# Calvinist International, FV, and Doug Wilson



## Delahunt (Jan 13, 2020)

Steven Wedgeworth at The Calvinist International has just completed a six-part in-depth historical study on the theological trajectories of FV and its various adherents, including and especially focusing upon Doug Wilson. It is well worth reading - I found his analysis of Doug Wilson to be helpful. Interestingly, Doug Wilson also spoke approvingly of Wedgeworth's work on Twitter. I would be curious to hear if anyone here at PB would disagree with Wedgeworth in terms of his findings or (more likely) analysis. Here are links:

1. https://calvinistinternational.com/...-of-the-federal-vision-after-all-these-years/
2. https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/11/18/a-federal-vision-history/
3. https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/12/19/beginning-to-explain-theology-federal-vision/
4. https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/01/03/douglas-wilson-and-justification/
5. https://calvinistinternational.com/...dings-of-salvation-held-together-by-one-name/
6. https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/01/13/the-federal-vision-a-systematic-critique/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 13, 2020)

Can you give me a very short summary? Does Wedgeworth find that Wilson is as bad as his detractors say he is?


----------



## Delahunt (Jan 13, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Can you give me a very short summary? Does Wedgeworth find that Wilson is as bad as his detractors say he is?



Hi Sean,
My understanding of the articles is that Steven Wedgeworth seems to understand that there are indeed two trajectories of FV as FV Dark and FV Light. Many of the guys who have dangerous justification views are FV Dark, whereas Wilson is FV Light. It seems that Wilson holds to traditional views on justification, although he has often employed language that is not helpful given the FV controversy even though it may be historically orthodox. In addition, Wedgeworth says that personal friendships and doctrinal inconsistency mark Wilson and his works (especially about 20 years ago - 2001-2004), so that there is some question marks raised that can only be answered by reading the entirety of the Wilson corpus (not a quick feat).

In sum, when Wilson bade farewell to FV while still holding his own views, it only makes sense by realizing that there are indeed multiple trajectories within FV (which Wilson did state in his descriptors of FV oatmeal stout and FV amber ale).

I think that when one does look at Wilson's views as Wedgeworth describes them (and based upon my reading so far in the Auburn Avenue Chronicles put together by Wilson), his views on justification do fall within the bounds of orthodoxy, unlike many of the FV Dark theologians.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 13, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> Hi Sean,
> My understanding of the articles is that Steven Wedgeworth seems to understand that there are indeed two trajectories of FV as FV Dark and FV Light. Many of the guys who have dangerous justification views are FV Dark, whereas Wilson is FV Light. It seems that Wilson holds to traditional views on justification, although he has often employed language that is not helpful given the FV controversy even though it may be historically orthodox. In addition, Wedgeworth says that personal friendships and doctrinal inconsistency mark Wilson and his works (especially about 20 years ago - 2001-2004), so that there is some question marks raised that can only be answered by reading the entirety of the Wilson corpus (not a quick feat).
> 
> In sum, when Wilson bade farewell to FV while still holding his own views, it only makes sense by realizing that there are indeed multiple trajectories within FV (which Wilson did state in his descriptors of FV oatmeal stout and FV amber ale).
> ...



Wonderful summary. Thank you! (I do intend to read the articles, I just didn't have the time yet.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 13, 2020)

I've always appreciated the care, even-handedness, and clarity of his writing. (He's now in the PCA, co-pastoring a church in Vancouver with Mark Jones.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Can you give me a very short summary? Does Wedgeworth find that Wilson is as bad as his detractors say he is?



No. Steven and I have sharply disagreed on that. 

With that said, Steven did a great job dissecting what they believe and how wrong they (including Wilson) are on the Trinity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Delahunt (Jan 13, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Wonderful summary. Thank you! (I do intend to read the articles, I just didn't have the time yet.)


Thanks, glad it was a helpful summary!



Hamalas said:


> I've always appreciated the care, even-handedness, and clarity of his writing. (He's now in the PCA, co-pastoring a church in Vancouver with Mark Jones.)


Yes, I started reading him a few years back - I have enjoyed his work, as well as all the writers at TCI.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 13, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> I would be curious to hear if anyone here at PB would disagree with Wedgeworth in terms of his findings or (more likely) analysis.


I found Wedgeworth to be fair and dispassionate. It was refreshing to read someone interacting with this matter with a measure of objectivity.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 13, 2020)

I hope this helps put an end to the anti-James-White-because-he-has-dealings-with-Doug-Wilson rhetoric on this forum.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I hope this helps put an end to the anti-James-White-because-he-has-dealings-with-Doug-Wilson rhetoric on this forum.



I am not anti-James White, but I think he is naive for thinking Wilson is an ally.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 4


----------



## ZackF (Jan 13, 2020)

At first I thought, another Wilson thread!!?? This appears to be bit different so far.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheBruisedReed (Jan 14, 2020)

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is a pretty decent chat between White and Wilson on the topic of FV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Jan 14, 2020)

_“We affirm that there is only one true Church, and that this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible.”_​
This is one of the most troubling statements of the FV. (Taken from joint statement.)

