# God needs your help and advice! So says Doug Wilson



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

On several occasions, people have asked for things Wilson has actually written that are harmful. Well, with how prolific he is, and with virtually no filter mechanism from thought to publication, all you had to do was wait a few minutes.

This is not the most heretical or bad thing I have seen, but it is about the dumbest, in a long while. But it does shock and cause one to say, ooohhh, so it's right up Wilson's alley and serves his purpose.



> Now if all this happens at the beginning of the service, what should our demeanor be in the rest of the service? We were not invited into God´s presence in order to stand around sheepishly. We are summoned to actively worship Him, praise Him, present our petitions to Him, *and to give our advice to Him. Yes, you heard that last phrase rightly. We come into God´s presence in order to serve as members of His privy council, as members of His cabinet.* Like Abraham, we are friends of God.



Full entry:
http://www.dougwils.com/Print.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=692


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

It makes one wonder what he will come up with next.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 11, 2005)

Omniscience in need of advice???


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Omniscience in need of advice???



Ahh, but Scott, what you are forgetting is that the traditional definition of "omniscience" is not in fact what the Bible means by the term, just as with "covenant" and "grace."


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

*Job 38*
2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? 8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'? 12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. 16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death ? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. 19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! 22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? 31 "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth? 34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? 36 Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind ? 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? 39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? 41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food? 

*Job 42*
1 Then Job replied to the LORD : 2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. 3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. 4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' 5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 11, 2005)

So is Auburn embracing open theism too?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

I have advice how about getting rid of that dumb blog!!! :bigsmile:

jk

well sorta ...

blade


----------



## turmeric (Jan 11, 2005)

Well, I would tell God to speak a word of faith(Where's that dancing banana when I need it?). I'm waiting for him to say that God can't do anything about what goes on here until we invite him into the situation!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

I feel something coming on the harvest is going to reep a plenty of silver and gold ..oh wait just heartburn nevermind


----------



## daveb (Jan 11, 2005)

Not only does Wilson bring God down to man's level, he actually brings him down to a level lower than man. It seems Wilson's god is nowhere to be found in the pages of Scripture.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 11, 2005)

Wilson sounds like a Charismatic now. That sounds like something you'd hear at a Benny Hinn meeting.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> I feel something coming on the harvest is going to reep a plenty of silver and gold ..oh wait just heartburn nevermind



I've been waiting for someone to bring up the "burning in the bosom" so I could say, yeah, I've experienced that but Digel is unbelievably effective!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)




----------



## openairboy (Jan 12, 2005)

I realize I will get blasted for this, but is this really that big of a deal? I can think of a myriad of examples where the Lord relented of various things due to the prayers of men. I was just reading the Exodus tonight where the Lord listened to Moses, I can think of the sun standing still and the Lord listened to the voice of a man, I can think of Adam naming the animals, think of the prayers of Amos and Hosea for foregiveness and the Lord relents, Isaiah 62 says you who remind the Lord, etc., we reign with him, etc. We are heirs with Christ...

Yes, I don't necessarily like the word "advice", but...

Fortunately Fred said, "This is not the most heretical thing..."

openairboy


----------



## DTK (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> I realize I will get blasted for this, but is this really that big of a deal? I can think of a myriad of examples where the Lord relented of various things due to the prayers of men. I was just reading the Exodus tonight where the Lord listened to Moses, I can think of the sun standing still and the Lord listened to the voice of a man, I can think of Adam naming the animals, think of the prayers of Amos and Hosea for foregiveness and the Lord relents, Isaiah 62 says you who remind the Lord, etc., we reign with him, etc. We are heirs with Christ...
> 
> Yes, I don't necessarily like the word "advice", but...



Yes, but what? That is the very point, is it not? Presenting a petition before God is a far cry from "giving him our advice."

Isaiah 40:13-14: Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, Or as His counselor has taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, And taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, And showed Him the way of understanding?

No blast, just a reminder of the counsel of the Almighty.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by openairboy_
> ...



