# Canon Press Literature



## Mac (May 18, 2022)

Hello Everyone. First time poster here. The subject of this post is the thrust causing me to even join The Puritan Board. I am a new elder (1 year) and have caught the scent of fairly accepted use of Canon Press materials among younger families in our church. Perhaps one of the underlying reasons for the acceptance of these materials is the associated ministry of a classical school (ACCS) with the church. I am well aware of Doug Wilson's role in the FV controversy and have studied it up and down for some time. How concerned should I be that many young mothers are reading books by Rachel Jankovic? Or the possibly some of our young fathers reading books by Michael Foster/Bnonn Tennant? These books smell of "another gospel" to me, but I also submit to the fact that I may be biased or over analyzing. It seems to me that what flows out of their writing is the fact that the covenant of works & covenant of grace and distinction between law & gospel are amalgamated together, creating conditions for the believer in justification other than faith alone. All I seem to read are the words "obey, obedience, covenant faithfulness, be faithful...etc." when it seems like the words "faith, rest, LOOK TO Jesus" should be there instead. I plan to discuss this at the session level soon...any ideas on how to proceed graciously, "clothed in humility?"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (May 18, 2022)

As with any publisher, there is good and bad. I haven’t read everything from Canon Press, but what I have read—even the stuff from Doug Wilson—I have read with great profit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jonty (May 18, 2022)

I have a Canon+ subscription and have listened to a fair bit of material from any number of authors on there. I could point to quite a few places where the true gospel is taught and could also point to places where obedience is emphasised. Could do the same thing in the gospels and show where the Lord Jesus emphasis' faith and others where works is also emphasised for different reasons. My personal opinion is that Doug got caught up in the wrong crowd with the FV stuff and some less careful critics have been quick to shoot him down. I say that having read a bunch of FV stuff and could clearly show where Wilson differs from Jordan, Leithart on regeneration, and where he differs from Jordan, Leithart and Meyers on election for example. His doctrine of baptismal “efficacy” is also different from the others. It’s my opinion that Wilson doesn’t seem to have helped himself when he used popular theological phrases without being crystal clear that he’s working with a different definition.

As for his and other Canon Press authors publications on family, he emphasises covenant promises to believers children and walks in it and teaches his readers to walk in it as they raise their children, without assuming regeneration, but certainly raising them to be Christian. I’ve enjoyed his teaching on the husbands covenant headship in the home and how he applies it. There’s my 2cents of experience with Canon Press.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2022)

Mac said:


> Hello Everyone. First time poster here. The subject of this post is the thrust causing me to even join The Puritan Board. I am a new elder (1 year) and have caught the scent of fairly accepted use of Canon Press materials among younger families in our church. Perhaps one of the underlying reasons for the acceptance of these materials is the associated ministry of a classical school (ACCS) with the church. I am well aware of Doug Wilson's role in the FV controversy and have studied it up and down for some time. How concerned should I be that many young mothers are reading books by Rachel Jankovic? Or the possibly some of our young fathers reading books by Michael Foster/Bnonn Tennant? These books smell of "another gospel" to me, but I also submit to the fact that I may be biased or over analyzing. It seems to me that what flows out of their writing is the fact that the covenant of works & covenant of grace and distinction between law & gospel are amalgamated together, creating conditions for the believer in justification other than faith alone. All I seem to read are the words "obey, obedience, covenant faithfulness, be faithful...etc." when it seems like the words "faith, rest, LOOK TO Jesus" should be there instead. I plan to discuss this at the session level soon...any ideas on how to proceed graciously, "clothed in humility?"



You've hit the nail on the head. Canon Press has a history of being damaged goods. You've only touched the tip of the iceberg. It's good to present the case to one's session, but be aware that people who like Doug Wilson's empire won't be persuaded otherwise--at least not right away. I've had his disciples block me simply because I quoted where he said he still affirmed the Joint FV statement.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## NM_Presby (May 18, 2022)

Whether you like or dislike Wilson and his associates, you have to hand it to them; they are rigorous with trying their best to apply Scripture to all of life in a meaningful way. I'm not a huge Wilson fan (I haven't read much of his work and I am still sorting through the competing claims about his track record) but I think one of the reasons they are so popular is because they give off an inspiring zeal to truly and practically live all of life to the Lord in a way that means something to ordinary believers. Unfortunately, often the only alternative offered by much of the church world, and even the reformed world seems to be complacency or a cooled intellectualism. That's why I think Wilson is so popular.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2022)

There aren't competing claims to his track record. Here are some established facts:
1) Does he still affirm the Joint FV statement?
2) Has he been tied to at least three overt plagiarism scandals?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NM_Presby (May 18, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> There aren't competing claims to his track record. Here are some established facts:
> 1) Does he still affirm the Joint FV statement?
> 2) Has he been tied to at least three overt plagiarism scandals?


Either way, my point isn't to endorse him. I'm just pointing out that his circle seems to provide something (namely a practical, zealous approach to the Christian life) which many reformed believers apparently feel they aren't getting elsewhere. Good or bad, that's something we should take note of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Either way, my point isn't to endorse him. I'm just pointing out that his circle seems to provide something (namely a practical, zealous approach to the Christian life) which many reformed believers apparently feel they aren't getting elsewhere. Good or bad, that's something we should take note of.



I grant that they write stuff people perceive as practical and relevant. My criticism of them is that it is either wrong or dangerous. And hasn't Bnonn been excommunicated from his church?


----------



## A.Joseph (May 18, 2022)

Mac said:


> Hello Everyone. First time poster here. The subject of this post is the thrust causing me to even join The Puritan Board. I am a new elder (1 year) and have caught the scent of fairly accepted use of Canon Press materials among younger families in our church. Perhaps one of the underlying reasons for the acceptance of these materials is the associated ministry of a classical school (ACCS) with the church. I am well aware of Doug Wilson's role in the FV controversy and have studied it up and down for some time. How concerned should I be that many young mothers are reading books by Rachel Jankovic? Or the possibly some of our young fathers reading books by Michael Foster/Bnonn Tennant? These books smell of "another gospel" to me, but I also submit to the fact that I may be biased or over analyzing. It seems to me that what flows out of their writing is the fact that the covenant of works & covenant of grace and distinction between law & gospel are amalgamated together, creating conditions for the believer in justification other than faith alone. All I seem to read are the words "obey, obedience, covenant faithfulness, be faithful...etc." when it seems like the words "faith, rest, LOOK TO Jesus" should be there instead. I plan to discuss this at the session level soon...any ideas on how to proceed graciously, "clothed in humility?"


 https://canonpress.com/products/ride-sally-ride-a-novel/





….not what I’d call counter-culture


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 18, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> And hasn't Bnonn been excommunicated from his church?


I assume you mean Bnonn Tennant from here in New Zealand. If so it is a real issue.


----------



## Mac (May 18, 2022)

Thank you for the replies. Helpful for sure. I know personally I’ve read some helpful, practical insights from Doug Wilson and Canon Press books. I can’t help but tie my thoughts to the FV issue though. The fact that he really hasn’t opposed any of the joint statement and then he and his family are writing books on practical Christian living has me concerned. I’m sure there will be helpful things on a practical level (ex. raising kids) but if it’s tainted with a wrong view of core reformed beliefs then it all smells funny to me. Don’t want any semi Pelagianism creeping in. I just don’t know for sure if that’s what it is or not. Seems to be such a divided thing


----------



## Mac (May 18, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I assume you mean Bnonn Tennant from here in New Zealand. If so it is a real issue.


Yeah Bnonn Tennant. He’s written some very concerning things mirroring the hard core federal visionists. Straight up justification by works…”final” justification etc


----------



## Mac (May 18, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> https://canonpress.com/products/ride-sally-ride-a-novel/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not real sure what I’m looking at here .


----------



## pmachapman (May 18, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> And hasn't Bnonn been excommunicated from his church?


Yes. https://bnonn.com/excommunicated/


----------



## Jack K (May 18, 2022)

Mac said:


> any ideas on how to proceed graciously, "clothed in humility?"


You are right to be concerned about any teaching which gives the impression that justification is by anything other than faith in Christ alone. Canon Press is indeed associated with some authors who make that error, whether those authors officially affirm this or not. This means that those in your church ought to be made aware—especially if this is not just a matter of reading a single book but is starting to become a fascination with anything from that publisher.

How do you do that? I suspect that most people who get hooked on Wilson and then dive deeper into the writings of others in his circle initially are attracted for good reasons, or at least for reasons not as bad as the justification errors. After all, there is also plenty of good material in many of those books. I would guess you should be careful not to talk to readers as if they were budding heretics, but as well-meaning people who might not be aware what they're getting into. Do these readers know that their denomination carefully studied this teaching and condemned it?

Wilson's style tends to be combative. Although people often like him for this, it is also his flaw. You have a chance to treat people much more lovingly as you gently point out error and show how Christ is actually better than what they have been led to believe in some of those books. Most people will appreciate that. So, adorn your words with brotherly love for those you address.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Mac (May 18, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Yes. https://bnonn.com/excommunicated/


Hard to know the truth of the details. I did read Tennant’s own response and did find some concerning things in there (what I referenced earlier). Enough for me to really question any Canon Press materials


----------



## Mac (May 18, 2022)

Jack K said:


> You are right to be concerned about any teaching which gives the impression that justification is by anything other than faith in Christ alone. Canon Press is indeed associated with some authors who make that error, whether those authors officially affirm this or not. This means that those in your church ought to be made aware—especially if this is not just a matter of reading a single book but is starting to become a fascination with anything from that publisher.
> 
> How do you do that? I suspect that most people who get hooked on Wilson and then dive deeper into the writings of others in his circle initially are attracted for good reasons, or at least for reasons not as bad as the justification errors. After all, there is also plenty of good material in many of those books. I would guess you should be careful not to talk to readers as if they were budding heretics, but as well-meaning people who might not be aware what they're getting into. Do these readers know that their denomination carefully studied this teaching and condemned it?
> 
> Wilson's style tends to be combative. Although people often like him for this, it is also his flaw. You have a chance to treat people much more lovingly as you gently point out error and show how Christ is actually better than what they have been led to believe in some of those books. Most people will appreciate that. So, adorn your words with brotherly love for those you address.


Thank you so much. Such wisdom here.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 18, 2022)

The usual response when anyone recommends avoiding Doug Wilson is, "But he writes so much useful stuff on practical Christian living." No. You cannot write about practical Christianity with profit when you are wrong on the gospel. Why? Because if someone is wrong on the gospel they are not going to be right about Christian practice, because their writings on the latter subject will be influenced by their legalism.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## Jonty (May 18, 2022)

Does anyone on the Puritan board actually take the man’s presbytery examination seriously or is someone willing to confess what they seem to believe by how they treat the matter? That is, are you willing to confess that you think he was lying through his teeth? Or should we be charitable and see how his orthodox views of the gospel match with what he thinks have been genuine insights into Gods word?