The statement communicates that there is only one church, which can be described in terms of its being visible and invisible. The implication of such a construct is that the invisible church and the visible church are the _same_ church. From that false premise comes much confusion and outright error. To make the point more clearly, consider the following modification of the statement: 

_We affirm that there is only one true God, and that this God can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of transcendence and immanence_.​
The modified statement, which uses the same construct of the FV statement, clearly communicates that the one transcendent God is the same God as the immanent God. That is true. Transcendence and immanence are simply two aspects of the one God. Is the FV statement true in this way? Is the visible church the same church as the invisible church? The FV statement clearly implies that they are one and the same; for it states that there is _“only one true Church”_ that can be described in various ways, like visible and invisible. How can they claim such a theology and also claim to be Reformed? In contrast to FV theology, now consider Reformed theology: 

“The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all…The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”​
Note the difference. Within Reformed theology the invisible and visible churches are _not_ the same church. The invisible church consists of the elect who will all _possess_ Christ, whereas the visible church consists of those who _profess_ Christ (and their children). On that basis alone, the FV may not be considered “Reformed” in any sense of the word. The FV is comprised of a bunch of muddled thinking men.

The Federal Vision blurs the visible-invisible church distinction, collapses soteriology into ecclesiology, and has a faulty view of the one Covenant of Grace. Accordingly, they imagine that through water baptism one is united to the very life of Christ. Consequently, if one who was baptized with water were to deny the faith, he would in Federal Vision terms truly fall from grace and lose the life he had in Christ.

*Regarding* *assurance:*

Federal Vision theology does affirm that all who have been justified will be glorified. Notwithstanding, how can one who has been justified be assured of his final state of salvation, glorification, if he can in fact fall from grace and lose the life in Christ he supposedly had? It is no wonder that assurance of salvation in the Federal Vision is limited only to the _objective_ truth that those God has justified will be glorified. Federal Vision theology makes no room for personal, subjective assurance of one’s final salvation; indeed how can it if one can truly fall from grace and lose his life in Christ that is alleged to be given to all in the church?

The Federal Vision is correct that the “the decretally elect cannot apostatize”. But by blurring the visible-invisible church distinction and attributing a former life in Christ to those who outwardly deny the faith, the truly justified that will one day prove themselves elected unto glory is left no place to ground his assurance of his justification. After all, both those elected unto glory and those who deny the faith allegedly share in the same life in Christ and consequently must have the same grounds for assurance of perseverance, which becomes no grounds at all since some with life will not persevere.

Federal Vision proponents would do well to learn that the Covenant of Grace was established only with Christ as the Second Adam and in Him, with the elect. Consequently, the promises the covenant contemplates are restricted to the same, the elect – the invisible church, which comes from a systematic theology the Federal Vision abhors.

Any _system of theology_ that would make such claims and create such confusion for God's people is abhorrent, but the _teachers_ of the Federal Vision are not in my estimation so much to be abhorred but simply regarded for what they are, dunces. Note well, I would never use such language to describe those who are _walking_ in the ways of the Federal Vision or even _standing_ in the way. It is only the ones who have taken a _seat_ in order to teach Federal Vision do I consider dunces. After all, it is they who have studied hard and still haven't a clue about the doctrines of church, salvation and covenant. For that they are to sit in the corner in shame.

Reactions: Amen 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2020)

I only read the last one so far. Wedgeworth does seem to have moved a bit from his FV sympathizing before. However, I do not agree with everything he says about the FV light position.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I only read the last one so far. Wedgeworth does seem to have moved a bit from his FV sympathizing before. However, I do not agree with everything he says about the FV light position.



True. His reading of Richard Muller helped him realize that FV--even the "light" Wilsonites--have no knowledge of historic Reformed theology. I'm willing to concede that Wilson sometimes says orthodox things. Why doesn't he have a trusted NAPARC body examine him then?

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> Hi Sean,
> My understanding of the articles is that Steven Wedgeworth seems to understand that there are indeed two trajectories of FV as FV Dark and FV Light. Many of the guys who have dangerous justification views are FV Dark, whereas Wilson is FV Light. It seems that Wilson holds to traditional views on justification, although he has often employed language that is not helpful given the FV controversy even though it may be historically orthodox. In addition, Wedgeworth says that personal friendships and doctrinal inconsistency mark Wilson and his works (especially about 20 years ago - 2001-2004), so that there is some question marks raised that can only be answered by reading the entirety of the Wilson corpus (not a quick feat).
> 
> In sum, when Wilson bade farewell to FV while still holding his own views, it only makes sense by realizing that there are indeed multiple trajectories within FV (which Wilson did state in his descriptors of FV oatmeal stout and FV amber ale).
> ...




Wilson writes:

"I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, not faithfulness or fidelity, but, of course, faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness. Faith, by definition, is not faithless, but rather faithful. Faith is invisible to the human eye, but faith’s constant companion—faithfulness—is not invisible. Nevertheless, it is faith that receives the promises, overthrows kingdoms, and stops the mouths of lions." (RINE, 186)

Sounds pretty confused to me. 

He claims to believe in justification by faith alone, then seems to sneak in good works at times while we are not looking.

I am not sure there are Dark and Light varieties of FV as much as there are more or less sneaky apologists for it who have learned to speak out of both sides of their mouth.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Wilson writes:
> 
> "I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, not faithfulness or fidelity, but, of course, faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness. Faith, by definition, is not faithless, but rather faithful. Faith is invisible to the human eye, but faith’s constant companion—faithfulness—is not invisible. Nevertheless, it is faith that receives the promises, overthrows kingdoms, and stops the mouths of lions." (RINE, 186)
> 
> ...