Amen. What Wilson said is just wrong.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 12, 2005)

If Wilson spoke in a forest and no one was there to hear, would he still be wrong?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

Well, Wilson wouldn't see any point in speaking if God wasn't at least there - gotta have _someone_ to advise.


----------



## openairboy (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> Yes, but what? That is the very point, is it not? Presenting a petition before God is a far cry from "giving him our advice."
> 
> ...



Yes, but I don't think the use of "advice" is that big of a deal. Could the aforementioned examples be seen as "advice"? "Yhwh, don't destroy the Israelites, b/c it will bring ill repute to your name among the Egyptians", so Yhwh doesn't. Is that "advice"? I think someone can easily apply the word to that situation.

I realize Snoop Dougy Doug has a target on his back...

openairboy

P.S. Turmeric


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 12, 2005)

Good point Kieth.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 12, 2005)

Maybe Doug Wilson didn't really mean what it seems like he means. However, part the problem with the FV is ambiguity and flat-out confusion in communication. It seems like he ought to have been more careful with his words and not put himself up for this kind of (legitimate) criticism.


----------



## DTK (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DTK_
> ...


Yes, I think you've identified the spirit of this movement.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DTK_
> ...



Well Keih,

Part of the problem is that Wilson _wants_ an initial shock reaction at his words. That is why he does things (and you can see it even in his next words: "Yes, you heard that last phrase rightly."

What Wilson is not talking about is prayer. If you read the whole post, he is commenting on the importance of _corporate_ worship. We give advice in that context. He writes right before the quote in question:



> Now if all this happens at the beginning of the service, what should our demeanor be in the rest of the service?



This is different from Abraham's prayer or the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man. He's trying to make a big deal from corporate worship. In typical Wilsonian style, he is on the right track (corporate worship is a big deal) but he does it along the wrong means and with a misstep (we don't advise God). I think there is an important difference betweena corporate "parliamentarian type gathering, and the pleadings of Moses. At the very least, it is a foolish way to word things, and leaves itself open to the grossest of misinterpretations that I am sure Wilson does not espouse (like Open Theism). Giving ammunition to the enemies of God for teh sake of being witty or cute is never wise. But then again, Wilson *never* misses an occasion to be witty or cute. He as much as says that "relgious sarcasm" is being Christlike in another blog post, and that's why he and his isolationist crew partake of it so often.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 12, 2005)

The problem is ya'll just don't understand. Wilson is using the word "advice" biblically not theologically! 

To those who dare to blaspheme Wilson (otherwise known as Philistines or Southern Presbyterians),

It seems that you are allowing your postmodern, enlightment influenced, systematic (ie; non-biblical) thinking get in the way.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 12, 2005)

In Heaven I have a safety deposit box into which Christ has imputed his own righteousness - a couple aisles away there is a sugestion box so I can give God advice.

Here's my suggestion. How about bringing the dinosaurs back?


----------



## openairboy (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> Yes, I think you've identified the spirit of this movement.
> 
> Blessings,
> DTK




Yes, I have captured the essence of the dreaded "Advice Movement". Beware! I have already heard of several Presbyteries having to discipline ministers, because of their involvement in this movement. One minister, I know personally, has properly identified the movement and called it Hyper-Ann Landerism.

I think my adversity to the word "advice" stems from Al Pacino's influence on me as a boy. Wasn't it he who said, "The worst vice is advice"? Even with Al's warning, I don't think it is that big of deal, especially considering the fact that Moses seems to give his "advice" to Yhwh on several occassions. Not only that, but that Moses even talks about God "repenting", can you believe that? Fortunately JEPD did the editing and not us, because we would never have let him get away with that.

openairboy


----------



## pastorway (Jan 12, 2005)

Moses interceded and asked God to take an action opposite of what He had said He would do. He did not advise God to repent. God does not need nor want our advise. And those who tink they have advise to offer God are foolish and should put their hand over their mouth like Job did.