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 18, 2022)

Mac said:


> Hello Everyone. First time poster here. The subject of this post is the thrust causing me to even join The Puritan Board. I am a new elder (1 year) and have caught the scent of fairly accepted use of Canon Press materials among younger families in our church. Perhaps one of the underlying reasons for the acceptance of these materials is the associated ministry of a classical school (ACCS) with the church. I am well aware of Doug Wilson's role in the FV controversy and have studied it up and down for some time. How concerned should I be that many young mothers are reading books by Rachel Jankovic? Or the possibly some of our young fathers reading books by Michael Foster/Bnonn Tennant? These books smell of "another gospel" to me, but I also submit to the fact that I may be biased or over analyzing. It seems to me that what flows out of their writing is the fact that the covenant of works & covenant of grace and distinction between law & gospel are amalgamated together, creating conditions for the believer in justification other than faith alone. All I seem to read are the words "obey, obedience, covenant faithfulness, be faithful...etc." when it seems like the words "faith, rest, LOOK TO Jesus" should be there instead. I plan to discuss this at the session level soon...any ideas on how to proceed graciously, "clothed in humility?"


Canon Press aside, be careful not to set obedience and faith against one another. There is no more wrong with telling someone to obey than to believe. Both are necessary.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Does anyone on the Puritan board actually take the man’s presbytery examination seriously or is someone willing to confess what they seem to believe by how they treat the matter? That is, are you willing to confess that you think he was lying through his teeth? Or should we be charitable and see how his orthodox views of the gospel match with what he thinks have been genuine insights into Gods word?



His belief in Paradox Theology means that you can never take what he says at face value.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> His belief in Paradox Theology means that you can never take what he says at face value.


Can you define what you mean by "Paradox theology"?


----------



## LilyG (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Canon Press aside, be careful not to set obedience and faith against one another. There is no more wrong with telling someone to obey than to believe. Both are necessary.


Confusing the two, "amalgamating" or lopsiding one over the other (usually law over gospel), however, is a problem. I see that this elder wishes to keep his people from that.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Can you define what you mean by "Paradox theology"?



It is the notion that the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes (as opposed to supra-rational mysteries). This view means that you can say we are justified by faith alone; and that we are justified on account of covenantal faithfulness. Does it matter that these things are contradictory? No, because it is just an irreconcilable paradox.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

LilyG said:


> Confusing the two, "amalgamating" or lopsiding one over the other (usually law over gospel), however, is a problem. I see that this elder wishes to keep his people from that.


Wilson has stated many times that faith is the sole instrument of justification. Where people get tripped up is how he defines faith that enables one to be faithful to the covenant and thereby stay in - forever. Covenant faithfulness for Wilson is ongoing faith in the gospel, and repentance, which is the faith that God gifts his elect. Demon faith of the non-elect is not faithful to the covenant, and thus they are cut off.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is the notion that the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes (as opposed to supra-rational mysteries). This view means that you can say we are justified by faith alone; and that we are justified on account of covenantal faithfulness. Does it matter that these things are contradictory? No, because it is just an irreconcilable paradox.


See above.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is the notion that the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes (as opposed to supra-rational mysteries). This view means that you can say we are justified by faith alone; and that we are justified on account of covenantal faithfulness. Does it matter that these things are contradictory? No, because it is just an irreconcilable paradox.


And don’t you believe this with regard to Gods providence and human responsibility? How can the preparations of a man’s heart and the answer of the tongue be from the Lord and man still be responsible? Proverbs 16:1.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> His belief in Paradox Theology means that you can never take what he says at face value.


Paradox theology is a Van Tilian doctrine is it not?
I'm hardly an expert on Wilson, but from the outside peering in it seems sometimes that Wilson is taken to task for things that others are given a pass for, or at least criticized more mildly. This is a good example. When Van Til comes up no one says "you can never take what he says at face value" or calls him a snake. At worst he is called confusing. Justification is too I think, since we're happy to read and learn from many church fathers with as bad or worse of formulas on it. I don't say this to diminish these issues, because they are certainly serious matters, but I do wonder if we're applying the same standard across the board.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> And don’t you believe this with regard to Gods providence and human responsibility? How can the preparations of a man’s heart and the answer of the tongue be from the Lord and man still be responsible? Proverbs 16:1.


That's not a paradox. How these are not in fact at odds is handled in every in-depth treatment of the matter by reformed systematicians. Most recently I read Polanus on the matter, but they all say similar things.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> That's not a paradox. How these are not in fact at odds is handled in every in-depth treatment of the matter by reformed systematicians. Most recently I read Polanus on the matter, but they all say similar things.


Either way Wilsons definition of “covenant faithfulness” is not paradoxical


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Paradox theology is a Van Tilian doctrine is it not?
> I'm hardly an expert on Wilson, but from the outside peering in it seems sometimes that Wilson is taken to task for things that others are given a pass for, or at least criticized more mildly. This is a good example. When Van Til comes up no one says "you can never take what he says at face value" or calls him a snake. At worst he is called confusing. Justification is too I think, since we're happy to read and learn from many church fathers with as bad or worse of formulas on it. I don't say this to diminish these issues, because they are certainly serious matters, but I do wonder if we're applying the same standard across the board.



I do not entirely dismiss this point, as CVT has not received his fair share of criticism for having spread this error and others in Reformed circles. It is not entirely unfair, however, to single someone out for criticism when they have made a particularly bad use of one error to promote an even more extreme error.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Wilson has stated many times that faith is the sole instrument of justification. Where people get tripped up is how he defines faith that enables one to be faithful to the covenant and thereby stay in - forever. Covenant faithfulness for Wilson is ongoing faith in the gospel, and repentance, which is the faith that God gifts his elect. Demon faith of the non-elect is not faithful to the covenant, and thus they are cut off.



Yes, he says faith is the sole instrument, but as you note in the above, he includes faithfulness in his definition of faith.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> And don’t you believe this with regard to Gods providence and human responsibility? How can the preparations of a man’s heart and the answer of the tongue be from the Lord and man still be responsible? Proverbs 16:1.



The historic Reformed treatments on freedom deal with this in-depth. It's not a paradox. I don't want to derail the thread, but I dealt with it here.





Reformed Thought on Freedom (ed. Van Asselt)


Asselt, Willem J. van. Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Baker Academic, 2010. I think the criticisms of this book are overdone and largely unnecessary. I grant that one cannot read the Reformed scholastics as recovering Scotus. Even a...




puritanboard.com


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The usual response when anyone recommends avoiding Doug Wilson is, "But he writes so much useful stuff on practical Christian living." No. You cannot write about practical Christianity with profit when you are wrong on the gospel. Why? Because if someone is wrong on the gospel they are not going to be right about Christian practice, because their writings on the latter subject will be influenced by their legalism.


I agree completely with this sentiment which is really my reasoning for posting in the first place. I do think SOME have the ability to read carefully through Wilson and Co. and detect practical things that are actually helpful, but not MOST. I do think, as I alluded to in the original post and as you point out, that these materials are tainted with “another gospel” and should be avoided.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pmachapman (May 19, 2022)

Mac said:


> Hard to know the truth of the details. I did read Tennant’s own response and did find some concerning things in there (what I referenced earlier).


Yes, I think in his own words there is ample testimony of heterodox views, which there seems to be no desire for the correction of, at least according to the article and its various linked to pages.


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Whether you like or dislike Wilson and his associates, you have to hand it to them; they are rigorous with trying their best to apply Scripture to all of life in a meaningful way. I'm not a huge Wilson fan (I haven't read much of his work and I am still sorting through the competing claims about his track record) but I think one of the reasons they are so popular is because they give off an inspiring zeal to truly and practically live all of life to the Lord in a way that means something to ordinary believers. Unfortunately, often the only alternative offered by much of the church world, and even the reformed world seems to be complacency or a cooled intellectualism. That's why I think Wilson is so popular.


I agree that this is part of the reason people are drawn to him and his culture. I want to be careful not to be drawn into legalism/semi pelagianism for the sake of zeal or for the sake of “dealing with the culture.” Certainly no complacency will do either!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yes, he says faith is the sole instrument, but as you note in the above, he includes faithfulness in his definition of faith.


I’ve seen where he has distinguished faith alone as the instrument of justification when specifically asked about this…(I think I’ve seen him also say faith and faithfulness are “inseparable”) But then when asked if works are simply “evidence” of saving faith, he says that “works are more organically linked to faith than that.” Hard to pinpoint…but again…doesn’t smell right!


----------



## A.Joseph (May 19, 2022)

Mac said:


> Not real sure what I’m looking at here .


Wilson’s promotional video for his ‘Christian’ fiction.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 19, 2022)

Mac said:


> I agree that this is part of the reason people are drawn to him and his culture. I want to be careful not to be drawn into legalism/semi pelagianism for the sake of zeal or for the sake of “dealing with the culture.” Certainly no complacency will do either!


Wilson is highly motivated by the culture war to some extent as well and engages in their means and counter-tactics sometimes. Can be confrontational for the sake of being so…. For some people that is highly inspiring for others it’s kinda cringe.


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Canon Press aside, be careful not to set obedience and faith against one another. There is no more wrong with telling someone to obey than to believe. Both are necessary.


Here’s how I’m seeing it ( and this may be your view too and it’s been assumed in your comment)…correct me if I’m wrong! I do see a big difference in the two relative to faith alone as the instrument of our justification…relative to how we view covenant of works and covenant of grace…are the two blended together? If so then obedience is on us! If Christ, in the covenant of grace, fulfilled the covenant of works then I think faith is looking to, resting in…soaking in that truth! Obedience comes from soaking in that truth. So not trying to set obedience against faith…It just doesn’t seem there is much qualification when the words “obey” “obedience” “faithfulness” etc are used in these books. And I think that is a KEY qualification to leave out!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

LilyG said:


> Confusing the two, "amalgamating" or lopsiding one over the other (usually law over gospel), however, is a problem. I see that this elder wishes to keep his people from that.


Exactly my intent! Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Wilson’s promotional video for his ‘Christian’ fiction.


Yikes.


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Wilson has stated many times that faith is the sole instrument of justification. Where people get tripped up is how he defines faith that enables one to be faithful to the covenant and thereby stay in - forever. Covenant faithfulness for Wilson is ongoing faith in the gospel, and repentance, which is the faith that God gifts his elect. Demon faith of the non-elect is not faithful to the covenant, and thus they are cut off.


I think this is indeed where I get tripped up. Faith that enables one to be faithful to the covenant is all of Christ. In my understanding, Christ is faithful to the covenant (covenant of grace) and we are not (and since Adam was not)! Our faith is in that truth alone. His active obedience is imputed to us! Therefore we obey...but not to "be faithful to the covenant." Are you saying the same thing?


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

Mac said:


> I think this is indeed where I get tripped up. Faith that enables one to be faithful to the covenant is all of Christ. In my understanding, Christ is faithful to the covenant (covenant of grace) and we are not (and since Adam was not)! Our faith is in that truth alone. His active obedience is imputed to us! Therefore we obey...but not to "be faithful to the covenant." Are you saying the same thing?


Or to "stay in the covenant"


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 19, 2022)

When it comes to books on practical Christian living…

Given the nonstop barrage of leftism hitting our people, and how most of the stuff coming from Big Eva and the hip Reformed world at best tip toe over the line… stuff by Canon Press is a breath of fresh air.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

From whom much is copied, much shall be pasted.









A Justice Primer: The Investigation


Late last week, Canon Press released a statement with the findings from their investigation into the plagiarism in A Justice Primer. To refresh our memories, the original statement they released ba…




rachelgreenmiller.com

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> From whom much is copied, much shall be pasted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, Theology Gals and Valerie Hobbs, although they most certainly have some legitimate axes to grind, are pushing the envelope in another direction. …..