What's confused about it? Sounds like James 2, "Faith without works is dead". What am I missing?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Wilson writes:
> 
> "I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, not faithfulness or fidelity, but, of course, faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness. Faith, by definition, is not faithless, but rather faithful. Faith is invisible to the human eye, but faith’s constant companion—faithfulness—is not invisible. Nevertheless, it is faith that receives the promises, overthrows kingdoms, and stops the mouths of lions." (RINE, 186)
> 
> ...





SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What's confused about it? Sounds like James 2, "Faith without works is dead". What am I missing?



I am not defending Wilson or the Federal Vision here, but what Wilson says in this particular quote, unless I am missing some nuance somewhere, seems to be rather in line with what my (and his) Confession says:

*These good works*, done in obedience to God’s commandments, *are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith*; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

—Westminster Confession of Faith, XVI.ii.​
And Berkhof says this:

*There can be no doubt about the necessity of good works* properly understood. They cannot be regarded as necessary to merit salvation, nor as a means to retain a hold on salvation, nor even as the only way along which to proceed to eternal glory, for children enter salvation without having done any good works. The Bible does not teach that no one can be saved apart from good works. At the same time *good works necessarily follow from the union of believers with Christ*. [...] *The necessity of good works must be maintained*..."

—Louis Berkhof, _Systematic Theology_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938), 543.​
Again, I am not defending Doug Wilson's entire theology; I am just looking at the quote posted above in isolation.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

To quote Lane Keister:

"Paul does not speak of faith-faithfulness in justification, but of faith as utterly opposed to works in justification."

https://godshammer.wordpress.com/20...g-wilson-denies-justification-by-faith-alone/

See also here: https://heidelblog.net/2019/07/has-doug-wilson-really-changed-his-mind-about-the-federal-vision/

See also this PB thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/a-few-reasons-why-doug-wilson-needs-to-be-avoided.49966/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> To quote Lane Keister:
> 
> "Paul does not speak of faith-faithfulness in justification, but of faith as utterly opposed to works in justification."
> 
> ...



Is he saying that the only faith that justifies is a faith that works, or is he saying that saving faith will necessarily produce works? Or are those two things any different?

This is a very difficult thing for me to grasp. Because, on the one hand, we as Reformed rightly profess that it is faith and faith alone that is the instrument of justification. Yet, as the WCF and Berkhof say above, good works are necessary. (Of course, as Berkhof noted, "necessary" must be understood properly, but good works are nonetheless necessary.) It seems that anyone who emphasizes the former is often labeled an antinomian, while anyone who emphasizes the latter is labeled a neonomian. So, honestly, I am unsure how even to read and understand critiques of Wilson.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Is he saying that the only faith that justifies is a faith that works, or is he saying that saving faith will necessarily produce works? Or are those two things any different?
> 
> This is a very difficult thing for me to grasp. Because, on the one hand, we as Reformed rightly profess that it is faith and faith alone that is the instrument of justification. Yet, as the WCF and Berkhof say above, good works are necessary. (Of course, as Berkhof noted, "necessary" must be understood properly, but good works are nonetheless necessary.) It seems that anyone who emphasizes the former is often labeled an antinomian, while anyone who emphasizes the latter is labeled a neonomian. So, honestly, I am unsure how even to read and understand critiques of Wilson.



He is full of rhetorical tricks. I believe the fundamental way he communicates has been dishonest in the past, often with smug tongue-in-cheek responses and different messages for different audiences. Maybe I have already written him off as untrustworthy some time ago, but his Yea is not Yea, nor his Nay a Nay.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> He is full of rhetorical tricks.



Perhaps. But, as I said, I am only concerned with the paragraph you quoted above.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Sounds pretty confused to me.
> 
> He claims to believe in justification by faith alone, then seems to sneak in good works at times while we are not looking.



It sounds to me like what is confessed with complete agreement in the Westminster, Savoy, and Baptist confessions of faith:

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; (Rom. 3:28) yet it is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. (Gal. 5:6; James 2:17, 22, 26). — _Confession of Faith,_ XI. 2. 

​

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

"Wilson denies that simply believing in Jesus’ promise of everlasting life (or believing that we are justified through faith apart from works) is the sole condition for having everlasting life. You also need works because _they are essential to the nature of saving faith_. This puts Wilson in the absurd position of saying that two people can believe in Jesus for justification, but with two different _kinds_ of faith. The one who has faith plus works is justified, while the one who has faith without works is not justified. Wilson apparently doesn’t think it is blatantly self-contradictory to say that we need works in order to be justified by faith apart from works."
https://faithalone.org/journal-arti...h-recovering-the-objectivity-of-the-covenant/


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> "I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, not faithfulness or fidelity, but, of course, faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness. Faith, by definition, is not faithless, but rather faithful. Faith is invisible to the human eye, but faith’s constant companion—faithfulness—is not invisible. Nevertheless, it is faith that receives the promises, overthrows kingdoms, and stops the mouths of lions." (RINE, 186)



Faith, and Wilson means justifying faith (WLC 72-73), in the biblical and theological sense, is _distinguishable_ from faithfulness and must be distinguished. "Inseparable" is not the right category. Distinguishable is.

Then Wilson says, "faith, by definition, *is *...faithful," and here he conflates faith and being faithful, which is to say that he equates faith with being faithful. They are not to be equated.

