of customers would recommend this product to a friend.
Displaying items 1-2 of 2
Page 1 of 1
5 Stars Out Of 5
August 14, 2006
Very Good book. Gets to the point and shows how these guys have missed the mark. I would recommend the website "The Federal Vision in their own Words," to counter any attacks from those who say that Waters "didn't understand the material." Most of the people saying that he didn't get it right don't like the fact that he DID get it right. Hits home with clarity and yes it is extensive but what would the FV guys say if it wasn't it??? They aren't going to be happy with anything that exposes their faulty views of "covenant, elecion, salvation, perseverance." Waters other book on the subject exposes the roots of the FV also. He explains the history of the NPP and shows how it relates to the FV. They cannot deny this. Many opposed this accusation and then NT Wright, etc. started showing up at their conferences. The FV is apostate theology. FVers aren't traced to the Westminster Confession but to those who deny that alot of the NT was inspired. Waters tone is nice and he doesn't have an axe to grind. It bothers me to read reviews saying that he wasn't judicious. He has been more fair than FVers have been with their critics. Doug Wilson could learn alot from him.
Long on quotes, short on understanding.When I picked up this book at the yearly meeting of the denomination of which Waters and I both are members, I began reading his book immediately and with great interest. It is impossible to miss the fact that he has familiarized himself with much material. His quotations of the men he critiques are extensive. I was disappointed, however, with Waters seeming inability to get beyond the surface semantics to the fundamental arguments. In critiquing the FV proponents from their writings and lectures, he consistently uses words that indicate that he thinks these men are coming close to a particular aberrant view. He will say things like they dont deny this but they overemphasize this. Then, in his final analyses, he condemns them for being aberrant. His analyses are based upon exegetical assertion (of the Scriptures and the Westminister Standards), employ quite a bit of question begging, create false dilemmas, and dont account adequately for the qualifications and nuances given by the men in question (though he records many of those qualifications and nuances). Waters may win many people pre-disposed to being against these men, but by just a little closer scrutiny the reader will find that he employs poor argumentation.