Sexual Reformation with Aimee Byrd — Theology Gals


This week Aimee Byrd joins us to discuss her new book, The Sexual Reformation: Restoring the Dignity and Personhood of Man and Woman. Support Theology Gals monthly through Patreon Support Theology Gals with a one time donation through PayPal Theology Gals merch Theology Gals Journals Episode...




theologygals.com




So, while good for them on the find, I say move along….. from the swamp of the culture wars, where nobody gets out uncompromised.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Unfortunately, Theology Gals and Valerie Hobbs, although they most certainly have some legitimate axes to grind, are pushing the envelope in another direction. …..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Either what they are saying is true or it isn't. That's what I am getting at.


----------



## Wonderkins (May 19, 2022)

I feel like the average person picking up a Canon press book or anything from Doug Wilson and the like, aren't going to see the problem and probably have never heard of federal vision. Back when I stumbled on Wilson and crosspolitic, what I saw were seemingly regular guys who were relatable. Their "knowledge" and reformed leanings didn't seem beyond what I could grasp.

Sometimes when I read the arguments against Doug Wilson, I don't really get it. In fact I've read about FV a few times and I still don't have it nailed down. I can find issues with all of Wilson's controversies quicker than I can with his theology.

Wilson's book When the Man Comes Around was useful in figuring out my eschatology.

I have No Mere Mortals by Toby Sumpter. I didn't care for it, especially in chapter 10 when he suggests wives try calling their husbands "sir".

I don't follow them anymore, but I think there are understandable reasons why average lay people are drawn to Doug Wilson. I think those average people have good intentions in reading Canon press material and might be oblivious to the issues that good folks on puritanboard can see. If those same people were to read this thread, would it be obvious why they should avoid Canon press? I'm not so sure. I hope you will be patient with them and show them the problem if the opportunity presents itself.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

Wonderkins said:


> I feel like the average person picking up a Canon press book or anything from Doug Wilson and the like, aren't going to see the problem and probably have never heard of federal vision. Back when I stumbled on Wilson and crosspolitic, what I saw were seemingly regular guys who were relatable. Their "knowledge" and reformed leanings didn't seem beyond what I could grasp.
> 
> Sometimes when I read the arguments against Doug Wilson, I don't really get it. In fact I've read about FV a few times and I still don't have it nailed down. I can find issues with all of Wilson's controversies quicker than I can with his theology.
> 
> ...


Great info! I agree that many may not see any of the issues discussed here, but therein lies the _possible_ problem the way I see it.


----------



## Mac (May 19, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> When it comes to books on practical Christian living…
> 
> Given the nonstop barrage of leftism hitting our people, and how most of the stuff coming from Big Eva and the hip Reformed world at best tip toe over the line… stuff by Canon Press is a breath of fresh air.


I sympathize with this statement in terms of the barrage of leftism etc...but my fear is the breath of fresh air could come at the expense of legalism in doctrine.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## aaronsk (May 19, 2022)

I have listened to some Doug Wilson/Canon Press stuff on youtube as it pertains to culture and found it helpful at times but caution ought to be used. As I have grown I've moved away from his content but to the newly reformed (you don't know where to look for info) Ligonier and Canon Press really are the bastions in my mind (likely to be first contact by the non-reformed who are curious). I'd agree that most lay people probably wouldn't pick up on the differences as FV language is full of familiar reformation language but with different meaning, so there is potential for confusion. If I were an elder (which I am not) and was going to steer people away I would do it by steering them towards something else. I would have some books in mind on family (Beeke, updated puritan works), covenants (McMahon, Witsius), etc that would be a better read. Perhaps I would say something like "Doug can be confused at certain points in his theology, maybe check this book out instead". I can say coming from non-reformed roots - its hard to know where to look, the names we find common on here are unheard of to many and so online presence wins initially which Ligonier and Canon do well at. 

To be clear I am not implying Ligonier and Canon have similar theology or value - just that in my experience were what I ran into first when moving in the reformed direction. For example I had looked to Ligonier more for theology and Canon more for how that works out in modern cultural issues. I still enjoy ligonier greatly and get their tabletalk magazine. I had been warned by a pastor I respect that Wilson would confuse me and so backed away from Canon & Co. and only occasionally watch a video here or there as I have a few friends who are very much fans of what Wilson is doing. Some of it is helpful, some of it is not - discernment must be used.

As a side note: I don't have any of their original printed works but I have some reformation era books Canon published and I am not a fan of their bindings. Its the sort that is hard to open as it gets near the crease and doesn't want to stay open.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> Canon published and I am not a fan of their bindings. Its the sort that is hard to open as it gets near the crease and doesn't want to stay open.



Most of their books from the early 2000s had the cheap glue binding. And if a book was under 120 pages, it had that cheap binding. Some of their books, like Leithart's _Deep Comedy_, had better binding.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Mac said:


> I think this is indeed where I get tripped up. Faith that enables one to be faithful to the covenant is all of Christ. In my understanding, Christ is faithful to the covenant (covenant of grace) and we are not (and since Adam was not)! Our faith is in that truth alone. His active obedience is imputed to us! Therefore we obey...but not to "be faithful to the covenant." Are you saying the same thing?


Indeed brother. I think Wilson is trying to account for passages like branches in Christ being cut off for lack of fruit in John 15, and branches being cut off on Romans 11. I understand where people get confused because “covenant faithfulness” seems to be of the law and us working to stay in or something. When he has used that term it’s almost always in the context of apostasy, and so he’s getting at the responsibility of people to continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23) while also holding that they continue because they are elect unto final glorification, God will never leave them or forsake them, and because their faith is a gift from God. 


RamistThomist said:


> Yes, he says faith is the sole instrument, but as you note in the above, he includes faithfulness in his definition of faith.


I don’t know if he defines faith as including faithfulness but he affirms the orthodox view that justification is by faith alone but that faith is not alone.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Indeed brother. I think Wilson is trying to account for passages like branches in Christ being cut off for lack of fruit in John 15, and branches being cut off on Romans 11. I understand where people get confused because “covenant faithfulness” seems to be of the law and us working to stay in or something. When he has used that term it’s almost always in the context of apostasy, and so he’s getting at the responsibility of people to continue in the faith (Colossians 1:23) while also holding that they continue because they are elect unto final glorification, God will never leave them or forsake them, and because their faith is a gift from God.
> 
> I don’t know if he defines faith as including faithfulness but he affirms the orthodox view that justification is by faith alone but that faith is not alone.



But does he affirm that final justification is by faith alone? That's the kicker.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> But does he affirm that final justification is by faith alone? That's the kicker.


Not sure on that one. I know some of the other FV guys do. I never actually checked but wasn’t John Piper saying stuff like that?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Not sure on that one. I know some of the other FV guys do. I never actually checked but wasn’t John Piper saying stuff like that?



They aren't clear. That's the problem. When someone needs an answer on how is man right before God, I shouldn't have to figure out what he is saying.

He also denied the internal/external distinction of the covenant, which is why his handling of the apostasy passages is so bad.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Ok. But it’s still fine to read him carefully, as you would with any other book, without worrying you were going to contract some sort of disease! Because he ain’t gonna tell you or your people that you are saved by faithfulness to law, but FAITHfulness to the gospel. And the conditions of the gospel are.. repent and believe.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Ok. But it’s still fine to read him carefully, as you would with any other book, without worrying you were going to contract some sort of disease! Because he ain’t gonna tell you or your people that you are saved by faithfulness to law, but FAITHfulness to the gospel. And the conditions of the gospel are.. repent and believe.



I was reading and defending Wilson back in 2004. I knew the staff at Auburn Avenue and I had early access to Canon Press books. I was part of the La. Presbytery when it imploded because of Federal Vision. I have a good idea of what they are saying.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I was reading and defending Wilson back in 2004. I knew the staff at Auburn Avenue and I had early access to Canon Press books. I was part of the La. Presbytery when it imploded because of Federal Vision. I have a good idea of what they are saying.


Ok. Are you saying he’s a heretic and people should stay well clear of him, or would you affirm what I just said in my last post?


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

You studied them all right? Why do you address them as a group holding to all the same things? “I have a good idea of what they are saying”?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Ok. Are you saying he’s a heretic and people should stay well clear of him, or would you affirm what I just said in my last post?



He's a false teacher whose theology has been formally condemned by NAPARC councils. People should avoid him for that reason and many others.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84 (May 19, 2022)

My concern would be that Wilson is a gateway drug to more Wilson. 

The ongoing convo above about faith/faithfulness is evidence of one of the main issues with Wilson: he’s _very_ slick with words. He’ll assure you that you’re misunderstanding him if you arrive at heterodox conclusions, but he'll never speak clearly enough in the orthodox reformed direction. Always vague enough to deny. 

There are of course plenty of other concerns. 

If you want a breath of fresh air, read dead guys.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> You studied them all right? Why do you address them as a group holding to all the same things? “I have a good idea of what they are saying”?



I didn't say they hold the same things. But they put themselves together in the same group called "Federal Vision." And I am not talking about Leithart or Lusk, who are actually real scholars capable of communicating without saying yes and no at the same time.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 19, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> As a side note: I don't have any of their original printed works but I have some reformation era books Canon published and I am not a fan of their bindings. Its the sort that is hard to open as it gets near the crease and doesn't want to stay open.


I am in a similar position. The bindings are terrible, but they are often the only affordable choice for some of the books I want to read, for example, Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford. The only original book I have read from Canon is "when the man comes around" to get an idea of what their post mil eschatology is. I thought it was helpful for what it was.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wonderkins (May 19, 2022)

So Jacob, I agree Doug Wilson should probably be avoided. But outside the controversies it can be a bit vague to the common church goer. A husband and wife couple we know recently got into Wilson. We mentioned some of the issues, but it seems to go right past the ears. 

Do you or anyone else have a more simplified way of presenting the theological issues? I don't feel like it's very clear.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Wonderkins said:


> So Jacob, I agree Doug Wilson should probably be avoided. But outside the controversies it can be a bit vague to the common church goer. A husband and wife couple we know recently got into Wilson. We mentioned some of the issues, but it seems to go right past the ears.
> 
> Do you or anyone else have a more simplified way of presenting the theological issues? I don't feel like it's very clear.



You're right. It isn't clear. He comes off as a good communicator, but he really isn't. I know from hard experience that if people like Wilson, you can't convince them otherwise. 

He teaches "in by grace, stay in by works," but if you press him on it he will backtrack. People who have a clear understanding of justification don't do that.

If you mention the numerous plagiarism scandals, people deflect and point at the accusers.

If you mention the court cases where he encouraged a young woman to marry a known pedophile, you will be told "there are two sides to every story."

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> He's a false teacher whose theology has been formally condemned by NAPARC councils. People should avoid him for that reason and many others.


Are you saying people should avoid him just because those councils condemned FV?


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> You're right. It isn't clear. He comes off as a good communicator, but he really isn't. I know from hard experience that if people like Wilson, you can't convince them otherwise.
> 
> He teaches "in by grace, stay in by works," but if you press him on it he will backtrack. People who have a clear understanding of justification don't do that.
> 
> ...


He said in a recent interview that he would never encourage it and would never allow his daughter to marry a pedophile. He also counselled the wife on it and she knowingly went into it.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> But does he affirm that final justification is by faith alone? That's the kicker.


Are you referring to the final judgment? Isn't that according to works?
Romans 2:6-10
"Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Are you referring to the final judgment? Isn't that according to works?
> Romans 2:6-10
> "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile."