Faith (consisting of knowledge, assent, and trust, WLC 72) is utterly extraspective: it looks away from all that we are, have, and do and rests only on "Christ and his righteousness" (WLC 72).

WLC 73 makes it all clear: Faith stands in an alone position with respect to our justification, distinguished both from "those other graces which do always accompany it" (repentance, e.g.), and from "good works that are the fruits of it." The good works that are the inevitable fruits of justifying faith are no proper part of justifying faith itself. Again, WLC 72-73 is there to make these distinctions clear. And they are necessary distinctions, without which one does not have our doctrine of JBFA properly.

I could say more about this (I've written about it in a number of places, some of which have been cited on the PB previously). The point is this: Wilson continues here to obfuscate when it comes to justifying faith by introducing either the accompanying graces of justifying faith or the fruits of justifying faith (or both) i*nto the essential definition of justifying faith*. He does so in a way that compromises the alone character of justifying faith and must be resisted.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 15 | Informative 1 | Amen 6


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Faith, and Wilson means justifying faith (WLC 72-73), in the biblical and theological sense, is _distinguishable_ from faithfulness and must be distinguished. "Inseparable" is not the right category. Distinguishable is.
> 
> Then Wilson says, "faith, by definition, *is *...faithful," and here he conflates faith and being faithful, which is to say that he equates faith with being faithful. They are not to be equated.
> 
> ...



Thank you for stating that much better than I could.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> "Wilson denies that simply believing in Jesus’ promise of everlasting life (or believing that we are justified through faith apart from works) is the sole condition for having everlasting life. You also need works because _they are essential to the nature of saving faith_. This puts Wilson in the absurd position of saying that two people can believe in Jesus for justification, but with two different _kinds_ of faith. The one who has faith plus works is justified, while the one who has faith without works is not justified. Wilson apparently doesn’t think it is blatantly self-contradictory to say that we need works in order to be justified by faith apart from works."
> https://faithalone.org/journal-arti...h-recovering-the-objectivity-of-the-covenant/


The quote you cite here is from a gentlman responding to what Wilson says on page 48 of _Reformed Is Not Enough_. Wilson states...

“Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. But when God has done this wonderful work, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die. It continues to love God and obey Him. If it does not, but just lies there like a corpse, then we have good reason to believe that it was lying there like a corpse some days before—not being therefore an instrument of justification. Faith without works is a dead faith, and a dead faith never justified anybody.”​
I have two questions for you, @Pergamum, Do you actually disagree with what Wilson says here? And if so, what is the nature of your disagreement?

I believe the gentleman you've quoted is the one in error if he honestly thinks what Wilson says here is a denial of justification by faith alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The quote you cite here is from a gentlman responding to what Wilson says on page 48 of _Reformed Is Not Enough_. Wilson states...
> 
> “Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. But when God has done this wonderful work, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die. It continues to love God and obey Him. If it does not, but just lies there like a corpse, then we have good reason to believe that it was lying there like a corpse some days before—not being therefore an instrument of justification. Faith without works is a dead faith, and a dead faith never justified anybody.”​
> I have two questions for you, @Pergamum, Do you actually disagree with what Wilson says here? And if so, what is the nature of your disagreement?
> ...



The ambiguity of the statement is that Wilson has faith (qua) instrument doing something. Faith does work, but not as an instrument.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The ambiguity of the statement is that Wilson has faith (qua) instrument doing something. Faith does work, but not as an instrument.


That seems to contradict the Confession of Faith which declares "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification" (WCF 11:2). Perhaps you could clarify.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The quote you cite here is from a gentlman responding to what Wilson says on page 48 of _Reformed Is Not Enough_. Wilson states...
> 
> “Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. But when God has done this wonderful work, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die. It continues to love God and obey Him. If it does not, but just lies there like a corpse, then we have good reason to believe that it was lying there like a corpse some days before—not being therefore an instrument of justification. Faith without works is a dead faith, and a dead faith never justified anybody.”​
> I have two questions for you, @Pergamum, Do you actually disagree with what Wilson says here? And if so, what is the nature of your disagreement?
> ...



Douglas Wilson and the Book of James are not saying the same thing here. James says Faith without works is dead (i.e. a false false, no faith at all), Wilson is saying faith plus works saves.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Douglas Wilson and the Book of James are not saying the same thing here. James says Faith without works is dead (i.e. a false false, no faith at all), Wilson is saying faith plus works saves.


That is, in fact, the point of disagreement here. Making bare assertions without offering an explanation or defense amounts to little more than shouting "Moscow man bad!"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That is, in fact, the point of disagreement here. Making bare assertions without offering an explanation or defense amounts to little more than shouting "Moscow man bad!"



What if Moscow Man IS bad, though? Lots of folks say so.

I mean, he lights fields on fire with gasoline, right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Then Wilson says, "faith, by definition, *is *...faithful," and here he conflates faith and being faithful, which is to say that he equates faith with being faithful. They are not to be equated.



This is very helpful in clarifying my confusion that I indicated in my previous post. Thank you!

As an aside, I just found on Sermon Audio a little series you did critiquing the Federal Vision. (It is, incidentally, your most popular sermon on Sermon Audio.) I plan on giving that a listen.

For anyone who is interested, the aforementioned series can be found here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> What if Moscow Man IS bad, though? Lots of folks say so.
> 
> I mean, he lights fields on fire with gasoline, right?


