# Mike Horton & Douglas Wilson discuss Federal Theology



## Augusta

This was on the White Horse Inn website. It is in two parts that you can just listen to streaming or right click and save. It is from St. Anne's Pub so you can listen to it at either site. Here are links below.

*White Horse Inn*

*St. Anne's Pub*


----------



## RamistThomist

That sounds interesting


----------



## Me Died Blue

Indeed.


----------



## blhowes

Headphones on and listening


----------



## blhowes

I may just have to give it another listen, probably starting with part 2 where they got more into their differences. The way it ended with Doug Wilson giving his closing comments, I was left with the impression that there weren't major differences or, if there were differences, they weren't really that important.


----------



## RamistThomist

I can't get it to come up


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I can't get it to come up


Bummer. Are you usually able to listen to mp3s across the interenst?


----------



## Irishcat922

I listened to it and it seemed like Wilson was trying to say the only real differences were semantics????

[Edited on 18-12-2004 by Irishcat922]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I can't get it to come up
> 
> 
> 
> Bummer. Are you usually able to listen to mp3s across the interenst?
Click to expand...


I used to be able to listen but I overused my player. Now I can only listen if I burn it onto CD. Is taht an option?


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> I listened to it and it seemed like Wilson was trying to say the only real differences were semantics????


Yeah, that's the impression I got as well. It seemed like a lot of Doug Wilson's time was spent saying "We agree on this, and I support you on this...but we just disagree on this one minor point..." Perhaps if they have similar discussions in the future they can focus more on why the differences are important.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I used to be able to listen but I overused my player. Now I can only listen if I burn it onto CD. Is that an option?


I've never had an mp3 player or a CD burner (though I'd like to someday). I always just listen directly from the computer. Can you do it that way?


----------



## Augusta

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I can't get it to come up
> 
> 
> 
> Bummer. Are you usually able to listen to mp3s across the interenst?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to be able to listen but I overused my player. Now I can only listen if I burn it onto CD. Is that an option?
Click to expand...


Go ahead Jacob. They are giving it away for people to hear. Just don't start selling them.


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> I listened to it and it seemed like Wilson was trying to say the only real differences were semantics????
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the impression I got as well. It seemed like a lot of Doug Wilson's time was spent saying "We agree on this, and I support you on this...but we just disagree on this one minor point..." Perhaps if they have similar discussions in the future they can focus more on why the differences are important.
Click to expand...


I've enjoyed Mike Horton's dogma, I've listen and read Wilson, and I do think that most of the differences between these two men are issues of language. In fact I'm curious as to why you guys don't pick up on this reality. Could it be that there is just so much negative uniformed talk about Wilson that people not reading his actual words have an unfounded bias against him? I think some people like talking bad about others more than they do listening to the other party.



[Edited on 18-12-2004 by Ianterrell]


----------



## luvroftheWord

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> I listened to it and it seemed like Wilson was trying to say the only real differences were semantics????
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's the impression I got as well. It seemed like a lot of Doug Wilson's time was spent saying "We agree on this, and I support you on this...but we just disagree on this one minor point..." Perhaps if they have similar discussions in the future they can focus more on why the differences are important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've enjoyed Mike Horton's dogma, I've listen and read Wilson, and I do think that most of the differences between these two men are issues of language. In fact I'm curious as to why you guys don't pick up on this reality. Could it be that there is just so much negative uniformed talk about Wilson that people not reading his actual words have an unfounded bias against him? I think some people like talking bad about others more than they do listening to the other party.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 18-12-2004 by Ianterrell]
Click to expand...




[Edited on 18-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## RamistThomist

I agree with Ian and LOTW. Someone one this board on--I think it was Paul Manata with respect to Norm Shepherd--said that if you want to find heresy with somebody, you will find it. Now, does Wilson bring much of this grief upon himself? Probably. Now, could Wilson be heretical and some of us haven't seen it yet? Sure.

Now, there is a lot of what Wilson has said by way of application that I do not agree with. There came a time when I couldn't read _Credenda/Agenda_ because of the way that he handled charges.


----------



## fredtgreco

I don't know that I've ever said Wilson was a heretic, nor do I know if he is one. What I do know is that if every five minutes you have to raise the defense of "you have misunderstood me" and then your clarification raises more "misunderstandings" and that on central doctrines, then you should not be a teacher in Christ's church. Clarity is a much a neceesity as orthodoxy.

I also find it hard to get worked up about rough things said about a man who delights in poking as many people in the eye with as a big a stick as he can find as often as possible.