Do I get to heaven based on how many good deeds I do? I suggest the answer is no. It's also not clear about that verse, since it somewhat suggests that noble pagans get to heaven by doing good deeds. That's why some commentators think Paul is speaking rhetorically.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> He said in a recent interview that he would never encourage it and would never allow his daughter to marry a pedophile. He also counselled the wife on it and she knowingly went into it.



I'm glad he wouldn't encourage it in the future. His actions, as revealed in court documents, suggest otherwise. In one of his books on the family, he (correctly) said pedophiles should get the death penalty. He walked that back on Sitler.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Are you saying people should avoid him just because those councils condemned FV?



In itself that's an excellent reason to avoid him. There are pastoral reasons relating to wisdom and scandal as well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Do I get to heaven based on how many good deeds I do? I suggest the answer is no. It's also not clear about that verse, since it somewhat suggests that noble pagans get to heaven by doing good deeds. That's why some commentators think Paul is speaking rhetorically.


When the final judgment takes places we will already be in heaven unless we were still alive at the resurrection, so it can't be saying that. I agree with the reformed orthodox I've read on the final judgment, who say that it is based on works. Turretin for example agree with certain qualifications. I think the idea of noble pagans going to heaven is ultimately more damaging to the gospel than the doctrine of the judgment according to works as it has traditionally been understood in the reformed churches. Of course one very important qualification is that Paul is not saying works merit eternal life. According to works yes, but not according to merits. That's the point that the Roman Catholics and medieval scholastics go seriously astray on.


----------



## LilyG (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> I agree with the reformed orthodox I've read on the final judgment, who say that it is based on works.


Whose works?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 19, 2022)

LilyG said:


> Whose works?


For the Christian the works of Christ. He perfectly kept the law in both his passive and active obedience.

For the non Christian the broken Covenant of works means they have no hope.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

LilyG said:


> Whose works?


Jews and gentiles, who either do good with patient continuance, or evil with contention. Re-read the verses:
"Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile."


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> When the final judgment takes places we will already be in heaven unless we were still alive at the resurrection



I agree with that. I'm also certain that's not what Wilson is saying, since the FV guys say baptism unites us with Christ, apostasy is real, and God didn't mean watch out for cliffs in Kansas (that's a famous line from the FV days).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I agree with that. I'm also certain that's not what Wilson is saying, since the FV guys say baptism unites us with Christ, apostasy is real, and God didn't mean watch out for cliffs in Kansas (that's a famous line from the FV days).


You should watch out for cliffs in Kansas. There are a few.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LilyG (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Jews and gentiles, who either do good with patient continuance, or evil with contention. Re-read the verses:
> "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile."



Sorry, I misread. Thought we were talking about justification by works, not rewards or what have you. Though the rhetorical interpretation is intriguing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777 (May 19, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Either way, my point isn't to endorse him. I'm just pointing out that his circle seems to provide something (namely a practical, zealous approach to the Christian life) which many reformed believers apparently feel they aren't getting elsewhere. Good or bad, that's something we should take note of.


Perhaps many reformed believers who are looking for a practical, zealous approach to the Christian life would benefit from discovering the rich treasure of our Puritan fathers. They combined a zeal for Christ and his kingdom with a reverential trust in his Person. Modern writers like Wilson pale In comparison.

Reactions: Like 8 | Love 1


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I agree with that. I'm also certain that's not what Wilson is saying, since the FV guys say baptism unites us with Christ, apostasy is real, and God didn't mean watch out for cliffs in Kansas (that's a famous line from the FV days).


Being united to Christ and therefore apostasy is different for Wilson and the FV guys like Jordan, Leithart and Meyers though right?


----------



## Polanus1561 (May 19, 2022)

Not interacting with the FV stuff here (3 pages over a day!), but it is clear that the final judgment is based on works.

2 Cor. 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things _done_ in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. / c.f Rom. 2:6 onwards

WCF 33.1. God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ,a to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.b In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged,c but likewise all persons, that have lived upon earth, shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

- c.f Matt. 25 also

This is public justification, not forensic justification. And no, this is not having our works 'complement' imputed righteousness.



> "_God will publicly justify believers on judgment day_. Christ speaks of his people being “justified” on “the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36–37). Paul says that God “will render to every man according to his deeds,” eternal life to those who persevere in doing good in hope of God’s promise of glory, and wrath and anguish to those who do not obey God’s truth but do evil, and in that eschatological context he says, “The doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom. 2:6–10, 13). The final judgment cannot be by faith alone because of its very nature as a public dem onstra tion of God’s glory and righteousness (v. 5). On judgment day, our works will glorify God, who produced them through Christ (Phil. 1:9–11; 2 Thess. 1:9–12). They will show that we are truly children of God (Matt. 25:34–40). However, our works could never deliver us from the wrath of God—only Christ can do that by his righteousness (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10). On the basis of his redeeming death, God’s people will “receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).
> 
> Due to the grace of justification by faith, the believer’s experience of judgment day will be fundamentally different from that of the unbeliever. V 3, p 525 p 525 Johannes Wollebius said that God will judge the wicked “in accordance with their works and on account of their works,” but he will judge the righteous “according to the works of faith, but not on account of works.” He noted that in the imagery of Revelation 20:12, two kinds of books are opened on judgment day, the book of works and the book of life, “so that we may know that the salvation of the righteous depends not on works but on the eternal grace of God.” Even the rewards God will give to us for our good works are from his fatherly mercy (Luke 12:32–33). The Belgic Confession (Art. 24) says, “We do good works, but not to merit by them.… We do not deny that God rewards our good works, but it is through His grace that He crowns His gifts.” The Heidelberg Catechism (LD 24, Q. 63) concurs: “This reward is not of merit, but of grace.”
> 
> Paul’s expectation that all people will be judged by Christ according to their works (2 Cor. 5:10) did not lead him to call men to do works, but first and foremost to be reconciled to God through the forgiveness of their sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (vv. 18–21). Only the reconciled can please God with their works done by the Spirit’s sanctifying grace." - Beeke, Smalley - Reformed Systematic Vol. 3 - 524-525

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> When the final judgment takes places we will already be in heaven unless we were still alive at the resurrection, so it can't be saying that. I agree with the reformed orthodox I've read on the final judgment, who say that it is based on works. Turretin for example agree with certain qualifications. I think the idea of noble pagans going to heaven is ultimately more damaging to the gospel than the doctrine of the judgment according to works as it has traditionally been understood in the reformed churches. Of course one very important qualification is that Paul is not saying works merit eternal life. According to works yes, but not according to merits. That's the point that the Roman Catholics and medieval scholastics go seriously astray on.



On the basis of works and according to works are two different things. One is nonsense one is legit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Luther'sHammer (May 19, 2022)

@Jonty If you haven't lived in the FV/CREC-land, I get that some of the nuances are hard to grasp. When Jacob says "trust me", I would take him seriously.

My own version is this: there really is a Moscow/Wilson "cult". One way this manifests itself is by gaslighting. Here's what I mean. When questioning with any of the true believers regarding something problematic that was written or stated by Wilson or one of his cronies associates, my experience is that you will hear one or more of the following:

"You didn't hear him right"
"You must have misunderstood."
"You just don't understand."
"You'll have to talk to ________ (Doug or whoever) about that."

This has happened to me, and those close to me so many times.

Another quick example. Heard a sermon at a sister CREC church. Pastor said: "if you're not practicing musical excellence every day, you're in sin." The person I relayed this to, another CREC pastor said something like: "I know __________ and there's no way he said that." Never mind that I heard it with my own ears, as did my wife. More gaslighting.

This is just one example of many problems coming out of Moscow. If you haven't lived it, it's hard to believe. Nonetheless, it's real. You begin to wonder what is wrong with you. I don't see how Wilson could not have fostered this kind of automatic response in his followers. It's too pervasive to be an accident. In retrospect, it's creepy in its own way when you think about the "tapes" being played in response to any sort of genuine questions.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Being united to Christ and therefore apostasy is different for Wilson and the FV guys like Jordan, Leithart and Meyers though right?





Luther'sHammer said:


> @Jonty If you haven't lived in the FV/CREC-land, I get that some of the nuances are hard to grasp. When Jacob says "trust me", I would take him seriously.
> 
> My own version is this: there really is a Moscow/Wilson "cult". One way this manifests itself is by gaslighting. Here's what I mean. When questioning with any of the true believers regarding something problematic that was written or stated by Wilson or one of his cronies associates, my experience is that you will hear one or more of the following:
> 
> ...


I understand what you’re saying and I’m in no way trying to dismiss the brothers experiences and studies in those circles and with my response now I’m not trying to dismiss yours. I was trying to be fair with Wilson a bit as he gets lumped in with all the errors of FV sometimes and to be fair we have to recognise the distinctions. For example when talking about the apostate, union with Christ by baptism for Wilson is outwardly covenantal and they were simply partakers of grace in that they received the administration of the covenant by being members of the visible body. But for Jordan say, he says in his infamous article on predestination and regeneration that ALL the baptised share the same benefits by baptism and believers can fall away because the Holy Spirit stops “wrestling” with them. Meyers is the same. They are more like Augustine on the doctrine of perseverance and nearly Lutheranish on baptism. Leithart, Meyers, Alastair Roberts and James Jordan have all said that the bibles doctrine of election is primarily corporate. Their exegesis of Ephesians 1:4,5 is an example of this. Wilson affirms orthodox, evangelical and reformed soteriology. Those are huge differences that I haven’t seen anyone care to recognise and that is wrong.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

MChase said:


> On the basis of works and according to works are two different things. One is nonsense one is legit.


Could you parse what you mean by that? Maybe I'm missing something, but to me those constructions both indicate the basis or reason for something. For example if my boss pays me on the basis of the hours I worked or according to the hours I worked I would expect to make the same amount. But again, maybe you have a clear distinction in mind.


----------



## LilyG (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> For example when talking about the apostate, union with Christ by baptism for Wilson is outwardly covenantal and they were simply partakers of grace in that they received the administration of the covenant by being members of the visible body.



From the link below, "According to Wilson, the apostate can actually have real union with Christ: “Before God’s action cut Caiaphas out of the olive tree, Caiaphas was in the olive tree and a wicked man. The sap flowed through his branch, but he didn’t bear fruit.”[15] Of those that apostatize from the New Testament church, Wilson urges that “Sap flowed to them.”[16] He asserts that “the hypocrite is … genuinely in Christ” and that “he is as much a member of the vine as anyone else.”[17] This is because elect and nonelect “Both are equally in the covenant.”[18]"

https://heidelblog.net/2020/12/the-...deral-visionists-temporary-union-with-Christ/


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

Luther'sHammer said:


> "You didn't hear him right"
> "You must have misunderstood."
> "You just don't understand."
> "You'll have to talk to ________ (Doug or whoever) about that."