It doesn't sound like you are being serious here. But suffice to say, I was asking you to explain _explain_ how the quote from Wilson (post #27) differed with the teaching of our own confession in chapter 11, paragraph 2. I contend it does not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> That seems to contradict the Confession of Faith which declares "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification" (WCF 11:2). Perhaps you could clarify.



That is correct. The instrument of justification simply rests and receives, it doesn't work, pace Wilson.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is correct. The instrument of justification simply rests and receives, it doesn't work, pace Wilson.


Careful attention to the language of the Confession seems to suggest it does...

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it (i.e. _faith_) is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.—_Confession of Faith,_ XI. 2. ​
In the second half of this statement, the same faith which is said to "receive and rest" as "the alone instrument of justification" is then further said to "work by love." There are _three_ things faith is said to do here, 1) Rest, 2) Receive, 3) and Work by love. Have I misread it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Delahunt (Jan 15, 2020)

For what it's worth Doug talks about RINE faith/faithfulness etc. here:


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Careful attention to the language of the Confession seems to suggest it does...
> 
> Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it (i.e. _faith_) is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.—_Confession of Faith,_ XI. 2. ​
> In the second half of this statement, the same faith which is said to "receive and rest" as "the alone instrument of justification" is then further said to "work by love." There are three things faith is said to do here, 1) Rest, 2) Receive, 3) and Work by love. Have I misread it?



Instrumental causation is not the same as final causation. Works are the final cause. Faith alone is the instrumental cause. Wilson confuses this.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Instrumental causation is not the same as final causation. Works are the final cause. Faith alone is the instrumental cause.


Agreed.


BayouHuguenot said:


> Wilson confuses this.


I do not believe that is the case. I believe you have to unjustly assume such a meaning lies behind Wilson's words to justify your conclusion. Otherwise, what he says is perfectly in line with the Confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> It doesn't sound like you are being serious here. But suffice to say, I was asking you to explain explain how the quote from Wilson (post #27) differed with the teaching of our own confession in chapter 11, paragraph 2. I contend it does not.



Pastor Sheffield (and everyone else):

Pastor Wilson is not saying the same things as all our Confessions. Let's recall the first part of your Wilson quote:



C. M. Sheffield said:


> “Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. But when God has done this wonderful work, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die. It continues to love God and obey Him.



Jacob's technical language is correct (and good!), but let me put it this way: Notice what Wilson does in the second sentence relative to the first. In the first sentence, he adduces justifying faith. And then he calls it, "this faithful instrument," conflating faith and its evidence.

Here's the problem: Faith, as I noted above, is extraspective. It's all about Christ and His righteousness, looking to, resting in, that and that alone. So faith is not about me looking to anything that I do (as a result of justifying faith), *but "faithful" is.* Faith is about what Christ is and does and my trusting in Him alone. Faithful is about all that I do looking to Christ and Him alone. Faith is about His person and work. Faithful is about what I am rendered as a result of trusting in His person and work.

This is the heart of the Protestant Reformation. The proper distinction between faith and its accompanying graces and fruits/evidence must be maintained. This is what Rome was failing to do then and still fails to do until this day. It's what we must never fail to do.

When I say "faith," I'm saying something about my Savior and trusting Him; when I say "faithful," I am saying something about myself, the works that I do as one who has faith.

And if something about my works is introduced into what it means to be JBFA, I am lost, now and evermore. Everything is at stake here. This is why all the NAPARC denominations (and perhaps others) have acted as they have with respect to these matters.
Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 10 | Informative 3 | Amen 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I do not believe that is the case. I believe you have to unjustly assume such a meaning lies behind Wilson's words to justify your conclusion. Otherwise, what he says is perfectly in line with the Confession.



If the good works that are a result of my justification are actually part of the instrumentality of faith, then Wilson has justification by faith + works. This is the verdict of almost every NAPARC body.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If the good works that are a result of my justification are actually part of the instrumentality of faith, then Wilson has justification by faith + works. This is the verdict of almost every NAPARC body.



That’s very helpful. In my previous post containing quotes from the WCF and Berkhof, I seemed to have confused what Wilson was saying with the common Reformed understanding of the necessity of good works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

@Alan D. Strange, you say faith


Alan D. Strange said:


> ...all about Christ and His righteousness, looking to, resting in, that and that alone.



And of course I don't disagree. But as I've already pointed out, our Confession asserts that the same faith which justifies, also "worketh by love." That is course Paul's point in Galatians 5:6.

_For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love._​
Paul here asserts that that same faith which is the alone instrument of justification also "worketh by love." Which is reflected in our Confession.

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet *it* (i.e. _faith_) is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.—_Confession of Faith,_ XI. 2. ​
You seem to be saying this faith only "rests and receives" and that it doesn't "work by love." I am sure that is not your view, but perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining yourself further.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 15, 2020)

@C. M. Sheffield



C. M. Sheffield said:


> You seem to be saying this faith only "rests and receives" and that it doesn't "work by love." I am sure that is not your view, but perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining yourself further.



Pastor:

Justifying faith indeed rests upon and receives Christ alone. Does this faith also "work by love?" Indeed, as I've made clear here all along.

Is that working by love at all in view, however, in my justification? No. Not at all. That working by love is the evidence of my justifying faith, not the same thing as my justifying faith, by which alone I am justified.

