# Doug Wilson



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 30, 2005)

What does everyone on here think of this pastor, and his teachings?

I have listened to quite a bit from him, and read some of his books. He seems to be very orthodox, in my estimation, but I disagree with him on a few points.

Where do you all see him as being 100% correct or 100% in error?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2005)

Heretic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just kidding. I had to say that to maintain semblances of orthodoxy; preserve the status quo. I have found his stuff on family, apologetics, etc quite useful. 

My favorite books by him are:

1. Angels in the Architecture (kind of a worldview primer)
2. Easy Chairs, Hard Words (conversational intro to Calvinism; quite useful).
3. Persuasions: A Dream of Reason meeting Unbelief.
4. Future Men

His conference tapes on typology are superb.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I don't think anyone is 100% correct or 100% in error




However, blowing justification by faith alone pretty much destroys everything else.

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2005)

Jesus is 100% correct

Satan is 100& wrong


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 30, 2005)

To clarify, I mean on which issues of the faith is he orthodox and on which issues is he not?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



How does he blow justification by faith alone?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



His positioning himself with the Federal Visionists


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 30, 2005)

In his presbytery examination, he said he vehemently disagreed with people such as Shephard(sp?), Schlissel, Wright, etc. on the NPP view of Justification. He agreed 100% with what the Westminster Confession states on Justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness. *confused*


----------



## JOwen (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> What does everyone on here think of this pastor, and his teachings?
> 
> Where do you all see him as being 100% corretc or 100% in error?



Dear friend,

Doug Wilson is certainly not 100% in error. In fact in the basics he is very sound. By basics I mean the Trinity, hypostatic union, the Scriptures, etc. Unfortunately the 98% of Wilson's good doctrine is washed out by the 2% of his error. It is always the case thatt those who are closest to the truth are the most dangerous in error simply for the fact thatt they are often indistinguishable from the truth. Wilson has at least 7 exceptions to the WCF which denies the Covenant of Works as well as the historic understanding of Justification by imputed, alien righteousness, to the believer by faith alone. It is the nuance alterations of Wilson that makes him a particular danger to the newly Reformed.

Also, Wilson has never been in the Reformed Church but parallel with it. Just recently he became a paedo baptist (last 5 years or so), and is still trying to figure out where he fits in. Wilson's problem is while he is formulating his ideas he's "thinking out loud", and taking may a wandering sould through his theological pilgrimage.


Kindly,

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by JOwen]

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by JOwen]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> In his presbytery examination, he said he vehemently disagreed with people such as Shephard(sp?), Schlissel, Wright, etc. on the NPP view of Justification. He agreed 100% with what the Westminster Confession states on Justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness. *confused*



I'm as well confused then.........I thought I had read something by Wilson subscribing to the idea. Anyone else wanna add something to this?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> In his presbytery examination, he said he vehemently disagreed with people such as Shephard(sp?), Schlissel, Wright, etc. on the NPP view of Justification. He agreed 100% with what the Westminster Confession states on Justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness. *confused*



In fact, Wilson has gone out of his way at his website to critique Wright's position of justification, election, judaism, etc. I have found Wilson's critiques of Wright to be of the best on the popular level.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

Was there a season where Wilson was aligning himself with the Fed Vis?

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Was there a season where Wilson was aligning himself with the Fed Vis?
> 
> [Edited on 7-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]



He aligns himself with the 'movement', perse, but also says that there is no consensus among the movement on various issues, making it all the more confusing. He said that he is friends with these people, but disagrees with their viewpoints (on justifiction, etc.).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Was there a season where Wilson was aligning himself with the Fed Vis?
> 
> [Edited on 7-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Perhaps, although it is not a uniform movement, as a quick reading of The Federal Vision. There is significant disagreement between them on some issues.

NT Wrights and Wrongs

This was the link I was looking for. He takes Wright's criticisms of the Reformed Faith and turns them back on Wright.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Ok; aligning oneself with movements such as these, whether one fully agree's or not, will be viewed as serious error.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 30, 2005)

One of the things we do not want to do, especially on this board, and in our local churches, is to give credence to Doug Wilson, or any other advocate of the FV/AA ideas.

2 Timothy 3:5, "And from such people turn away!"

1 Timothy 6:5, "useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself."

In other words, if 95 % of what he says is right, but 5% is wrong, yet it touches on breaking up the fundamentals of essential Christian truth, then from such "TURN away."

We could not, in good conscience, recommend him to others. In doing so you propagate his theological package.