I don't doubt Wilson defenders say this, but so do Van Til defenders, Aquinas defenders, and defenders of just about anyone who has passionate followers and a body of work that's difficult to grasp. That's a pretty low bar for a cult. Taking the example of the pastor who said lack of musical excellence is sin, would the other pastor have even heard his sermon? Did he have any way of knowing what the other pastor said? If he heard it and lied about it, that's gaslighting. If he just thinks there was a misunderstanding because he thinks more highly of the other pastor than to readily believe he'd say something silly, that's just being charitable.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

LilyG said:


> From the link below, "According to Wilson, the apostate can actually have real union with Christ: “Before God’s action cut Caiaphas out of the olive tree, Caiaphas was in the olive tree and a wicked man. The sap flowed through his branch, but he didn’t bear fruit.”[15] Of those that apostatize from the New Testament church, Wilson urges that “Sap flowed to them.”[16] He asserts that “the hypocrite is … genuinely in Christ” and that “he is as much a member of the vine as anyone else.”[17] This is because elect and nonelect “Both are equally in the covenant.”[18]"
> 
> https://heidelblog.net/2020/12/the-...deral-visionists-temporary-union-with-Christ/


If you read that and interpret it with the paradigms that the author (Wilson) is working with, that is, reformed soteriology, then it becomes much more clear what he is talking about. He doesn’t mean that Caiaphas had the blessings of the covenant like forgiveness and reconciliation, but that he was objectively in the covenant like the elect man was who was forgiven. The sap that flows to the non-elect is the new covenant being administered to them. It’s like the rain in Hebrews 6:7,8.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> If you read that and interpret it with the paradigms that the author (Wilson) is working with, that is, reformed soteriology, then it becomes much more clear what he is talking about. He doesn’t mean that Caiaphas had the blessings of the covenant like forgiveness and reconciliation, but that he was objectively in the covenant like the elect man was who was forgiven. The sap that flows to the non-elect is the new covenant being administered to them. It’s like the rain in Hebrews 6:7,8.


The elect and non-elect are both genuinely in the vine, truly so, and yet only one is a regenerate child of God.


----------



## 83r17h (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> He doesn’t mean that Caiaphas had the blessings of the covenant like forgiveness and reconciliation, but that he was objectively in the covenant like the elect man was who was forgiven.



Can you define "objective" as you use it (or think that Wilson is using it)? Because this sounds like what is problematic with Wilson. 

Specifically relevant to the ongoing discussion are the list of errors of FV here: https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478

Consider especially:
14. Including works (by use of "faithfulness," "obedience," etc.) in the very definition of faith.
17. Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church. 

From the OPC Report (https://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf):


> Furthermore, Wilson tends to stress that the sacraments are efficacious regardless of the recipient’s subjective condition, which is not what the WCF teaches. Time and again the Confession ties the efficacy of the sacraments to being in the covenant of grace (WLC 162) or to being those who by faith receive them (WSC 91). Wilson does mention the need for evangelical faith in the use of the sacraments, but blunts or negates this assertion by his insistence on what he calls the objectivity of the sacraments. In Wilson’s teaching the sacraments constitute one as a real branch of Christ. It might prove to be a fruitless branch, but it is a real branch nonetheless: “A true son is brought into the covenant and is nourished there. A false son is brought into the covenant and by his unbelief incurs the chastisements of that covenant. Objectively, both the true and the false son are brought into the same relationship.”316 In this way the sacraments work in all, according to Wilson. But WCF 27.3 envisions them as working in “worthy receivers,” correlative with WCF 28.6, which notes that baptism is efficacious “to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto,” i.e., the elect. Wilson, however, sees both true and false sons brought into the same relationship. Again this follows because of Wilson’s tendency to reject the Confession’s teaching on the visible/invisible distinction of the church and the internal/external standing of the individuals in the covenant. (pdf page 83, labeled 79)



The source they are referencing for Wilson is his book about the "objectivity" of the covenant. So the language from Wilson, of non-elect being "objectively" in the covenant, is FV and not Reformed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Could you parse what you mean by that? Maybe I'm missing something, but to me those constructions both indicate the basis or reason for something. For example if my boss pays me on the basis of the hours I worked or according to the hours I worked I would expect to make the same amount. But again, maybe you have a clear distinction in mind.



The wage thing doesn’t work as an example. At the least a wage is a result of work done on the basis of something at least approximating pactum merit.

“For Christians, future judgment according to works does not operate according to a different principle than their already having been justified by faith. The difference is that the final judgment will be the open manifestation of that present justification, their being “openly acquitted” as we have seen. And, in that future judgment, their obedience, their works are not the ground or basis. Nor are they co-instrumental, a coordinate instrument for appropriating divine approbation as they supplement faith. Rather, they are the essential and manifest criterion of that faith, the integral “fruits and evidences of a lively faith.” Appropriating the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 16:2. It is not for nothing, I take it, and not to be dismissed as an overly fine exegesis to observe, that in Romans 2:6 Paul writes “according (κατα) to works,” not “on account of, because of (δια),” expressing the ground, nor “by (εκ) works,” expressing the instrument.”

Richard Gaffin

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

83r17h said:


> Can you define "objective" as you use it (or think that Wilson is using it)? Because this sounds like what is problematic with Wilson.
> 
> Specifically relevant to the ongoing discussion are the list of errors of FV here: https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478
> 
> ...


By objectivity I believe he means the visible church (which theological definition he affirms in “Reformed is not enough”) is truly in covenant with Christ. One is baptised into the visible body and bride of Christ. As for “faithfulness” I think I’ve fairly defined what he means by covenant faithfulness in this thread.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

83r17h said:


> Can you define "objective" as you use it (or think that Wilson is using it)? Because this sounds like what is problematic with Wilson.
> 
> Specifically relevant to the ongoing discussion are the list of errors of FV here: https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478
> 
> ...


This is crazy. The WCF affirms that baptism is efficacious for all in that every person baptised is visibly distinguished and put into the visible church!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> This is crazy. The WCF affirms that baptism is efficacious for all in that every person baptised is visibly distinguished and put into the visible church!


WCF 27:1 Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world
WCF 28:1 Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> By objectivity I believe he means the visible church (which theological definition he affirms in “Reformed is not enough”) is truly in covenant with Christ. One is baptised into the visible body and bride of Christ. As for “faithfulness” I think I’ve fairly defined what he means by covenant faithfulness in this thread.


Except that he has rejected historic reformed distinctions of visible vs invisible church. You see you continue to demonstrate the problem. He uses reformed-ish language and cites the confessions, but he tweaks the language such that it doesn’t mean for him what it meant for them.

But it’s vague enough that he can deny that he’s teaching anything different and here we go again having more discussion about what he means with different words.

Historically reformed orthodox make careful, well-delineated distinctions with their “yes and no”. Wilson _blurs_ the distinctions by his “yes and no” all the while claiming he’s doing what the reformed have always done. He’s not.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## 83r17h (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> This is crazy. The WCF affirms that baptism is efficacious for all in that every person baptised is visibly distinguished and put into the visible church!



Calling one of the official denominational reports crazy is a risky move. 

That is not what the WCF says about the efficacy of baptism. It says this about the efficacy of baptism:

28.6. *The efficacy of baptism* is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, *to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will*, in his appointed time.

The WCF pretty directly ties the efficacy of baptism to election. You can't use something that the WCF says that isn't about the efficacy of baptism, to infer something about the efficacy of baptism, that contradicts what the WCF explicitly claims about the efficacy of baptism. 



Jonty said:


> By objectivity I believe he means the visible church (which theological definition he affirms in “Reformed is not enough”) is truly in covenant with Christ.


He does not mean the visible church as understood by the confessions. See here for more discussion of his redefinition of the terms: https://www.apuritansmind.com/book-reviews/the-black-list-reformed-is-not-enough/


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Except that he has rejected historic reformed distinctions of visible vs invisible church. You see you continue to demonstrate the problem. He uses reformed-ish language and cites the confessions, but he tweaks the language such that it doesn’t mean for him what it meant for them.
> 
> But it’s vague enough that he can deny that he’s teaching anything different and here we go again having more discussion about what he means with different words.
> 
> Historically reformed orthodox make careful, we’ll-delineated distinctions with their “yes and no”. Wilson _blurs_ the distinctions by his “yes and no” all the while claiming he’s doing what the reformed have always done. He’s not.


Can you quote from Wilsons own works where he has denied it?


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

83r17h said:


> Calling one of the official denominational reports crazy is a risky move.
> 
> That is not what the WCF says about the efficacy of baptism. It says this about the efficacy of baptism:
> 
> ...


I understand I misused efficacy there. What I should have said was the WCF affirms that baptism does do something to any party baptised whether elect or not. They are received into the visible church and distinguished from the world. WCF says that baptism does that.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

Genuine question, why should I feel nervous about strongly disagreeing with a fallible council? I understand they are ministers and deserve double honour, and that they are men greater in the faith and much more experienced in theology.


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

83r17h said:


> Calling one of the official denominational reports crazy is a risky move.
> 
> That is not what the WCF says about the efficacy of baptism. It says this about the efficacy of baptism:
> 
> ...





Jonty said:


> Genuine question, why should I feel nervous about strongly disagreeing with a fallible council? I understand they are ministers and deserve double honour, and that they are men greater in the faith and much more experienced in theology.


But I sincerely disagree with them. We all disagree with men greater in the faith than us.


----------



## 83r17h (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Genuine question, why should I feel nervous about strongly disagreeing with a fallible council? I understand they are ministers and deserve double honour, and that they are men greater in the faith and much more experienced in theology.



It's not a matter of disagreeing, or even disagreeing strongly. It's more a matter of calling it "crazy," which goes beyond disagreement. And especially when it is on such a matter (Federal Vision / Wilson's theology) that every NAPARC church is officially united, and one which the PB also rejects (see 3.a https://www.puritanboard.com/help/terms/). What is the matter of your disagreement: do you disagree with the interpretation of Wilson, or the rejection of FV? 



Jonty said:


> I understand I misused efficacy there. What I should have said was the WCF affirms that baptism does do something to any party baptised whether elect or not. They are received into the visible church and distinguished from the world. WCF says that baptism does that.



I think you're still reading something into the WCF that isn't there. But to clarify: do you believe that the "received into the visible church and distinguished from the world" happen _ex opere operato_ in baptism? As in, by virtue of undergoing the rite of baptism, someone is automatically and without exception "received into the visible church and distinguished from the world?" And this reception/distinguishing: whose work is it? Is it the work of the church, the work of the Spirit, or who?

(Edited to strikethrough my misuse of a term).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

MChase said:


> The wage thing doesn’t work as an example. At the least a wage is a result of work done on the basis of something at least approximating pactum merit.
> 
> “For Christians, future judgment according to works does not operate according to a different principle than their already having been justified by faith. The difference is that the final judgment will be the open manifestation of that present justification, their being “openly acquitted” as we have seen. And, in that future judgment, their obedience, their works are not the ground or basis. Nor are they co-instrumental, a coordinate instrument for appropriating divine approbation as they supplement faith. Rather, they are the essential and manifest criterion of that faith, the integral “fruits and evidences of a lively faith.” Appropriating the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 16:2. It is not for nothing, I take it, and not to be dismissed as an overly fine exegesis to observe, that in Romans 2:6 Paul writes “according (κατα) to works,” not “on account of, because of (δια),” expressing the ground, nor “by (εκ) works,” expressing the instrument.”
> 
> Richard Gaffin


Ok. I agree. That seems pretty in line with Turretin's distinctions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 19, 2022)

83r17h said:


> But to clarify: do you believe that the "received into the visible church and distinguished from the world" happen _ex opere operato_ in baptism? As in, by virtue of undergoing the rite of baptism, someone is automatically and without exception "received into the visible church and distinguished from the world?" And this reception/distinguishing: whose work is it? Is it the work of the church, the work of the Spirit, or who?