----------



## cupotea

> if every five minutes you have to raise the defense of "you have misunderstood me" and then your clarification raises more "misunderstandings" and that on central doctrines, then you should not be a teacher in Christ's church.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Maybe on Wilson's drivers license it says his staus as 'heretic' jk lol

bad joke


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> I've enjoyed Mike Horton's dogma, I've listen and read Wilson, and I do think that most of the differences between these two men are issues of language. In fact I'm curious as to why you guys don't pick up on this reality. Could it be that there is just so much negative uniformed talk about Wilson that people not reading his actual words have an unfounded bias against him? I think some people like talking bad about others more than they do listening to the other party.



I don't think anybody's talked bad about either Wilson or Horton. I don't know about others, but I am uninformed about the controversy, and had thought that maybe listening to the exchange would bring out the differences between the two and why those differences are important - ie., what's the big deal all about? As I've said, Wilson seemed to agree with Horton on most things and just differ on a few points. If there were differences, they didn't seem to be major ones.

If, as you say, most of the differences between the two are just issues of language, that may or may not be a bad thing. Their differences were over words like faith, works, covenant of works, merit, etc. How each person defines those and similar words may be important. A catholic person would use the same words and mean an entirely different thing than a reformed person would. In the discussions, it wasn't clear whether it was just a matter of semantics of if the differences in meaning were critical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Wilson the wrong person to defend the controversy? I thought he was asked during the discussion if he went as far on some of the issues as the other guys did - it didn't sound like he did. He may lean towards the controversy, but it doesn't sound like he embraces it. Am I wrong?


----------



## luvroftheWord

I just finished listening to the Wilson/Horton dialogue. If Wilson's view of the sacraments make him a Papist, then Horton is a Papist too.


----------



## AdamM

I don't think the interview was that helpful to anyone looking to understand the controversy. In regard to baptism,there was no discussion of the FV interpretation of John 15 and the related issue of the FV concept of apostasy from the covenant. Most of the real issues never got mentioned. 

I also think it is also important to remember that although Wilson claims to hold to double imputation and the Covenant of Works, go pick up the book on the FV and several authors deny both doctrines and all contained in the book that is supposedly laying out what the Federal Vision is. If those ideas don't fall under the "Federal Vision", then what are they doing being promoted in the book explaining the "Federal Vision?" Plus, Wilson says those other FVists promoting those controversial doctrines that are not part of the Federal Vision (yes, those ones featured in the "Federal Vision" book) are all good Reformed folks, teaching nothing irregular. 

It is a big shell game, don't get fooled.


----------



## luvroftheWord

I'd bet a million bucks that if the discussion had gone in the direction of John 15, Horton and Wilson would have agreed upon that as well. To be honest, I don't know why any Covenant Theologian wouldn't agree with what Wilson believes about the passage and apostasy.

Wilson said more than once in that interchange that not everybody that falls under the Federal Vision is in agreement. Mike Horton brought this up and Wilson responded that he disagrees with those in the FV movement that deny the imputation of both passive and active obedience. It is no big secret that some of the FV's agree with N. T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul. Wilson does not, and has openly criticized the NPP on the very issues that the NPP should be opposed for. None of the FV's have ever claimed to be in full agreement on everything. 

Also, Wilson never pretended to hold to the Covenant of Works as traditionally understood. He came out and said that he disagrees with the traditional formulation, but only because of the issue of merit (which is something all FV's oppose). But he does believe a covenant was made with Adam (he prefers to call it the covenant of life) and it is NOT equated with the Covenant of Grace.

Wilson hasn't pretended to be anything he is not. He has been up front and honest with his views. And for whatever can be said about the other FV's (Wilkins, Schlissel, Barach, Jordan, Lusk, etc), Doug Wilson has yet to say anything that I have felt is destructive to the gospel, and I still hold him high on my list of theologians I turn to on various issues.


----------



## AdamM

Craig, I have heard Horton on the WHI (The Covenant Confusion series) criticize the FV view of baptism (He called it a baptismal ordo salutis.) I would disagree that the notion that the FVists propose that all baptised members of the COG receive the benefits of union with Christ except that some are not granted perseverance is in any way traditional covenant theology. 

It also goes to the point as to what Wilson thinks the Federal Vision really is? Obviously to some folks the FV camp t means a denial of the bi-covenantal system, double imputation and etc.. Maybe the FV is anything any of the FV authors want it to be, so long as someone will put it in a book under the heading of "Federal Vision?"