2 Timothy 2:17-18, "And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some."

What was their sin? 10 wrong turns on doctrine? No. Five wrong turns? No. They taught the resurrection Had already come. A form of preterism. Paul says they have stayed from the truth, and that he has handed them over to Satan.

He does not recommend we listen to them on their other points. All they are known for, now, is their heresy.

All Wilson is known for now, is his heresy.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

He does align himself with the FV movement - the thing is, that is a distinctly separate thing from the NPP, though they have overlaps here and there.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> He does align himself with the FV movement - the thing is, that is a distinctly separate thing from the NPP, though they have overlaps here and there.



...and there, and there, and there.... yes, they're separate, but their areas of commonality are enormous. More importantly, I think, their implications are in many particulars the same.

Todd


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 30, 2005)

The FV/AA guys are the birth children of NT Wright and the NPP. Its like modern formulations of Vampire movies - kill the main vampire and the rest would vaporize. If NT Wright had not spawned his heresy, the FV would not have men like Jordan, Lusk, Schlissel, Wilkins, and others propagating such anti-orthodox ideas. They are all unorthodox bloodsuckers.

Pray for them.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Agreed, not to mention that some of the FV proponents also support various doctrines of Wright. But one of the last things that will be able to either refute or change them is by simply lumping the FV and the NPP in one basket without qualification.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> One of the things we do not want to do, especially on this board, and in our local churches, is to give credence to Doug Wilson, or any other advocate of the FV/AA ideas.
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:5, "And from such people turn away!"
> ...



Given those standards, why should we ever read CS Lewis or GK Chesterton, for example?

Yet John Frame in his book _Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_, states that such men as Lewis and Chesterton, Arminian and fierce Catholic respectively, ought to be read for apologetic issues. Therefore, reasoning by analogy, why not read Doug Wilson and when he is right on this issue or that, say it?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 30, 2005)

Jacob - 

I think we would have to make a distinction between a theological package that is evolving (Wilson) and one that is not (CS Lewis). I think that anyone is readable, but that is not my point. Since Wilson is in th heat of the controversy, right now, we ought not to propagate anythign written by him since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving.

I thought his 5 Tools of Learning was a prettu good book. But I can't have someone read that then think about what else may be good, and then get hooked onto a heretical issue that is currently exapnding. I think our priority is to disengage our recommendatiosn for the sake of the issues currently being stirred.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Jacob -
> 
> I think we would have to make a distinction between a theological package that is evolving (Wilson) and one that is not (CS Lewis). I think that anyone is readable, but that is not my point. Since Wilson is in th heat of the controversy, right now, we ought not to propagate anythign written by him since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving.
> ...



I see what you are saying. The misunderstanding was on my part. I see the distinction you are making between Lewis/Wilson


----------



## Poimen (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> The FV/AA guys are the birth children of NT Wright and the NPP. Its like modern formulations of Vampire movies - kill the main vampire and the rest would vaporize. If NT Wright had not spawned his heresy, the FV would not have men like Jordan, Lusk, Schlissel, Wilkins, and others propagating such anti-orthodox ideas. They are all unorthodox bloodsuckers.
> 
> Pray for them.



To some extent I would agree with this analysis though I would like to add that, In my humble opinion, they are even more influenced by Norman Shepherd.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 30, 2005)

There is not doubt of that. Shepherd is right in there as well. I would agree with you.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 30, 2005)

Actually, there really is nothing new under the sun. It is much more a spring from the font of the Tractarian movement and the Merceberger theology of the 19th century; although Shepherd stands in this line as well.


----------



## daveb (Jul 30, 2005)

In a recent WHI broadcast it was clear Wilson does not subscribe to either the WCF or the 3 forms (As far as I know the difference was justification, there may be other things). When a person claims to be Reformed but will not subscribe to a Reformed confession we have reason to be suspect.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2005)

tractarian?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> In a recent WHI broadcast it was clear Wilson does not subscribe to either the WCF or the 3 forms (As far as I know the difference was justification, there may be other things). When a person claims to be Reformed but will not subscribe to a Reformed confession we have reason to be suspect.