This strikes as an abuse of the term ex opere operato. The idea of ex opere operato in the Romanist system is that _ invisible_ grace is conferred ex opere operato, which is not what we have in mind here. It's poisoning the well to bring Roman Catholic terminology into the mix.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (May 19, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Can you quote from Wilsons own works where he has denied it?


 Again, the words are present, but all parsed in ways that end up straying from what they have historically meant, and then “better” words are frequently substituted in their place. 

But then we will start arguing about what he did or didn’t mean and round and round we go.

This is 20 year-old stuff now, the major reformed denominations have dealt with it, yet here we are and it feels like we’ve gone nowhere precisely because of what I and others have pointed out in this thread.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jonty (May 19, 2022)

83r17h said:


> It's not a matter of disagreeing, or even disagreeing strongly. It's more a matter of calling it "crazy," which goes beyond disagreement. And especially when it is on such a matter (Federal Vision / Wilson's theology) that every NAPARC church is officially united, and one which the PB also rejects (see 3.a https://www.puritanboard.com/help/terms/). What is the matter of your disagreement: do you disagree with the interpretation of Wilson, or the rejection of FV?
> 
> I think you're still reading something into the WCF that isn't there. But to clarify: do you believe that the "received into the visible church and distinguished from the world" happen _ex opere operato_ in baptism? As in, by virtue of undergoing the rite of baptism, someone is automatically and without exception "received into the visible church and distinguished from the world?" And this reception/distinguishing: whose work is it? Is it the work of the church, the work of the Spirit, or who?


Fair enough, if I called them crazy then that would wrong. I thought it was crazy that they denied that objective “efficacy” is taught in the confessions.

Yes I believe that it means the subject of baptism, by receiving baptism, is received into the visible church and visibly distinguished from the world. I believe Simon the sorcerer was in that category until the works of the flesh were manifest and he was rebuked, and pronounced an unbeliever because of the heinousness of his sin.

I believe It is Gods work by baptism because he immediately instituted the sacrament and he is the one communicating at baptism.


----------



## 83r17h (May 19, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> This strikes as an abuse of the term ex opere operato. The idea of ex opere operato in the Romanist system is that _ invisible_ grace is conferred ex opere operato, which is not what we have in mind here. It's poisoning the well to bring Roman Catholic terminology into the mix.



Fair enough. I can withdraw the term. I think the concept of it "doing something automatically" to the recipient still applies though.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## NM_Presby (May 20, 2022)

Susan777 said:


> Perhaps many reformed believers who are looking for a practical, zealous approach to the Christian life would benefit from discovering the rich treasure of our Puritan fathers. They combined a zeal for Christ and his kingdom with a reverential trust in his Person. Modern writers like Wilson pale In comparison.


I wholeheartedly agree. The Puritans have been that for me, I know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 83r17h (May 20, 2022)

Jonty said:


> Yes I believe that it means the subject of baptism, by receiving baptism, is received into the visible church and visibly distinguished from the world. I believe Simon the sorcerer was in that category until the works of the flesh were manifest and he was rebuked, and pronounced an unbeliever because of the heinousness of his sin.
> 
> I believe It is Gods work by baptism because he immediately instituted the sacrament and he is the one communicating at baptism.



I'll need to consider, review some sources, and reattack this later (it's late here). My inclination is that WLC 165 shows distinct acts of distinct actors. The invisible grace is conferred by God to the elect (I think we agree on that). I don't think that God establishing a relationship with someone automatically and directly by virtue of baptism is correct - this seems to make God's action fall under the control of men administering baptism. It seems to say that we can force God to act a specific way by doing a baptism. Admission to / exclusion from membership in the visible church seems to be a power that is given to the visible church, and done by its officers. My reason for inquiring is that I recall that Wilson and others extend "union with Christ" in some way to be established by baptism through admission to the visible church - even to the non-elect. WLC 62-68 delineate why I would see this as problematic. 

Wilson explicitly admits to using the terminology of union with Christ for the non-elect in the visible church: https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/a-romans-11-olive-branch.html. Even when he says he's happy to use other terms, he wants something that is beyond the privileges that Reformed theology says are given to the visible church. See WLC 63:

Q. 63. _What are the special privileges of the visible church?_
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God's special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

The standards limit the relationship of members the visible church (only) to Christ as "offers of grace in the ministry of the gospel." Wilson wants something more. By distinguishing the privileges of visible and invisible church, the WLC explicitly denies to the non-elect in the visible church any relationship to Christ beyond this. So does baptism (automatically - even for non-elect) establish more of a relationship between the one baptized and Christ than holding out the offer of grace? I am led to answer this in the negative. 

I'm interested in other's thoughts here though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 20, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Not interacting with the FV stuff here (3 pages over a day!), but it is clear that the final judgment is based on works.
> 
> 2 Cor. 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things _done_ in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. / c.f Rom. 2:6 onwards


This statement is true.

*Two Doctrines - Both True*​
I think the following two statements are both equally true and should be taken in a non-nuanced way. The two-sidedness of these statements seems to confuse many. Some seem to be embarrassed by these apparently contradictory doctrines. But I am quite certain they are both equally true.

*Doctrine I:*
Salvation is by Grace alone, through Faith in Christ Jesus alone, who "died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,"
(1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV​For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.​
*Doctrine 2:*
One of the clearest doctrines of Scripture is that the Final Judgment of all men, Christian and non-Christian, will be according to their works. These works are not the imputed good works of Jesus' perfect life and death; instead, it speaks of the actual works of the subjects being judged. (among the dozens of other places, see Matthew 25:31-46)

Credits: Most of what follows is from the Reformation21.org website.








Judgment According to Works







www.reformation21.org





It is well nigh impossible to deny that Christians will be judged according to works when Christ returns (2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 16:27; Jn. 5:28-29; Gal. 6:7-9; Rev. 20:13; 22:12). The question arises, then, how do we maintain the teaching of the passages above with the equally clear teaching that justification is received by faith alone? We do not, as I have written previously, hold to the Roman Catholic version of "two justifications." We hold to one justification by faith; but we must also grapple with the nature of true, saving faith, and the not too infrequent conditional language of the New Testament (see WCF 13.1, citing Heb. 12:14; 2 Cor. 7:1).

Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 11. 2
ii. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

John Owen said:
"For there is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved, which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which [he] who has, and has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved" (see WCF 11.2). This concept forms the backbone of the judgment according to works.

Justification has both an "authoritative" aspect and a "declarative" (or "demonstrative") aspect. Thomas Goodwin points out that "the one [i.e., authoritative] is the justification of men's persons coram Deo, before God, as they appear before him nakedly, and have to do with him alone for the right to salvation; and so they are justified by faith without works" (Rom. 4:2-5) (see Works, 7:181ff.).

But there is a demonstrative aspect to our justification. God will, at the Day of Judgment, judge men and "put a difference between man and man, and that upon this account, that the one were true believers when he justified them; the other were unsound, even in their very acts of faith" (Goodwin) (Acts 8:13). God will therefore make evident, for all to see, the difference between those whom he has truly justified and those who have been left under wrath, even though they may have "professed" faith. Matthew 25:31-46 is instructive on this point.

Returning to the "right" versus "possession" distinction, Goodwin, who has affirmed that the right to salvation as received by faith alone, also posits: God will not "put the possession of salvation upon that private act of his own, without having anything else to show for it." This language is remarkably similar to Petrus van Mastricht: "God does not want to grant the possession of eternal life, unless there are, next to faith, also good works which precede this possession, Heb. 12:14; Matt. 7:21; 25:34-36; Rom. 2:7, 10." This is not a "Puritan" distinctive, as some seem to think. Dozens of Continental theologians spoke this way.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mac (May 20, 2022)

83r17h said:


> I'll need to consider, review some sources, and reattack this later (it's late here). My inclination is that WLC 165 shows distinct acts of distinct actors. The invisible grace is conferred by God to the elect (I think we agree on that). I don't think that God establishing a relationship with someone automatically and directly by virtue of baptism is correct - this seems to make God's action fall under the control of men administering baptism. It seems to say that we can force God to act a specific way by doing a baptism. Admission to / exclusion from membership in the visible church seems to be a power that is given to the visible church, and done by its officers. My reason for inquiring is that I recall that Wilson and others extend "union with Christ" in some way to be established by baptism through admission to the visible church - even to the non-elect. WLC 62-68 delineate why I would see this as problematic.
> 
> Wilson explicitly admits to using the terminology of union with Christ for the non-elect in the visible church: https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/a-romans-11-olive-branch.html. Even when he says he's happy to use other terms, he wants something that is beyond the privileges that Reformed theology says are given to the visible church. See WLC 63:
> 
> ...


The simplistic way I understand the WCF versus Wilson on this…there seems to be a difference in baptism being a sign and seal TO union with Christ (for the eventual believer/“covenant keeper”) versus actually BEING united to Christ by the act of baptism (for “covenant breakers and covenant keepers”). The “appointed time” that the WCF speaks of (which the reality of the sign and seal would be realized) is dependent on the Holy Spirit. It would seem for Wilson that the “appointed time” is at the performance of the sacrament of baptism (I think)…every time. Also, it makes sense to me that there would then be a focus on “obedience” or “covenant faithfulness” to “prove” your baptism and “stay in or keep the covenant” in Wilson’s line of thinking. I feel like I experience this first hand in real time with people here who follow Wilson.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2022)

For those saying Wilson has good views on the family (he doesn't), please consult Prof Alan Strange's article dealing with some of Wilson's ideas. 




__





A Parent's Spiritual Authority Over Adult Children


Does a parent have continued spiritual authority and responsibility for adult children who have moved far away and have their own homes but are not yet married? ( And therefore should be still training them in the fear of the Lord as if they still lived under the same roof??) TIA!




puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Mac (May 20, 2022)

Ed Walsh said:


> This statement is true.
> 
> *Two Doctrines - Both True*​
> I think the following two statements are both equally true and should be taken in a non-nuanced way. The two-sidedness of these statements seems to confuse many. Some seem to be embarrassed by these apparently contradictory doctrines. But I am quite certain they are both equally true.
> ...


Also...see this from Dewey Robert's book on FV: 

"Geerhardus Vos wrote over a century ago in Reformed Dogmatics that the apparent failure of the covenant to live up to the breadth of God's promises concerning baptized covenant children would be the way in which Pelagianism could enter into Reformed doctrine:

We here face the difficulty that the covenant relationship appears powerless to bring covenant fellowship in its wake. We get a covenant that remains unfruitful. A barren, juridicial relationship, an "ought to be," appears to take the place of the glorious realities that mention of the covenant brings to our minds. This is in fact the point where, by means of the covenant idea, the Pelagian error could gain access to Reformed doctrine.

In other words, Vos foresaw the day that some people, seizing on the reality that not all baptized covenant children truly live in the fellowship of the covenant, would try to make changes to the doctrine of the covenant to account for this apparent contradiction. Those changes, Vos said, would provide the opportunity for Pelagianism to be taught under the banner of Reformed doctrine."

I feel like this is pretty spot on.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans678 (May 20, 2022)

This is an amazing thread.


----------



## MChase (May 20, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> For those saying Wilson has good views on the family (he doesn't), please consult Prof Alan Strange's article dealing with some of Wilson's ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah.. I don't get why people think he is good on family stuff.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 20, 2022)

MChase said:


> Yeah.. I don't get why people think he is good on family stuff.