It's the difference between root and fruit. You don't have justifying faith without good works (nor truly good works without justifying faith). But they are not the same thing. When my justification is at issue, what's in view is justifying faith, not its accompanying graces or its fruits (good works). If good works are in view in justification, then it is co-instrumental with faith in my justification. But it is not!

I've been stepping back from my commenting on the PB because I frankly found myself saying too much! But I've done a good deal of work in this area, not only in books, articles, conferences (and preaching!), but for my denomination (on the NPP/FV Committee). This is vital and I believe that I must maintain this truth at all costs.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 13 | Informative 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Pastor:
> 
> Justifying faith indeed rests upon and receives Christ alone. Does this faith also "work by love?" Indeed, as I've made clear here all along.
> 
> ...


As I suspected, we are in complete agreement on the relationship of faith and works to justification. The only thing I fail to understand is how what Wilson has said contradicts it. Perhaps you know of other things he has written that make it clear that he believes works are co-instrumental in our justification. Everything I have read and heard him say rejects that. But if you know of some place in his writing that would shed more light on the discussion, I would be interested in reading it.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I've been stepping back from my commenting on the PB...



I'm glad you stepped in, if only so that you are now a "Puritan Board Senior."

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Perhaps you know of other things he has written that make it clear that he believes works are co-instrumental in our justification



From your post 27.

page 48 of _Reformed Is Not Enough_. Wilson states...

“Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. But when God has done this wonderful work, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die. It continues to love God and obey Him. 

He is still speaking of instrumental faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Perhaps you know of other things he has written that make it clear that he believes works are co-instrumental in our justification. Everything I have read and heard him say rejects that. But if you know of some place in his writing that would shed more light on the discussion, I would be interested in reading it.



Throughout this thread, Pastor Sheffield, we've seen Wilson doing just that: making works co-instrumental in our justification. One is doing that when one equates "faith" and "faithful". Faith has in view Jesus' work; faithful has in view our work. Love has that in view as well.

The Reformers said, with respect to the medievalists (and some Fathers): where they say "caritas" (love) is the completing element of "unformed faith" (which was faith as merely assent), we say "fiducia" (trust). The reason the Reformers defined the completing element of faith as trust and not love was because love entails works (love is keeping the commandments).

Faith is not in its essence keeping His commandments. It is believing in Him. Believing always results in obeying. But they are not the same thing and must be distinguished. Insofar as Wilson continues to equate "faith" and "faithful," he injects works into faith and necessarily makes it co-instrumental with faith in justification.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 5


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Throughout this thread, Pastor Sheffield, we've seen Wilson doing just that: making works co-instrumental in our justification. One is doing that when one equates "faith" and "faithful". Faith has in view Jesus' work; faithful has in view our work. Love has that in view as well.
> 
> The Reformers said, with respect to the medievalists (and some Fathers): where they say "caritas" (love) is the completing element of "unformed faith" (which was faith as merely assent), we say "fiducia" (trust). The reason the Reformers defined the completing element of faith as trust and not love was because love entails works (love is keeping the commandments).
> 
> ...


I think the problem in this whole conversation is an indiscriminate use of Paul's figurative language "faith working by love." Wilson speaks of "faithful faith."

Technically, faith cannot work (who is Faith?). People work, or are faithful, not faith. A person who has faith will work, but faith cannot work. To put it another way, faith doesn't have a will.

When Paul says that faith works, he means that a person with faith works. That's the Confessional meaning as well. But what does Wilson mean? Does he mean that faith includes works/faithfulness? Does he mean that an element of faith, as an instrument of our justification, is a faithful disposition?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Insofar as Wilson continues to equate "faith" and "faithful," he injects works into faith and necessarily makes it co-instrumental with faith in justification.



Perhaps. His language there is certainly not helpful. But I am not certain he really equates faith and faithfulness given other clearer explanations of his view. Take this answer, for example. Here he unequivocally rejects any co-instrumentality in justification.

At the 43 second mark, Wilson says,

"So, when a guy gets converted on Wednesday, that justification, that forensic imputation of the righteousness of Christ is given to him, imputed to him completely independent of any works he has done. The only thing that he contributes is faith, and faith alone, and even that faith was a gift, lest he be tempted to brag about that. So that's the role works has in justification in that way. Which is to say, none, zip, zilch. No, it has nothing whatever to do with justification."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Jan 15, 2020)

I take Wilson at his own words, to me his interview with James White put to rest any doubts about his affiliation with FV. That does not mean that all of his views are in alignment with the reformed faith, but they do stand within orthodoxy.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 15, 2020)

Sorry, brothers, but I don't think that you should have to go searching through a man's body of work to find a place or places where he may better, or rightly, define justification, while continuing elsewhere to define it confusingly and to insinuate faithfulness into the act of justifying faith itself.

If I am not clear about JBFA every time that I talk about it, shame on me. That's a failure as a gospel minister. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Sorry, brothers, but I don't think that you should have to go searching through a man's body of work to find a place or places where he may better, or rightly, define justification, while continuing elsewhere to define it confusingly and to insinuate faithfulness into the act of justifying faith itself.
> 
> If I am not clear about JBFA every time that I talk about it, shame on me. That's a failure as a gospel minister.