Wilson is a paedocommunionist, I believe. None of the Reformed Confessions allow for that.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

*Tractarian*

The Oxford Movement was a loose affiliation of High Church Anglicans, most of them members of the University of Oxford, who sought to demonstrate that the Church of England was a direct descendant of the Christian church established by the Apostles. It was also known as the Tractarian Movement after its series of publications, Tracts for the Times (1833"“1841); the Tractarians were also called Puseyites (usually disparagingly) after one of their leaders, Edward Bouverie Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford. Another important leader was John Henry Newman, a fellow of Oriel College, Oxford and vicar of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin in Oxford, who had been strongly influenced by a sermon by John Keble in 1833 criticizing the increasing secularisation of the Church of England. Other prominent Tractarians were John Keble, Thomas Keble, Archdeacon Henry Edward Manning, Richard Hurrell Froude and Robert Wilberforce.

In the ninetieth and final Tract, Newman argued that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, as defined by the Council of Trent, were compatible with the Thirty-Nine Articles of the sixteenth-century Church of England. The Movement ended when Newman, driven further than he had expected by his own arguments, converted to Roman Catholicism in 1845, to be followed by Manning in 1851. Anglo-Catholicism, which owes its revival to the Oxford Movement, has had a massive influence on global Anglicanism which continues to this day.

Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractarian


[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> In a recent WHI broadcast it was clear Wilson does not subscribe to either the WCF or the 3 forms (As far as I know the difference was justification, there may be other things). When a person claims to be Reformed but will not subscribe to a Reformed confession we have reason to be suspect.



Absolutely!


----------



## daveb (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by daveb_
> ...



Yes, I forgot about that. Thanks Fred.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2005)

Thank You Scott


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Well, the usuall dodge there (i don't think he's said it, but folks like Mark Horne and others in his camp use it) is that the TFU don't address the issue. As a result, they say, the TFU and paedocommunion are ok together. Of course I accept that dodge as far as I can throw Mr. Wilson 

Todd

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by toddpedlar]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by daveb_
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## Poimen (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by daveb_
> ...



Too bad Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, rejects paedocommunion. 

Too bad the URCNA rejected paedocommunion as being compatible with the TFU: 

Overture: The Consistory of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton requests Classis Western Canada 2003 (Salem) to clarify the status and function of the decision of Classis 2000 (Lynden) that "œThe Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord's Supper."

Grounds:
1. The unity of our churches in the faith requires agreement as to the proper recipients of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
2. The meaning of subscription to our Confessions may be jeopardized if differing interpretations of those Confessions are allowable on such important matters.
3. Adhering to our Church Order regarding the settled and binding nature of the decisions of broader assemblies (Article 29) is also at issue here.
4. Christian integrity and fairness requires consistency in the application of the Classis 2000 decision as it relates to currently serving and retired officebearers as well as to candidates to the ministry.

Motion: to adopt the Overture of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton

Motion: call for the question - PASSED

Motion: to adopt PASSED

Motion: that the following statement be received as a response of clarification.

"œThis decision is not an "˜extra-confessional´ statement that somehow has special status along side of our Confessions. It is rather an affirmation of the Confessions themselves on a specific point of their teaching. Therefore, agreement with this teaching of our Confessions as
recognized and affirmed by classis has a direct bearing on Confessional Subscription. Any candidates or officebearers who cannot affirm what classis has affirmed regarding the Confessions on this point cannot properly subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity."

Motion: to table that copies of this statement be made available for further review DEFEATED

Motion: to adopt this statement PASSED

http://www.covenant-urc.org/urcna/SynodMinutes05.pdf

Too bad the RCUS did the same:

http://www.rcus.org/main/pub_infant_communion.asp

Too bad no confessional Reformed denomination practices or urges anyone to practice it (except RCA and CRC which already have problems and are not, In my humble opinion, confessional or Reformed).


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 30, 2005)

Thanks for the pointers to the documents, Daniel. Regardless of the strong witness against it in present day continental reformed churches as well as in their infancy (no pun intended), etc., etc., some still maintain that the "bias against paedocommunion" is a Puritan (i.e. English/Scot) invention, and that the contintental reformers would support it, even if it wasn't in vogue.

Hogwash! (and I can use that term with some authority now that I live in Iowa )

Todd


----------



## Poimen (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> Thanks for the pointers to the documents, Daniel. Regardless of the strong witness against it in present day continental reformed churches as well as in their infancy (no pun intended), etc., etc., some still maintain that the "bias against paedocommunion" is a Puritan (i.e. English/Scot) invention, and that the contintental reformers would support it, even if it wasn't in vogue.
> 
> Hogwash! (and I can use that term with some authority now that I live in Iowa )
> ...



"If these men had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious?"