----------



## luvroftheWord

If Horton believes that, it's not because of anything that was said in that interchange, since both he and Wilson were in agreement. Baptism is not simply a sign but a seal. All the benefits that baptism points to are actually sealed to us in baptism, though as both Wilson, Horton, and the WCF also say, the benefits of baptism are not tied to the time of administration.

Also, I can point you to countless numbers of references by Wilson where he undeniably affirms that, although all covenant members share the same covenant status, and as such, have many blessings in common (see the list in Hebrews 6:4-6 for starters), there is still both a categorical difference between the elect and non-elect (as he likes to say, the tares were always tares and the wheat was always wheat), and a difference of nature (regeneration is a gift given only to the elect in the covenant). All of these things should be welcomed by Covenant Theologians. See any number of posts on this subject in Wilson's blog for more.

As I've said in other places, I'm not concerned with supporting the FV. In fact, I don't even like some of them (Schlissel in particular irritates me). But I do stand up for Doug Wilson every chance I get because I have profited greatly from his work in my own spiritual life. As I have asked numerous times before, if you can please give me specific quotations from Wilson's works that contradict anything I have said in his defense, that would be great. But in the 2+ years I've been a member of this board, nobody has taken me up on my offer yet.

[Edited on 19-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## fredtgreco

Actually,

I think I provided direct quotes from his chapter in the Knox Symposium book regarding his problematic views on the visible/invisible church distinction in a thread a year or so ago. I'll try and run a search later and find it.


----------



## Ianterrell

Bob,

I wasn't referring to this thread alone, sorry for the confusion, I was interested in the overall tenor of talking about Wilson on this board. Frankly I think people are unfair to him. When someone says "I agree with you on this issue" I think that you should take the same tone that Horton does: "Great, I'm glad we agree." The lengths that people will go to crucify Wilson...would they be willing to endure that same kind of scrutiny? i think this is about character and ethics, what we do with Wilson as a "Reformed" community we could do to any other theologian and they wouldn't stand up so well possibly. I think that needs to be thought about and acknowledged.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

What bothers me about Wilson is his misrepresentations of traditional covenant theology. After listening to his conference lectures (2002) I was angry. He was presenting extreme cases of hypercalvinism and hyperrevivalism as some how the norm in covenant theology (i.e. parents punishing their chidlren for praying before they are regenerate). That's such nonsense. Then he proceeded to provide his version as a substitute. He may have some good things to say, but he either is ignorant of traditional reformed history or he is being deceptive to make such statements like that.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Fred,

Sorry for being unclear, but I had in mind things that Wilson has said that were dangerous or harmful to the gospel, since this is almost always the charge against him. I understand his view on the invisible/visible church and what makes it different from the traditional Reformed understanding. His view may be novel, but I don't see it as dangerous, especially considering that he is traditional 5-point Calvinist. I also understand his concern in trying to modify the invisible/visible doctrine. But the more I've thought about it, I don't think his problem with the traditional formulation is as big as he seems to think it is.


----------



## BobVigneault

I listened to the 'debate' twice. Like Bob Howes I was disappointed with the lack of information for us folks you want a quick primer on FV and 'what's the big deal?'

In spite of the great amount of learning and serious devotion to biblical truth on this board most of us still only know enough to be dangerous. In any area of our doctrines we can find an infinite amount of knowledge depending on how intensely we focus on particular aspects.

Doug Wilson said he believes a lot of the controversy stems from folks who too quickly shouted, 'heresy' in the beginning when the issue was supposed to be a discussion. He described the response as "Read, Fire, Aim!"

It doesn't mean you're dumb or lax as a defender of the reformed faith if you don't understand the controversy. The proponents still are not sure what they are arguing about. We must be patient and keep talking and learning and of course, defining our terms.

We aren't arguing over how to power down a nuclear reactor, we are trying to arrive at the best way to summarize the teaching of scripture on a specific point of a large and complex doctrine. My brass farthing's worth.


----------



## kceaster

Does it bother anyone else about the covenant of works not being meritorious?

To me, there seems an undeniable link between the first and second Adam that requires both sides to be meritorious. If you take away one, must you not take away the other?

Besides, wouldn't the WCF agree to a meritorious COW? I know the CT of Witsius does.