No, I quite agree. But I do think you do have to go searching through a man's body of work before you condemn him as a heretic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

I find when discussing Wilson, it is difficult to get some to say so much as one thing about any "exculpatory evidence" when it's presented, though they are willing to make much of even one _turn of phrase_ if it confirms their bias.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No, I quite agree. But I do think you do have to go searching through a man's body of work before you condemn him as a heretic.


 The OPC did in their report. And I don't call him a heretic. I've read tens of thousands of pages of patristics and I know that word should never be used lightly. But when you have to read the entire body of a man's work to find where he is okay on JBFA, that's a problem. He should be clear on it. We shouldn't have to search on a key doctrine like this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And I don't call him a heretic. I've read tens of thousands of pages of patristics and I know that word should never be used lightly.


Well, perhaps you do not. But I would say a denial of justification by faith alone is a damnable heresy (Gal. 1:8, 9). 


BayouHuguenot said:


> But when you have to read the entire body of a man's work to find where he is okay on JBFA, that's a problem.


And in Wilson's case you don't. The video I linked to above was the first result when I searched "Douglas Wilson justification by faith alone." I'd say that's pretty good. What I think you have to go searching for is anything that is less than precise to argue he holds to positions he has explicitly and repeatedly denied.


----------



## RJ Spencer (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The OPC did in their report. And I don't call him a heretic. I've read tens of thousands of pages of patristics and I know that word should never be used lightly. But when you have to read the entire body of a man's work to find where he is okay on JBFA, that's a problem. He should be clear on it. We shouldn't have to search on a key doctrine like this.



Many ministers have changed their views on numerous different positions. What we need to do in order to know where a preacher stands is to look at his most recent comments. If we look at Wilson's most recent comments it is clear that he currently believes in Justification by Faith alone. We do not have to read his entire body of work, he admits himself that he once held to FV, but he no longer does.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No, I quite agree. But I do think you do have to go searching through a man's body of work before you condemn him as a heretic.



My dear brother,

I've called no one a heretic. I challenge you to demonstrate that. We in the OPC, and I was a key author of that report, did say that FV's deficient definition of justification, _inter alia_, marked it as outside the Reformed confessions.

And that is what I have been saying here: Wilson's equating of faith and faithfulness is contrary to what the Westminster Standards (especially WLC 72 and 73) sets forth concerning justifying faith. The OPC's report affirmed such, together with reports from the rest of NAPARC and other denominations.

I am simply seeking to uphold and maintain our unified Reformed and Presbyterian witness on the matter. I am the one seeking to maintain orthodoxy. But under your criticism, I am the one in the wrong (you accuse me of peremptorily accusing a man of heresy) and the man outside of Reformed orthodoxy, as determined by overwhelming witness, is in the clear.

I challenge you, dear brother, to rethink and retract what you wrote.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 15, 2020)

And to answer additional statements, a man who once held to the FV view on justification and then repudiated it, needs to do so in a way that makes such clear. If you are saying, gentlemen, that Wilson has repented of his error, I've not seen him make that known in a way that I am aware of it.

In fact, I've been interacting with what you yourself wrote, Pastor Sheffield, in this very thread, that reveals Wilson *still equating faith and faithfulness*. You can't both claim that he's repudiated FV and cite statements from his work that are perpetuations of the error. If he continues to equate the two, which your own quotes do, then you cannot, at the same time, say that he's repudiated such by other citations. If he has repudiated his error, he should make it known in a way that all of us who called him on it in earlier years are clear.

Peace,
Alan

P.S. I did just watch the very first part of the video that Br. Sheffield posted. I agree that in the first minute or so (which is all that I listened to), Wilson gives a confessional definition of justifying faith. I don't know how to square this with other things cited in this very post, but I do know that it's Wilson's responsibility to make clear any repentance and change of position in an unambiguous way in this matter.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

RJ Spencer said:


> Many ministers have changed their views on numerous different positions.


Let us not forget that Wilson, even if he has changed his view of justification, is not a legitimately ordained minister of the word.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I am simply seeking to uphold and maintain our unified Reformed and Presbyterian witness on the matter. I am the one seeking to maintain orthodoxy. But under your criticism, I am the one in the wrong (you accuse me of peremptorily accusing a man of heresy) and the man outside of Reformed orthodoxy, as determined by overwhelming witness, is in the clear.
> 
> I challenge you, dear brother, to rethink and retract what you wrote.



Forgive me brother. I do not wish to cause offense. I understood you as at least implying (if not outright saying) that Wilson denied justification by faith alone. Is it your view that such a stance is not heretical?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> Let us not forget that Wilson, even if he has changed his view of justification, is not a legitimately ordained minister of the word.


Would you mind explaining why that is? I am not familiar with the circumstances of his ordination.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Would you mind explaining why that is? I am not familiar with the circumstances of his ordination.


His own words can be found here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Alan D. Strange said:


> If he has repudiated his error, he should make it known in a way that all of us who called him on it in earlier years are clear.


As I see it, the prejudice against him is so intense among so many of his old adversaries, that there is virtually nothing he could say to satisfy their definition of repentance. The statements he has made repudiating former errors are deemed by them as certainly not sufficient, disingenuous at best, or worse, deliberately deceptive.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 15, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> His own words can be found here.


It's late here. Perhaps you could give me the cliff-notes version. TLDR


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> It's late here. Perhaps you could give me the cliff-notes version. TLDR


OK, then. Wilson, never having attended seminary, is also self-ordained.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 16, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Forgive me brother. I do not wish to cause offense. I understood you as at least implying (if not outright saying) that Wilson denied justification by faith alone. Is it your view that such a stance is not heretical?