Phillip


----------



## openairboy (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Well Keih,
> 
> Part of the problem is that Wilson _wants_ an initial shock reaction at his words. That is why he does things (and you can see it even in his next words: "Yes, you heard that last phrase rightly."
> ...



I can agree with much of that.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Moses interceded and asked God to take an action opposite of what He had said He would do. He did not advise God to repent. God does not need nor want our advise. And those who tink they have advise to offer God are foolish and should put their hand over their mouth like Job did.
> 
> Phillip



This will be my last post on the topic, because I think it rather fruitless to debate over the word "advice", because I honestly don't think many would allow people to speak of God "repenting" if it wasn't explicitly stated in the Scriptures.

Anyway, "But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, "œO Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, "˜With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth´? *Turn* from your burning anger and *relent* from this disaster against your people."

Merriam Webster defines advice as: "recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct", and Phillip says, "Moses interceded and asked God to take an action opposite of what He had said He would do [recommendation regarding a course of conduct?]." I think Phillip's words are pretty close to that of Merriam Webster's defintion of "advice". Sorry, but that sounds a lot like advice to me. 

I'll follow that fool Moses over our theologians any day of the week.

openairboy


----------



## DTK (Jan 12, 2005)

> This will be my last post on the topic, because I think it rather fruitless to debate over the word "advice", because I honestly don't think many would allow people to speak of God "repenting" if it wasn't explicitly stated in the Scriptures.


I'll simply state the obvious. There is a world of difference between what is God-breathed and what is Wilson-breathed. And I've already shown you what is God-breathed with respect to this matter. But the manner of your contesting does underscore the spirit of this movement. I suppose that with the advent of the postmodern mindset, there's not a word extant today that isn't subject to the death of a thousand qualifications. With such linguistic gymnastics like that, why ever accept the obvious when you can explain it away a thousand different ways?

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Well, I would tell God to speak a word of faith(Where's that dancing banana when I need it?). I'm waiting for him to say that God can't do anything about what goes on here until we invite him into the situation!



Didn't we quote Grahm's daughter on another thread about God being a "gentleman"?


----------



## pastorway (Jan 12, 2005)

Giving God advise means telling Him what to do. Who are we to command our Lord?

Moses was interceding - he was asking, not telling!

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



Indeed - when skeptics were asking where God was on 9/11, and why He let it happen, she spoke of how America hates and rejects God and His standards as a postmodern, secular nation (which is true), and from there said that "God is a gentleman, He doesn't go where He's not wanted."


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Giving God advise means telling Him what to do. Who are we to command our Lord?
> 
> Moses was interceding - he was asking, not telling!
> ...



Phillip,

I find it incredible that some folks, in their eagerness to defend anyone involved in the project of the so-called Federal Vision, are apparently incapable of grasping basic biblical teachings.
It really is amazing that some are missing Wilson's drift. Some "Presbyterians" who delight in attacking everything historically and Confesssionally Presbyterian (and who refuse to read and answer pages and pages of quotes to such effect from Calvin) can't see the basic difference between supplication and intercession on the one hand and advice and being a member of God's "*privy council*" on the other hand. Clearly Wilson does not intend that this advice is the same as when the prisoner begs for his life, or the slave asks his master for mercy. Yet somehow, David's plea for deliverance in Psalm 22 is "privy council" advice that is the equivalent of the corporate worship of God.

By the way - I'm not criticizing Keith here.

[Edited on 1/13/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 13, 2005)

I agree with Phillip...it was more of a begging, pleading, asking, interceding. Moses couldn't hardly speak let alone advise God. Must be an ISFJ


----------



## turmeric (Jan 13, 2005)

*\"God is a Gentleman\"*

That's the crux, I think, of the dangerous stuff I was taught as a child, that it's up to me to decide & I'd better get it right! That creates fear on one hand & presumption on the other. Hence my version of "carnal christianity" which I practiced so long in which I hated God and at the same time thought I could safely ignore Him. This almost seems like another gospel (I know, we've had other threads on this) but how much is this theology to blame and how much is our depravity to blame? I'm considering writing something on this, because I meet so many failed evangelifish and would like to truly evangelize them, but there are a few said fish who really are saved. Any thoughts?