This puzzles me more than anything else Wilson has said. If Adam did not merit, then isn't God's plan of salvation to restore us to the garden?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Does it bother anyone else about the covenant of works not being meritorious?
> 
> To me, there seems an undeniable link between the first and second Adam that requires both sides to be meritorious. If you take away one, must you not take away the other?
> 
> Besides, wouldn't the WCF agree to a meritorious COW? I know the CT of Witsius does.
> 
> This puzzles me more than anything else Wilson has said. If Adam did not merit, then isn't God's plan of salvation to restore us to the garden?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



A non-meritorious Covenant of Works in the context of God's gracious entrance into covenant (cf. WCF 7.1) causes extreme soteriological problems in any form of Federal Theology. If one is willing to abandon Federal Theology, then I suppose that this could work, or if one winds up with an odd Covenant of Grace theology (a-la John Murray), then one could maintain a strict orthodoxy soteriology (witness Murray as the definitive writer on the ordo)


----------



## fredtgreco

An example of the theology that desires to make repentance an instrument of salvation and justification:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/26228

Absolutely. This is a direct attack on sola fide - which after all is a direct reference to faith as the alone _instrument _of justification. Repentance and new obedience are not, and cannot be, instruments of justification:



> Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. (WCF 11.2)





> We believe that we are made partakers of this justification by faith alone, as it is written: He suffered for our salvation, that whosoever believes on him should not perish (French Confession XX)





> Q60: How are you righteous before God?
> A60: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ:
> Q61: Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
> A61: Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God; and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only. (Heidelberg Catechism)



Woe to them that call good evil, and evil good.

[Edited on 12/20/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Fred, I can't read the link because I'm not a member of the forum. Can you provide some quotations?


----------



## doulosChristou

I've read a lot of Doug Wilson -- books and articles. Some of it's great; some not so. I've also heard him speak. I know of nothing to which he holds that could be classified as damnable heresy. His personal view of justification and imputation (regardless of what his cohorts may believe) is orthodox. My primary complaint would be that he moves positions too quickly to be taken seriously as the discerning leader he appears to want to be seen as. It wasn't that long ago that he was an arminian Southern Baptist. It was even less time ago that he was a Reformed Baptist. Less still, and he was a Reformed paedobaptist who believed the RCC ceased being a genuine church when they anathematized the gospel at Trent and who disavowed paedocommunion. Now, he's changed position on those two items as well. He seems a bit too flashy (like a comet) and un-anchored/unstable to be the leader of this "new reformation" he keeps talking about. Personally, I don't want to be reformed by Wilson, let alone by the bad company he keeps.


----------



## RamistThomist

Greg,
That bio account is interesting. I have a few questions (I don't doubt you): where did you find this stuff about him being an arminian Baptist? I remember reading in To a Thousand Generations taht he baptized both of his teenagers as a Baptist. You say he is changing positions to quickly (Arminian--->Reformed Baptist------>PaedoBaptist), I see it as progressiving...sorry, couldn't resist .


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Greg,
> That bio account is interesting. I have a few questions (I don't doubt you): where did you find this stuff about him being an arminian Baptist? I remember reading in To a Thousand Generations that he baptized both of his teenagers as a Baptist.



That's right. He also shares a lot of his personal bio in his speaking engagements: sermons, lectures, and debates. In his recent debate with James White, for example, he mentioned his arminian Southern Baptist days and his becoming reformed in 1988. He became paedo in 1993.



> You say he is changing positions to quickly (Arminian--->Reformed Baptist------>PaedoBaptist), I see it as progressiving...sorry, couldn't resist .



 No doubt. To clarify, I don't necessarily think he's changing his positions too quickly. We all change beliefs as we are persuaded. I think he's changing too quickly to be the leader of a "new reformation." If he lives another 25 years, I've no idea the destination to which he is leading his disciples. Steady men like Lig Duncan or John MacArthur or Sinclair Furguson or Al Mohler -- you know where they stand and where they are going. If Lig became a Baptist or John became a paedobaptist, we'd all be shocked. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would be too shocked if Doug became an Episcopalian or a Theonomist or a Reformed Catholic. I know I wouldn't.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Fred, I can't read the link because I'm not a member of the forum. Can you provide some quotations?



Here is a goodly section:



> If the non-imputation of sin is part and parcel of the whole of God's reckoning process, *then faith alone cannot be the single instrument of justification*. God does not impute sin to the repentant sinner. *I would contend that repentance therefore is an instrument as well. Indeed, if repentance is an instrument, then so is new obedience.* Why? Because when I man repents, he is forsaking disobedience and simultaneously choosing new obedience. Repentance is not just a turning from sin. It is a turning to righteousness. Thus, as I contended, God in justifying a man takes the whole of man's life into account, not meritoriously of course. It is again merit that Paul is bringing his invective against "works." Paul's use of term "faith" is not meant to be indicative of merely an internal action of man, but rather, the reception of salvation as a gift through the HUMILITY of the receiver. Again, I would ask what to me is an obvious question. Why would a wise and righteous judge in rendering a verdict deliberately exclude part of the evidence in that reckoning (i.e., just look at only faith)? In fact, I believe that the Scripture is clear that God could not just look at faith alone, because if that "faith" produces no fruit, it is not saving faith. Thus, at the very least, those who contend for "faith" as the alone instrument of justification must grant that God takes a sideways glance at works so to speak or he examines the nature of the faith he investigates to see that it is a working faith (Galatians 5:6). So, how is it helpful to say that in this reckoning, God looks simply at our faith when in fact he doesn't examine "just" our faith?