I forgive you, brother, readily, and appreciate your words seeking such.

I was part of a process in the OPC that opined that the FV (and Wilson was a part of that; by no means the most egregious part) was confessionally out of bounds. We did not seek to determine the matter further than that as the FV partisans were not under our jurisdiction and not subject to our judicial process. 

We called FV unconfessional. Aspects of it may be heretical, depending on how one defines that (no small or easy undertaking), but our denomination decided to go no further than calling it unconfessional. Someone may be unclear on justification in some respects and not be heretical.

In any case, I would not then exceed the judgment of my denomination and call him heretical on my own. Anyone who knows me know that's not the way I roll! I also, btw, would not call Wilson unconverted, though a ruling elder in my own denomination was recently surmised to be on this very Board. I find such judgments both uncharitable and misguided. 

I will leave to the judicatories of jurisdiction the question of credible professions of faith, even if i am bringing charges against one of their members. And I'll also not go off on my own and call heretics those who the Reformed church collectively has not called such. 

But, at least as I have known him in the past, Wilson has not been in conformity to the Westminster Standards in his teaching on justification. If he is now, I would think that he would be eager, even zealous, to notify all NAPARC churches (easily done these days) and let them know of his change of heart in the matter. I am not aware of any such thing. He just keeps going along, auto-accountable and seemingly impenitent. I'll be the first to rejoice if he's truly repented. 

There does remain, though, as Tom Hart notes, the whole question of validity of ordination, not to mention the lack of any theological training in the first place (it shows in many places, though he is a smart and able fellow). 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## SavedSinner (Jan 16, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> Steven Wedgeworth at The Calvinist International has just completed a six-part in-depth historical study on the theological trajectories of FV and its various adherents, including and especially focusing upon Doug Wilson. It is well worth reading - I found his analysis of Doug Wilson to be helpful. Interestingly, Doug Wilson also spoke approvingly of Wedgeworth's work on Twitter. I would be curious to hear if anyone here at PB would disagree with Wedgeworth in terms of his findings or (more likely) analysis. Here are links:
> 
> 1. https://calvinistinternational.com/...-of-the-federal-vision-after-all-these-years/
> 2. https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/11/18/a-federal-vision-history/
> ...


FV heterodoxy discussion yet again, but just dead silence when it comes to sanctification. I would be scared to death if I were one of these teachers preaching antinomianism (the word that never is spoken, but is conveyed over and over again by omission).


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2020)

SavedSinner said:


> FV heterodoxy discussion yet again, but just dead silence when it comes to sanctification. I would be scared to death if I were one of these teachers preaching antinomianism (the word that never is spoken, but is conveyed over and over again by omission).



No one is advocating antinomianism. We aren't talking about sanctification here because the focus of the conversation is on whether Wilson still teaches justification by faithfulness.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 16, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> His own words can be found here.


The rest of that report was quite shocking.

Anymore, I try to just stay away from this sort...keep to a safe path.

"My sheep hear my voice", and I really don't hear it from Mr. Wilson.


Blessings!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jan 16, 2020)

RJ Spencer said:


> We do not have to read his entire body of work, he admits himself that he once held to FV, but he no longer does.


Just out of clarification, Doug Wilson has explicitly stated that he no longer _refers _to himself as FV, as he thinks that name encompasses too many views, some of which he does not hold, but he has also said that *he has not changed what he believes*. if you don't believe me, just read his own words for yourself.



> This statement represents a change in what I will _call_ what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the _content_ of what I believe.


The fuller explanation can be read on his blog.

Doug Wilson has not retracted any of his views on these matters as far as I am aware. Thus the reports by the OPC et al still stands.

This does not of course mean that we should assume Mr Wilson believes everything any other person who is FV holds to, but it does mean that he has not changed his mind about his confusion of faith and faithfulness.

Would you agree that if he has not, in fact, changed his views on these matters that would be rather problematic?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2020)

Wilson still holds to the 2007 Joint FV statement.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 16, 2020)

BottleOfTears said:


> Just out of clarification, Doug Wilson has explicitly stated that he no longer _refers _to himself as FV, as he thinks that name encompasses too many views, some of which he does not hold, but he has also said that *he has not changed what he believes*. if you don't believe me, just read his own words for yourself.
> 
> 
> The fuller explanation can be read on his blog.
> ...



Most celebrity pastors know about good PR and branding.


----------



## RJ Spencer (Jan 16, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Wilson still holds to the 2007 Joint FV statement.



Citation please? Where has he said this?


----------



## RJ Spencer (Jan 16, 2020)

What I find most troubling about the way Wilson gets treated is that many of those that believe him to be borderline heretical, are the very ones that have defended supposed "new converts" like Kanye. Wilson proved himself to be orthodox reformed until he endorsed FV, but he has stated what his beliefs are now. His current beliefs may be FV lite, but are still obviously within the orthodox faith and anyone that doubts his views on JBFA has simply ignored his most recent comments. This issue seems to go back to a previous debate https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/are-good-works-necessary-to-salvation.99267/


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 16, 2020)

Moderating. Whole denominations have weighed in on FV as Alan Strange has said, and if Wilson cared to officially and unambiguously clear things up he could easily do so. Consider this closing a notice of a indefinite moratorium on all things Wilson.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 3


----------