(Admins; feel free to move this post or split thread if necessary, thanks:bigsmile


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 13, 2005)

God: Matthew, what advice would you give Me?

Matthew: Don't take my advice.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> God: Matthew, what advice would you give Me?
> 
> Matthew: Don't take my advice.



No Kidding!!! The world would self destruct!


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jan 13, 2005)

I think one of the main problems is that authors and speakers have "too much to say." "In the abundance of words, there does not fail to be transgression."

There are so many "new teachings" because people always want to be the clever one. They want people to "ooh and ahh," "Oh, wow! I've never heard ANYONE teach like this before!" Big deal! 

Why can't we be satisfied with the basics of our faith? Why do we always have to be on "the cutting edge of thought"? Why can't we go deeper without having the latest redefinition of a word to make our teaching stand out from the rest of the pack?

We'd be a lot better off if instead of writing new books, authors stopped, thought about it, and said "Read this book." and pointed us to the classics that have already been written. If there's nothing new under the sun, why do we look so hard to find it?

Theology is not the place to make a name for oneself. Unless of course, you're known for being a faithful stalwart of the faith.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 13, 2005)

> Why can't we be satisfied with the basics of our faith? Why do we always have to be on "the cutting edge of thought"? Why can't we go deeper without having the latest redefinition of a word to make our teaching stand out from the rest of the pack?
> 
> We'd be a lot better off if instead of writing new books, authors stopped, thought about it, and said "Read this book." and pointed us to the classics that have already been written. If there's nothing new under the sun, why do we look so hard to find it?



Christopher, very well put. I think you have the current controversies diagnosed correctly. Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 14, 2005)

Here is a new response on the semper-reformanda.org web log to the Wilson statment and subsequent interaction on reformedcatholicism.com.

http://www.semper-reformanda.org/journal/

Typical of the clear, biblical thinking of F.J. De Angelis.



[Edited on 14-1-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Here is a new response on the semper-reformanda.org web log to the Wilson statment and subsequent interaction on reformedcatholicism.org.
> 
> http://www.semper-reformanda.org/journal/
> ...



Adam,

Do you know much about De Angelis? I really enjoy his blog. Feel free to reply off list.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 14, 2005)

Hi Fred, his web log is one my favorites too. What I do know about him comes from what I read on his web site. I think his critiques of the new legalism are among the best I have read and evidence the kind of clear, sound Biblical thinking combined with courage that we need more of today.


----------



## openairboy (Jan 15, 2005)

An update.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I think one of the main problems is that authors and speakers have "too much to say." "In the abundance of words, there does not fail to be transgression."
> 
> There are so many "new teachings" because people always want to be the clever one. They want people to "ooh and ahh," "Oh, wow! I've never heard ANYONE teach like this before!" Big deal!
> ...



Excellent. This is a good reminder for me as a minister because one of the greatest temptations in sermon preparation and delivery is to sound unique or really new, instead of just preaching the gospel. Who cares what I have to say, if I do not preach Christ?


----------



## brymaes (Mar 8, 2005)

Wilson's statement is almost word-for-word identical to a concept that James Jordon explains in "Through New Eyes," the idea of man as God's "covenantal advisor". He would say that this is what Adam is doing when he's naming the animals in Genesis.


----------



## Robin (Mar 8, 2005)

Wilson says we are not to enter into worship "_sheepishly_"....

What? I thought we ARE sheep! Aren't we sheep? What am I missing? Isn't that why Jesus is The Shepherd?

R.


----------



## Robin (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> ...



Amen  Just preach Christ --- we need more pastors with guts like this! Go for it, brother!