-John Calvin, "Institutes" 4.16.30

Taken out of context, but applicable nonetheless.


----------



## Robin (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Like Clark Pinnock, Doug Wilson is a wandering star... and believes faith must be "faithful" --- he also takes pleasure in being more than a little lead-footed on the law. Though he has been met by the highest leaders in the Reformed denomination, he is content to reject the invitation to embrace the 3 Forms and prefers self-appointment to biblical ordination.

Read Wilson's own words: "Reformed is not Enough"

Matt has done a review of same:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm

Plus, here is a transcript from a ACE conference by Rev. Richard Phillips. Canon press is currently publishing works to recast the covenant by new understandings of the Trinity.

Yipeee - see what is possible when you measure yourself by yourself; own your own publishing company; found your own church & denomination and are preaching the ever-popular message of good works, virtue, family and country?

http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/CDA/Content_Blocks/CC_Printer_Friendly_Version_Utility/1

Horton's dicussion with Wilson:

http://www.stannespub.com/Special Edition.asp

Westminster Seminary, California is about to publish a book from their conference on FV - Wilson is on the list. 

But...go ahead, don't believe it....Doug Wilson is such a N I C E guy! Personality plus! A wonderful teacher, family advocate and all-around clever apologist! That's exactly what Paul was! An apostle who was clever, attractive, popular --- a maverick, re-working ideas about the covenant, justification, the Trinity, not fussing with accountability to the other Apostles -- heck, he had a unique mission!

Oops....those links aren't very good, anyway. After all, I'm just playing "link-tag" to show-off 

Robin


----------



## Robin (Jul 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Jacob -
> 
> I think we would have to make a distinction between a theological package that is evolving (Wilson) and one that is not (CS Lewis). I think that anyone is readable, but that is not my point. Since Wilson is in th heat of the controversy, right now, we ought not to propagate anythign written by him since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving.
> ...



 Matt....

This is why Pastor Wilson's books have mysteriously disappeared from our church bookstore.... Hmmmmm


r.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Jacob -
> 
> I think we would have to make a distinction between a theological package that is evolving (Wilson) and one that is not (CS Lewis). I think that anyone is readable, but that is not my point. Since Wilson is in th heat of the controversy, right now, we ought not to propagate anythign written by him since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving.
> ...



Two points,

1) So I guess you will be removing Wilson's books from your library list on apuritansmind?

2) If you are close enough to a person to recommend a book, how can you not be close enough to warn them against reading other works by that author?

CT


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



I forgot I had them listed. I'll have to update it. (updated)

I agree with #2. We should do both. But we ask - are there any good books out there on marriage where we are left to only recommend Wilson or others (for example)? Why recommend him when we don't need to either?

[Edited on 7-31-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## openairboy (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> In his presbytery examination, he said he vehemently disagreed with people such as Shephard(sp?), Schlissel, Wright, etc. on the NPP view of Justification. He agreed 100% with what the Westminster Confession states on Justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness. *confused*



Don't confuse us with the facts. "People" have said he doesn't believe in justification by faith alone, so it doesn't matter what he has said.

openairboy


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

Jacob wrote: "His conference tapes on typology are superb."

What is the title of the set and where can they be found?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



{MODERATOR} THIS IS A WARNING: This board does not approve of Wilson's statements, email correspondence on the subject with opponents of the FV, or books with his deviant views of corporate justification sin. It does matter what he has said. He has written it down:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm

Anyone defending him again will have their posting privileges REMOVED.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> {MODERATOR} THIS IS A WARNING: This board does not approve of Wilson's statements, email correspondence on the subject with opponents of the FV, or books with his deviant views of corporate justification sin. It does matter what he has said. He has written it down:
> 
> http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm
> ...



May I ask, where is the defense of him? If you care to remove me, that is fine (it is your board), but I am curious where any defense of him has occured? 

openairboy


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

Speaking of Wilson, has anybody seen Vic Lockman's tract on FV? It depicts Doug Wileson wearing a tie that says "I'm Doug Wilson . . . I'm so cool." What is the "I'm so cool" about?


----------



## openairboy (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Speaking of Wilson, has anybody seen Vic Lockman's tract on FV? It depicts Doug Wileson wearing a tie that says "I'm Doug Wilson . . . I'm so cool." What is the "I'm so cool" about?



Is it available on-line?

openairboy


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



"Don't confuse us with the facts. "People" have said he doesn't believe in justification by faith alone, so it doesn't matter what he has said."