It's likely because of how it contrasts to what is normally suggested by church leadership from people like Russell Moore and other worldly psychology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase (May 20, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It's likely because of how it contrasts to what is normally suggested by church leadership from people like Russell Moore and other worldly psychology.



Well if Russell Moore is all we have to compare to..

Anything Wilson says can be found with more balance, more wisdom, and more clearly stated by orthodox writers. Why anyone would recommend Wilson on childrearing over Beeke is astounding. The man has weird idiosyncratic views on almost every subject of family life - I for one don't get the appeal, particularly when there is so much theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural baggage.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 20, 2022)

MChase said:


> Well if Russell Moore is all we have to compare to..
> 
> Anything Wilson says can be found with more balance, more wisdom, and more clearly stated by orthodox writers. Why anyone would recommend Wilson on childrearing over Beeke is astounding. The man has weird idiosyncratic views on almost every subject of family life - I for one don't get the appeal, particularly when there is so much theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural baggage.


I agree. There is good stuff out there. I would suggest Jay Adams personally. Unfortunately though, good material is often not suggested, so we end up with extremes on both ends (Wilson <--> Moore).


----------



## Tom Hart (May 20, 2022)

Douglas Wilson is not Reformed. It’s all just a bit of a masquerade. Unordained, under no one’s authority but his own, Wilson is very far indeed from confessional Presbyterianism. And that’s just what you can see on the surface. Look at the man’s doctrine! He gets the gospel wrong. The gospel.

It is sad to see professing Christians expressing their admiration of such a man, whose views have been rightly condemned as heterodox.

“A breath of fresh air”? If you think Wilson is the antidote to the social decline, you’re in for trouble. Be wary, in your flight from the false gospel of woke evangelicalism, of falling into the pit of unbelief.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 4


----------



## A.Joseph (May 20, 2022)

Tom Hart said:


> Douglas Wilson is not Reformed. It’s all just a bit of a masquerade. Unordained, under no one’s authority but his own, Wilson is very far indeed from confessional Presbyterianism. And that’s just what you can see on the surface. Look at the man’s doctrine! He gets the gospel wrong. The gospel.
> 
> It is sad to see professing Christians expressing their admiration of such a man, whose views have been rightly condemned as heterodox.
> 
> “A breath of fresh air”? If you think Wilson is the antidote to the social decline, you’re in for trouble. Be wary, in your flight from the false gospel of woke evangelicalism, of falling into the pit of unbelief.


I totally agree. He’s a cult leader who throws money around and shines a spotlight on himself (as he buys devoted disciples). 

He’s very Mark Driscollish. His appeal parallels Donald Trump with some Christian orthodoxy sprinkled in. 

Do charges of plagiarism surprise me in the least? That’s probably the least of his problems.

That’s a hard pass….

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 20, 2022)

How many of these Reformed-type celebrity preachers are this way? Unordained with no accountability? Independent churches, independent ministries….

And how many get in trouble? Is this more common in baptists circles with high internet presence, the promotion of Calvinism and an interest in the culture wars (applying Calvinism to the culture war) ? Some do much good at some points obviously, but wonder who fits in these categories?

On the darker side would be Driscoll, Wilson, etc…. etc…. Do they all eventually go south?It’s not just that they are doing wrong.. but are also leaving themselves vulnerable and unprotected if they have nobody they are accountable to.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 20, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> How many of these Reformed-type celebrity preachers are this way? Unordained with no accountability? Independent churches, independent ministries….
> 
> And how many get in trouble? Is this more common in baptists circles with high internet presence, the promotion of Calvinism and an interest in the culture wars (applying Calvinism to the culture war) ? Some do much good at some points obviously, but wonder who fits in these categories?
> 
> On the darker side would be Driscoll, Wilson, etc…. etc…. Do they all eventually go south?It’s not just that they are doing wrong.. but are also leaving themselves vulnerable and unprotected if they have nobody they are accountable to.


Make sure you don't overshoot your target. Aren't most baptist churches independent?

Also, there is much to criticize about Wilson and Driscoll, but make sure you don't get that information from places like Christianity Today. That organization is almost completely liberal and social justice infested. I would argue they aren't even a Christian organization anymore.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (May 20, 2022)

Someone needs to keep track. Doug Wilson threads often are long but this one is 124 posts in 48 hours. Beep Beep!


----------



## A.Joseph (May 20, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Make sure you don't overshoot your target. Aren't most baptist churches independent?
> 
> Also, there is much to criticize about Wilson and Driscoll, but make sure you don't get that information from places like Christianity Today. That organization is almost completely liberal and social justice infested. I would argue they aren't even a Christian organization anymore.


Thanks. I try to be balanced. I just don’t think politics and culture wars are worthy or even faithful motivations. 

Politics? Recognize the system is rotten and unredeemable.
Culture & Consumerism? See politics and understand the incestuous bonds between big government and big industry and how it even spills over into big Eva and seminaries. Again, redeemable? Unlikely in many circumstances. Not all, but much of this is public info at this point…. Who is paying the bills? Who is appointed to leadership positions and what are they beholden to?

Keep all these things in view as far as motives and let it all take a back seat to God, sound doctrine, fellowship and family. We can’t get caught up in over compensating for the evils that abound. But we can remain grounded in truth and faithfulness. Does DougWil lead us there? I don’t think so. Do those obsessed with taking him down? No, they are just as distracted…. Move along I say

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (May 20, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I just don’t think politics and culture wars are worthy or even faithful motivations.
> 
> Politics? Recognize the system is rotten and unredeemable.


An apolitical Christian is an oxymoron. The most basic Christian creed, Χπριστος κυριος, is a political statement. The book of Revelation is, among other things, a strongly political book. Politics is an inescapable reality in this age. Christians who pretend to be against or above politics are therefore in fact making a political statement as well as taking a political stance, just not a good one.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Do those obsessed with taking him down? No, they are just as distracted…. Move along I say



As someone who is obsessed with taking him down, I'm not distracted. My number one focus is the classical doctrine of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LilyG (May 20, 2022)

Tom Hart said:


> Unordained, under no one’s authority but his own, Wilson is very far indeed from confessional Presbyterianism



Yes, that is a big problem. How are his elders ordained? Does he hand-pick them himself?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (May 20, 2022)

Taylor said:


> An apolitical Christian is an oxymoron. The most basic Christian creed, Χπριστος κυριος, is a political statement. The book of Revelation is, among other things, a strongly political book. Politics is an inescapable reality in this age. Christians who pretend to be against or above politics are therefore in fact making a political statement as well as taking a political stance, just not a good one.


That depends. I once thought like you and then I came to understand that post-Pilgrim America is more Babylonian and secret society than Christian in its foundation. Once that point is grasped, you realize that the long standing power brokers are never going to relinquish their grand design and it includes the GOP…. The game is rigged. Media, News, Politics, Industry, Health, Natural Resources…. they ultimately control much of it. We can maintain local areas to a degree and we are still a rational majority (maybe?) but current events make a lot of sense when these things are considered….


https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/09/14/masons-and-the-making-of-america











Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to Bishop James Madison, 31 January 1800


From Thomas Jefferson to Bishop James Madison, 31 January 1800




founders.archives.gov













Who's Afraid of John Calvin? Answer: Thomas Jefferson


The Virginian founding father and arch-liberal feared that Calvinists, not Catholics, would be the undoing of his experiment in political liberalism.




mereorthodoxy.com


----------



## Taylor (May 20, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I once thought like you and then I came to understand that post-Pilgrim America is more Babylonian and secret society than Christian in its foundation. Once that point is grasped, you realize that the long standing power brokers are never going to relinquish their grand design and it includes the GOP…. The game is rigged. Media, News, Politics, Industry, Health, Natural Resources…. they ultimately control much of it.


I agree with all of this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. The current state of affairs has never and can never have any bearing on what a Christian should be doing. _Ought_ is a different question than _is_, and the latter can never dictate the former.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 21, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I just don’t think politics and culture wars are worthy or even faithful motivations.
> 
> Politics? Recognize the system is rotten and unredeemable.
> Culture & Consumerism? See politics and understand the incestuous bonds between big government and big industry and how it even spills over into big Eva and seminaries. Again, redeemable? Unlikely in many circumstances. Not all, but much of this is public info at this point…. Who is paying the bills? Who is appointed to leadership positions and what are they beholden to?
> ...





Taylor said:


> An apolitical Christian is an oxymoron. The most basic Christian creed, Χπριστος κυριος, is a political statement. The book of Revelation is, among other things, a strongly political book. Politics is an inescapable reality in this age. Christians who pretend to be against or above politics are therefore in fact making a political statement as well as taking a political stance, just not a good one.



Greetings, @A.Joseph & @Taylor

I haven't been following this thread very closely, so what I have to say should be considered my thoughts that may only vaguely have to do with your argumentation.

I have been thinking of everything in black-and-white terms for the last few days. Darkness and light have been on my mind.

Of all the things modern man-centered-man thinks important, politics is _numero uno_. That alone is enough reason for Christians to collide head-on with man's politics as God in all its manifestations. In all modern politics that I am aware of, man is seen as the highest authority in all matters of law and ethics. Remember, all law is religious in nature. It's which religion it looks to that makes all the difference. Therefore I believe that Christians _must_ be involved in politics in earnest.

But the Christian mindset in all things political must be like Augustine of Hippo's City of God and the City of Man. We do not physically separate the two, but the two cities are very different and radically opposed one to another.