Robin


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 8, 2005)

Daniel,

It is so tempting to get people to listen by rhetorical acumen (and it does work), but the question becomes what are they paying attention to, the rhetorical gymnastics? It seems that so often people walk away saying, "That was a wonderful sermon, so artfully delivered." Ask them 10 minutes later what the sermon was about and all they remember is a phase that was cleverly turned.

Rhetoric certianly has a place in delivering the word of God, but what is it that gains a lasting impression in the listeners. What caused Edward's listeners to tremble when they heard about Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God? Was it his rhetorical style, his booming voice, his imposing carriage?
Or, was it the Word of God faithfully, with the aid of the Spirit, given to the people. Hmmm, I choose the later.

And I believe that what applies to the spoken word here also applies to the written word. Because of the way the Douglas Wilson trys to be so "cute", what is remembered, of the pages of his writtings, is the cute little (shocking) statement that becomes inflated all out of proportion and takes away from the rest of his writting which deflates in proportion. This is bound to cause certian impressions which I believe he is astute enough to anticipate, and therefore I must assume he intends.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> It is so tempting to get people to listen by rhetorical acumen (and it does work), but the question becomes what are they paying attention to, the rhetorical gymnastics? It seems that so often people walk away saying, "That was a wonderful sermon, so artfully delivered." Ask them 10 minutes later what the sermon was about and all they remember is a phase that was cleverly turned.
> 
> ...



I deliberately have avoided posting on this thread until now. Some know that I am sympathetic to Wilson; however, I do not agree to FV, some of his views on Church, paedocommunion, and whatever else I can't remember right now. You are right--innovation can be dangerous, and Wilson overdid it on this one. One question, and this is an honest question that could apply to any--how do you combine not-innovating and the battle cry, "Semper Reformanda"? Don't take this the wrong way--this is not an apologia for Wilson; I am just curious for my own sake how this impasse, if you will, can be worked out.

I said this wasn't an apologia for Wilson, but it always seems too easy to say, "Look at Wilson on this one! Boy is he a heretic today." No one ever says, "Wow, Wilson really nailed the postmodernists and those associated with Andrew Sandlin today." I take that back; James White, who has personally debated him, has complimented him several times on AOMIN.

[Edited on 3--9-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Peter (Mar 8, 2005)

Semper Reformanda doesnt mean departing from the attainments of the church it means building upon it. I think mostly by contending against new errors brought forth by false teachers. Frankly, I think ministers are practicing semper reformanda by opposing Wilson.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 8, 2005)

Not to upset Scott :bigsmile: , but can someone give a citation for the phrase Semper Reformanda and how it was first used?

I find that this phrase is thrown around alot - almost always in the context of we need to fix the doctrine of the Church - and there is no historic citation. Kind of like "Augustine's" phrase, "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." (Hint - Augustine never wrote that. It is made up out of whole cloth)


----------



## turmeric (Mar 8, 2005)

He DIDN'T?! That's like saying there's no Santa!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> He DIDN'T?! That's like saying there's no Santa!



The difference is that at least people don't falsely attribute "ho, ho ho"


----------



## Robin (Mar 9, 2005)

[/quote]
How do you combine not-innovating and the battle cry, "Semper Reformanda"? Don't take this the wrong way--this is not an apologia for Wilson; I am just curious for my own sake how this impasse, if you will, can be worked out.

I said this wasn't an apologia for Wilson, but it always seems too easy to say, "Look at Wilson on this one! Boy is he a heretic today." No one ever says, "Wow, Wilson really nailed the postmodernists and those associated with Andrew Sandlin today." I take that back; James White, who has personally debated him, has complimented him several times on AOMIN.
[Edited on 3--9-05 by Draught Horse] [/quote]

Hey There, Jacob...