This is argumentative *for* Wilson, not agreeing that we should see him as a false teacher. Its _more_ than simply stating an assertion.


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

No. You can get them here and the name of the tract is "Counterfeit Covenant." I did not order it, he just threw it in with some catechism resources I ordered.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



With all due respect but, the relevance? You gave me a lot of information that is probably helpful, had I asked a question on that topic. Rather, all I stated--and this is what you replied to--was that Doug Wilson has a good critique of NT Wright. I did not defend en toto Wilson's beliefs. Your response would be quite valid if I had done that. Rather, I pointed out--rather uncontroversially--that here is a good critique of NPP that would be helpful in debattes.

Also, and this is a general rule that I employ on all message boards: I almost never read links people give me. I am interested in what the person says, not in footnote refutation. Again, this applies to those in my own camp as well.

[Edited on 8--1-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Jesus is 100% correct
> 
> Satan is 100& wrong



I disagree, I think Satan believes in the Bible, Jesus, etc. That makes him correct.


----------



## mattbauer (Oct 13, 2005)

Maybe I am misunderstanding, if so i definetly want to get a grasp on all of this before I get banned, please be patient with me. 

Children that are baptized into the covenant are Christians in the objective sense, not in the elect, invisble church sense; correct?
Or am i misunderstanding something?


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mattbauer_
> Maybe I am misunderstanding, if so i definetly want to get a grasp on all of this before I get banned, please be patient with me.
> 
> Children that are baptized into the covenant are Christians in the objective sense, not in the elect, invisble church sense; correct?
> Or am i misunderstanding something?



It depends how you define Christian, doesn't it? I haven't known any other sense than this: 

*Heidelberg Catechism*

Q32: But why are you called a Christian?
A32: Because by faith I am a member of Christ [1] and thus a partaker of His anointing,[2] in order that I also may confess His Name,[3] may present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him,[4] and with a free conscience may fight against sin and the devil in this life,[5] and hereafter in eternity reign with Him over all creatures.[6]

1. Acts 11:26; I John 2:20, 27
2. Acts 2:17
3. Mark 8:38
4. Rom. 12:1; Rev. 5:8, 10; I Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6
5. I Tim. 1:18-19
6. II Tim. 2:12; Eph. 6:12; Rev. 3:21

So yes, you may define a Christian as one who has been baptized and thus one who is member of a covenant community, but then we have to think about the ramifications of that.


----------



## mattbauer (Oct 14, 2005)

Indeed. I have not read the Heidelberg, only the WCF and shorter catechism... Maybe i should give that a good read.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mattbauer_
> Indeed. I have not read the Heidelberg, only the WCF and shorter catechism... Maybe i should give that a good read.



Excellent idea. Do you have a copy? You may download it here: 

http://www.tulip.org/refcon.exe


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Dec 12, 2005)

Could someone help me out here? Since 1994 I have been getting Credenda/Agenda. At first I thought it was great and that Doug Wilson was one of the smartest, coolest guys in the church. Gradually I became aware that something was wrong, though I didn't understand quite what. Could someone tell me exactly when Doug Wilson went wrong? Should I throw out all old issues of Credenda or just those after a certain date (say everything after 02) or just recent issues that deal with theology. 
Thanks.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 12, 2005)

Preaching justification by faith and the merit of Christ as it relates to our works as believers is the heart of the motivation to love Christ. When do you here that our obedience is a corrupted obedience and so we need the merits of Christ obedience for us to be accepted by the Father?
This historical message has been hidden so much in the modern day message that focuses on a christains faithfulness. That focus certianly extenquishes fire of grace in a person and dampens that motive of love to Christ.


----------



## Robin (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyCalvinist_
> Could someone help me out here? Since 1994 I have been getting Credenda/Agenda. At first I thought it was great and that Doug Wilson was one of the smartest, coolest guys in the church. Gradually I became aware that something was wrong, though I didn't understand quite what. Could someone tell me exactly when Doug Wilson went wrong? Should I throw out all old issues of Credenda or just those after a certain date (say everything after 02) or just recent issues that deal with theology.
> Thanks.



Doug is reacting to a very real concern in the Church (and culture): moral decline.

However, his insistence that the Christian is given grace but then "proves" their assurance by the "faithfulness of faith" puts him back in Rome. Jesus is now an example; for even Jesus needed faith.

Listeninig to Wilson's teachings will eventually lead to despair or self-righteousness--- worse case, false-hope in works.

Beware the leaven of the pharisees.



Robin


----------