Emphasis mine.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would be too shocked if Doug became an Episcopalian or a Theonomist or a Reformed Catholic. I know I wouldn't.



I think Wilson is a theonomist already.


----------



## RamistThomist

Wilson is a theonomist but with all other things going on, nobody cares. Furthermore, with the Federal Vision going on, neither he nor his opponents harp on theonomy.


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Greg,
> That bio account is interesting. I have a few questions (I don't doubt you): where did you find this stuff about him being an arminian Baptist? I remember reading in To a Thousand Generations that he baptized both of his teenagers as a Baptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. He also shares a lot of his personal bio in his speaking engagements: sermons, lectures, and debates. In his recent debate with James White, for example, he mentioned his arminian Southern Baptist days and his becoming reformed in 1988. He became paedo in 1993.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say he is changing positions to quickly (Arminian--->Reformed Baptist------>PaedoBaptist), I see it as progressiving...sorry, couldn't resist .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt. To clarify, I don't necessarily think he's changing his positions too quickly. We all change beliefs as we are persuaded. I think he's changing too quickly to be the leader of a "new reformation." If he lives another 25 years, I've no idea the destination to which he is leading his disciples. Steady men like Lig Duncan or John MacArthur or Sinclair Furguson or Al Mohler -- you know where they stand and where they are going. If Lig became a Baptist or John became a paedobaptist, we'd all be shocked. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would be too shocked if Doug became an Episcopalian or a Theonomist or a Reformed Catholic. I know I wouldn't.
Click to expand...


Wilson is a Theonomist. What happened to the virtue of being a student of the bible?


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Wilson is a theonomist but with all other things going on, nobody cares. Furthermore, with the Federal Vision going on, neither he nor his opponents harp on theonomy.



Yes...everything is going according to plan! Mwuahahahaha


----------



## doulosChristou

> I think Wilson is a theonomist already.



Wow, that was fast!  And see? I'm not surprised at all.


----------



## luvroftheWord

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Fred, I can't read the link because I'm not a member of the forum. Can you provide some quotations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a goodly section:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the non-imputation of sin is part and parcel of the whole of God's reckoning process, *then faith alone cannot be the single instrument of justification*. God does not impute sin to the repentant sinner. *I would contend that repentance therefore is an instrument as well. Indeed, if repentance is an instrument, then so is new obedience.* Why? Because when I man repents, he is forsaking disobedience and simultaneously choosing new obedience. Repentance is not just a turning from sin. It is a turning to righteousness. Thus, as I contended, God in justifying a man takes the whole of man's life into account, not meritoriously of course. It is again merit that Paul is bringing his invective against "works." Paul's use of term "faith" is not meant to be indicative of merely an internal action of man, but rather, the reception of salvation as a gift through the HUMILITY of the receiver. Again, I would ask what to me is an obvious question. Why would a wise and righteous judge in rendering a verdict deliberately exclude part of the evidence in that reckoning (i.e., just look at only faith)? In fact, I believe that the Scripture is clear that God could not just look at faith alone, because if that "faith" produces no fruit, it is not saving faith. Thus, at the very least, those who contend for "faith" as the alone instrument of justification must grant that God takes a sideways glance at works so to speak or he examines the nature of the faith he investigates to see that it is a working faith (Galatians 5:6). So, how is it helpful to say that in this reckoning, God looks simply at our faith when in fact he doesn't examine "just" our faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...


Wow, Fred. Who wrote that? That's ridiculous.

One of the achilles heels of all works-righteousness theologies, besides the fact that Scripture condemns it, is the simple fact that nobody is ever able to know how many good works are necessary to merit salvation, what works are truly better than other works, and in some instances what works are truly even good works at all. Thus, salvation becomes this great fearful mystery where everybody can only wonder if they're saved or not. This is not the salvation accomplished by Christ. _Sola Fide!_ _Sola Gratia!_


----------