I had a class awhile back with Kim Riddlebarger --- he recounted a visit that he (and I believe Horton) had with Doug Wilson --- in appropriate Matt. 18 style -- hoping beyond hope that he would affirm the 3 forms - any historic confession to get him clear on the nuances of Biblical justification - (which is ground-zero for being Reformed.) Apparently, he showed signs of resisting accountability to Biblical church (corporate) order. How odd a time and place we are in -- where "self-appointed" ministers pick and choose their own studies of theology; making-up their own denominations (claiming they're non-denominational.) Presuming that God has ordained them, yet not submitting to the Biblical model for "calling" and ordination.

Long ago, I used to listen to lots of DW tapes. I found him engaging, likable and noble in his pursuits of Christian living material. I also noticed his work was quite a bit "lead-footed" on emphasizing Law. It was exhausting to hear admonishments again and again that it was our faith*fulness* that assured of salvation. Subtle hints that one is outside if not in step with the "works of faith." Eventually, he came out of the closet. Faithfulness is what saves us. FV trades the Gospel for Law --- which is THE tactic of Satan (gasp--inhale.)

_Never - ever underestimate the power of ROME_, they say. Sadly, the power of Rome has overcome Doug Wilson. It could happen to the best of us.

In all courtesy, where in Scripture are we taught to "innovate"? We have one job to do: proclaim and defend the Gospel. Are we to "innovate" upon the one foundation the Apostles laid? (Maybe you want a different word?) In articulating that job - we are to not go beyond Scripture; speak where it has not spoken; presume that God will bless efforts outside of His written instructions. Paul didn't...so I don't know what's so difficult about figuring out how to "innovate" as you say. Except that it takes guts and humility to do the work. (See Acts 17 - Paul's innovative style in the face of the "postmodernists" of his day.)

If anyone has admiration for Doug Wilson -- be circumspect, solemn and pray that God would have mercy on him, granting grace unto repentance. 

But for God's grace, there go I.....

Robin


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 9, 2005)

*God Doesn\'t Need MY Advice?!?!?!?!?!?*



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ....
> This is not the most heretical or bad thing I have seen, but it is about the dumbest, in a long while. But it does shock and cause one to say, ooohhh, so it's right up Wilson's alley and serves his purpose
> ....
> ...



Fred, God asks me for advice all the time and looks to me as sort of as an enlightened right-hand man. What do mean the _dumbest thing_ you ever heard? God told me I was his _Deputy Secretary of State for Gentile Affairs_. Just last week, the Almighty asked me how he should answer my prayers and whether he should make Revelation chapter 20 amenable to the premil or amil interpretation, as he was not yet decided on the issue. But Nooooooooo-oh, Fred thinks God doesn't need my advice.
:bigsmile:

(I had Doug Wilson's brother as a professor at Liberty.)


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 9, 2005)

Jacob one of the points I was trying to make is that Wilson is a sharp guy. He has to know that when he throws out a phrase that is controversial and, in the next sentence, points out to everyone that it is controversial, he has to know it will take away from the rest of his teaching. Therefore I have to conclude that he intended this.

Now speaking in general I think there are a number of teachers in the church today that see themselves as another Luther, tacking their 95 Theses to the door of Christendom. Speaking as a Presbyterian, we have recourse in our church government to make changes so we are always trying to reform and conform ourselves to God's word. 

In my mind many of these teachers today eschew these courses in favor of the (I believe unbiblical) method of teaching and preaching their "new understanding" without the counsel of the church. Like Luther they try to attract converts so that their numbers might give them weight in resisting church opposition to their teachings. Meanwhile they are causing confusion in those who are more immature in their faith, who frankly cannot understand why their leaders are confused as to what constitutes the biblical message!

Also if their position is so well considered, why are they having such a difficult time articulating what they believe? Here it is my belief that their rhetoric is designed to draw attention and therefore is not precise and then causes confusion as to just what they meant to articulate.

Getting back to Wilson here, much of his teaching would elicit no controversy from anyone. It is solid and biblical without a doubt. The question then arises why are he and others focusing on teachings that are assuredly controversial? And doing it in a public way that is distressing and confusing to many in the church? If they are so confident that these "œnew understandings" are sound why not take them to the courts of the church and engender change in an orderly fashion?

