trinitarian. The word intra sounds amiss to me, and does not bring out the ad extra nature of the thing.

An opus Dei ad intra does not have any outward object for its goal.



> I discuss this at some length in the forthcoming volume (to be published in Nov? by P&R)



Noted, and I look forward to obtaining it. Blessings!


----------



## py3ak (Jun 29, 2006)

Steve Schlissel, I have been told, is not paedo-communionist.


----------