Please understand that I have a bias in the sense that my conversion was later in life, and it was quite a trial wading through all false teachings faulty systems and downright heresies that were thrown at me from all sides. In spite of all that, the thing I found most distressing was being in churches that professed to believe in doctrines (that I adopted because I judged them to be biblically true) that I would later find they did not really hold to.

As far as FV goes, I am still investigating that myself and am not ready to pass judgment, but I have to say that the methods of those in that movement are suspect at best! I believe that as churchmen we have a duty to always examine our beliefs and reform to conform when we find ourselves out of step with the bible. I do believe however that creating chaos in the church without having exhausted the remedies offered by the church courts is irresponsible and hurtful to many of those being shepherded by the church. In the case of someone´s "œnew understanding" being rejected by the church courts, I would think that very long and serious thought should be taken before embarking on a course of action that will cause great distress and even schism in the church.

Anyway, having said all that, I have to say that I find Douglas Wilson appealing and much of his teaching solid, but I have to take exception at the methods he uses as being hurtful to the church and many of its sheep.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 9, 2005)

Robin:



> Hey There, Jacob...
> 
> I had a class awhile back with Kim Riddlebarger --- he recounted a visit that he (and I believe Horton) had with Doug Wilson --- in appropriate Matt. 18 style -- hoping beyond hope that he would affirm the 3 forms - any historic confession to get him clear on the nuances of Biblical justification - (which is ground-zero for being Reformed.) Apparently, he showed signs of resisting accountability to Biblical church (corporate) order. How odd a time and place we are in -- where "self-appointed" ministers pick and choose their own studies of theology; making-up their own denominations (claiming they're non-denominational.) Presuming that God has ordained them, yet not submitting to the Biblical model for "calling" and ordination.
> 
> ...



Right answer, wrong question. I asked how the phrase SEMPER REFORMANDA wouuld look like in our studies and ministry, not an overview of DW's theological career.



> Sadly, the power of Rome has overcome Doug Wilson.



Even though he has debated Romanists and exhorted them to repent in his debate with James White, calling their errors "damnable ones"?



> If anyone has admiration for Doug Wilson -- be circumspect, solemn and pray that God would have mercy on him, granting grace unto repentance.



Meaning what?


----------



## Robin (Mar 9, 2005)

Hey Jacob,

Sorry if I misunderstood....but, in a nutshell....Wilson holds to a "works" based bent on justification -- ironic as it is....he is insisting that though we're saved by grace, it is our "faithfulness" that maintains that grace (Rome's position.) Much more can be said...but don't take my word for it...here is a link to a site that fairly represents Wilson and others bent on revising Reformation theology -- indeed, the theology of Paul:

http://www.paulperspective.com/page2.html

R.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 9, 2005)

Robin,
Sorry if I sounded angry earlier--I was but towards things related to work and school. Why doesn't Wilsons's "aberrations" bother me? Because I can go to John Murray, John Calvin, yea even, Michael Horton on Soteriological issues and return to Wilson and my personal friend, Steve Wilkins for cultural and sociological critiques. 

Thanks for the website--it looks good and I will divulge into it this weekend.


----------



## Robin (Mar 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Robin,
> Sorry if I sounded angry earlier--I was but towards things related to work and school. Why doesn't Wilsons's "aberrations" bother me? Because I can go to John Murray, John Calvin, yea even, Michael Horton on Soteriological issues and return to Wilson and my personal friend, Steve Wilkins for cultural and sociological critiques.
> 
> Thanks for the website--it looks good and I will divulge into it this weekend.



Yes, Jacob, Wilson has insightful social commentary...it is unfortunate and a grief that he has sold-out to a works- based gospel -which is no gospel at all. As long as we are wary of this --- there's no harm in benefiting from his critiques - just stay away from his teaching -- there's poison in the well.

May God bless and watch-over you as you deal with the struggles of school,



R.


----------