This is a brief excerpt from an essay titled:
*Two Cities, Two Mindsets*
By Lydia Sheldon​
St. Augustine used an illustration of two cities in trying to explain the distinction between the Church and the world. Two loves have formed two cities, he claimed. The love of self has formed the earthly city; the love of God has formed the heavenly one. The earthly city is characterized by pride and self-aggrandizement, while those in the heavenly city honor God in all things, trusting only Him for all wisdom and giving glory to only Him. It's easy to see which city the Church should belong to, isn't it?​
We must never be satisfied with simply voting for the lesser of two evils. But the church must involve itself in politics by shining the Light of God's Holy Word on all man-centered politics. We should seek only two outcomes, and there is no middle ground between the two. The first and unwavering goal is to bring Light out of darkness by the conversion of those still in darkness. The second but equally important goal is for those who reject the light. That same Light that brings life to those who believe will increase the blindness, remove the power, and ultimately will burn to a crisp those who reject that light. _There is no neutrality_.
~~~~~~~​John 1:4-7
In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.

John 3:19-20
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

*One Light - Two Outcomes*​2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (May 21, 2022)

MChase said:


> Well if Russell Moore is all we have to compare to..
> 
> Anything Wilson says can be found with more balance, more wisdom, and more clearly stated by orthodox writers. Why anyone would recommend Wilson on childrearing over Beeke is astounding. The man has weird idiosyncratic views on almost every subject of family life - I for one don't get the appeal, particularly when there is so much theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural baggage.


Its because Wilson OwNs ThE LiBs

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 21, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> As someone who is obsessed with taking him down, I'm not distracted. My number one focus is the classical doctrine of God.


I don’t think you are obsessed with this one guy. And you aren’t coming from a right vs left cultural mindset. You aren’t looking to push the envelope in a progressive direction. I think you should be a comprehensive resource in all things to watch out for w/ Dougwil. Sounds like you are pretty qualified.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (May 21, 2022)

Reasons for Wilson's resurgence in popularity despite what NAPARC et al said 15-20 years ago:

1. WOKENESS. Some of his antagonists, such as Ligon Duncan, are now seen as tainted (by some) by their association with and previous promotion of the likes of Jemar Tisby and other related things. (See also the comments above about Michael Horton and civil unions. The culture war in general is a factor.) You can include the COVID response to this too. For some reason, when Tom Ascol wanted to produce a film about the SJWs taking over the SBC, he couldn't find anyone in the whole wide world besides Moscow people to produce it, seemingly oblvious to or dismissive of the baggage. Then Ascol's assistant pastor ends up resigning and joining up with Moscow. Apologia Church (Jeff Durbin and James White) seem to be friendly with Wilson too.

2. Some who had been associated with FV attained a new respectability in the past decade via things like the Calvinist International and the Davenant Institute.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (May 21, 2022)

Ed Walsh said:


> Greetings, @A.Joseph & @Taylor
> 
> I haven't been following this thread very closely, so what I have to say should be considered my thoughts that may only vaguely have to do with your argumentation.
> 
> ...


Pagan societies are a great contrast where the light of the gospel can truly shine. I don’t expect anyone to understand the sanctity of life or marriage, etc. without knowing the true gospel of Jesus Christ. So the church needs to remain faithful in doctrine and practice, and maybe it will spill into other areas of the greater society. But that is the order - there are no short-cuts. The holy cannot blend with the profane like is done in the RCC. US government needs a radical transformation where lies and deceit is not tolerated.

Doug Wilson may exude smug superiority (in his tactical response to secular society) while some others take their cue from secular society. I know it’s hard to not get caught in the mire myself. But at the end of the day, only Christ can turn evil into good. I hope His light will shine brightly especially as events take a darker turn.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mac (May 21, 2022)

This thread escalated pretty quickly! I do have a question related to my original post…would anyone be concerned about the continued use of Canon Press materials in the church body and actually link that concern to Federal Vision? Meaning…is it valid to say, as a session, “we will no longer use Canon Press books for theological concerns related to Federal Vision theology?”


----------



## Mac (May 21, 2022)

Mac said:


> This thread escalated pretty quickly! I do have a question related to my original post…would anyone be concerned about the continued use of Canon Press materials in the church body and actually link that concern to Federal Vision? Meaning…is it valid to say, as a session, “we will no longer use Canon Press books for theological concerns related to Federal Vision theology?”


I feel like the answer is 100% yes but I want to Consider all angles


----------



## Taylor (May 21, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> …the church needs to remain faithful in doctrine and practice, and maybe it will spill into other areas of the greater society. But that is the order - there are no short-cuts.


For the record, this is exactly what Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and others have taught, contrary to popular caricatures.

Regeneration, not revolution.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Jack K (May 21, 2022)

I do think part of the reason the faction from Moscow, ID has newfound acceptance is that a church's posture toward the wider culture has become, for many American believers, the new orthodoxy. It used to be that we judged and selected a church or a book to read based on doctrinal fidelity and Christian practice. Now, believers are more likely to pick based on cultural/political posture.

Should our posture toward the culture be combative? Conciliatory? Withdrawing? Engaging and winsome? American believers have strong disagreements that have been made even sharper by progressive pushes, the Trump campaign/presidency, and Covid concerns/frustrations. Many people believe the cultural situation has become dire. Churches that once found unity under doctrine and Christian practice are now realigning based on cultural posture. To many, it's become _the_ test of orthodoxy that overrules other considerations.

On one side, it shows up as: "So what if we are neglecting to gather for worship; we're showing our neighbors that we care about their Covid concerns." (Posture toward the culture comes first.)

On the other side, it shows up as: "So what if Donald Trump is sexually crass; he's fighting against wokeness." Or: "So what if Federal Vision is theologically in error; at least they're standing up to the progressive and feminist wave." (Again, posture toward the culture comes first.)

So, to answer Mac's question... I suspect it may not be as simple as telling people to set aside those books due to the possibility of theological error. That kind of pastoral counsel will have to be accompanied by ongoing teaching about the importance of doctrinal fidelity in a world that increasingly feels cultural alignment is more important. Many of your people are probably consuming political commentary much more often than they are opening their Bibles. You're going to have to remember this as you proceed, and shepherd the flock with this greater danger in mind.

Reactions: Like 7 | Edifying 1 | Amen 2


----------



## ZackF (May 21, 2022)

Great analysis Jack.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (May 21, 2022)

Mac said:


> This thread escalated pretty quickly! I do have a question related to my original post…would anyone be concerned about the continued use of Canon Press materials in the church body and actually link that concern to Federal Vision? Meaning…is it valid to say, as a session, “we will no longer use Canon Press books for theological concerns related to Federal Vision theology?”


Back to my first post, my concern is the Canon Press stuff becoming a gateway drug to imbibing all of Wilson. But I don’t think the answer is book burning. Find out what your people are liking about the books they are reading and steer them toward better stuff. Getting into the FV weeds may be an unnecessary distraction. 

Just as big of a concern as the FV stuff is the undermining of authority that Moscow has fostered particularly in the past few years.


----------



## Taylor (May 21, 2022)

Jack K said:


> I do think part of the reason the faction from Moscow, ID has newfound acceptance is that a church's posture toward the wider culture has become, for many American believers, the new orthodoxy. It used to be that we judged and selected a church or a book to read based on doctrinal fidelity and Christian practice. Now, believers are more likely to pick based on cultural/political posture.
> 
> Should our posture toward the culture be combative? Conciliatory? Withdrawing? Engaging and winsome? American believers have strong disagreements that have been made even sharper by progressive pushes, the Trump campaign/presidency, and Covid concerns/frustrations. Many people believe the cultural situation has become dire. Churches that once found unity under doctrine and Christian practice are now realigning based on cultural posture. To many, it's become _the_ test of orthodoxy that overrules other considerations.
> 
> ...


I also think many Christians are realizing that the Faith is inseparable from politics. I once heard a podcast say, “There are no _theological_ liberals in the PCA, only some _political_ liberals.” I am coming more and more to believe that this sentiment is nonsense. Political liberals _are_ theological liberals. Sure, they might be okay in theology proper and Christology, but it’s hard to believe that someone who thinks abortion is acceptable, that racism is an inescapable plight inherent to skin color, and that stealing from the rich to give to the poor on threat of government force is a social good, do so because of theological conservatism.

In general, you show me someone who is a political liberal, and I will show you someone who, if a professed Christian, is almost certainly a theological liberal. Poor politics very frequently reveals poor doctrine.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 2 | Sad 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 21, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I also think many Christians are realizing that the Faith is inseparable from politics. I once heard a podcast say, “There are no _theological_ liberals in the PCA, only some _political_ liberals.” I am coming more and more to believe that this sentiment is nonsense. Political liberals _are_ theological liberals. Sure, they might be okay in theology proper and Christology, but it’s hard to believe that someone who thinks abortion is acceptable, that racism is an inescapable plight inherent to skin color, and that stealing from the rich to give to the poor on threat of government force is a social good, do so because of theological conservatism.
> 
> In general, you show me someone who is a political liberal, and I will show you someone who, if a professed Christian, is almost certainly a theological liberal. Poor politics very frequently reveals poor doctrine.


Good points but just let me build on that.

Trump was never a Christian conservative. I think people got behind him to see a corrupt system exposed but instead of draining the swamp it got emboldened. (This is the last time I use conservative to describe Christianity cause that’s too often used to dismiss Christian orthodoxy and the practical application thereof).

Left-Right, Conservative-Liberal are not Christian labels or distinctions. I do believe the Baptists get caught up in this. Calvinism was often lumped in with conservatism in Baptists circles but then it became a political target to liberalize even in Presbyterian circles with Keller and obviously a century before.

So, since Christianity doesn’t change and God doesn’t change (although there have been many blind spots for Christians throughout the century), the embrace of progressivism in Christianity is pretty much anti-orthodox. Which is why churches like the PCUSA are irrelevant and dying.

So the seductions are on many sides. The GOP-mainstream political conservatives are anything but. Trump was at best a status-quo moderate whose GOP-affiliation and foundation was ultimately globalist. So the bar was set pretty low due to the state of our American culture in the year 2016.

So at the end of the day, no party or social-political movement reflects confessional Calvinism. And, in fact, many reformed churches and denominations have embraced politics over doctrine. When the liberal churches do it, liberalism is their religion. When traditionalists/confessionalists do it, they often are getting off mission.

I think there should be a better linkage between like a Reformed Forum (covering theology-church history-philosophy) and a truthxchange (covering culture-philosophy/psychology-theology) in which the reality of ‘nothing new under the sun’ is kept in view with proper perspective and religious orthodoxy always tied to it. Just an example. We should be more unified and on the same page on these matters.

I can’t name one politician in all of America who consistently shares all our values and have not sold out to a plural society instituted on behalf of a Luciferean vision for all humanity. …. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/sen-ben-sasse.99040/#post-1214617

I’m open to those who want to unify better on these matters. But we keep screwing up.

Who is a truly solid source on these matters these days? I can’t think of any that are willing to cover all these bases without compromising anything? Sproul is the only guy that I knew that can cover all these areas soundly with zeal and inspire the Reformed masses while recruiting the non-Reformed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (May 21, 2022)

….. I think we need a political party and/or coalition that is removed from the 2-party system with humble, mature minds leading the way. How big could that tent be and could it lead, at the least, to faithful civil engagement? I have no idea of the feasibility of such an undertaking….


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 21, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> ….. I think we need a political party and/or coalition that is removed from the 2-party system with humble, mature minds leading the way. How big could that tent be and could it lead, at the least, to faithful civil engagement? I have no idea of the feasibility of such an undertaking….


It always comes back to the impossibility of such government apart from the work of God in a society. Such government will only happen in a society that is submitted to Christ, which means the visible church is committed to Christ, being revived and reformed, Sabbath-keeping, Psalm singing, returned to the old paths. God using the earnest cries of his people to bring about revival and reformation in the church via the raising up and preaching of her ministers.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 21, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> ….. I think we need a political party and/or coalition that is removed from the 2-party system with humble, mature minds leading the way. How big could that tent be and could it lead, at the least, to faithful civil engagement? I have no idea of the feasibility of such an undertaking….



I can answer the feasibility part for you: there is none.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 21, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Paradox theology is a Van Tilian doctrine is it not?
> I'm hardly an expert on Wilson, but from the outside peering in it seems sometimes that Wilson is taken to task for things that others are given a pass for, or at least criticized more mildly. This is a good example. When Van Til comes up no one says "you can never take what he says at face value" or calls him a snake. At worst he is called confusing. Justification is too I think, since we're happy to read and learn from many church fathers with as bad or worse of formulas on it. I don't say this to diminish these issues, because they are certainly serious matters, but I do wonder if we're applying the same standard across the board.



Oddly, I was re-reading this thread and came across a comment from myself: "I am not sure that you can ever take anything written by a believer in Paradox Theology at face-value." So, it would appear that at least someone has suggested that you cannot take what CVT said at face value.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 21, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Oddly, I was re-reading this thread and came across a comment from myself: "I am not sure that you can ever take anything written by a believer in Paradox Theology at face-value." So, it would appear that at least someone has suggested that you cannot take what CVT said at face value.


"Great minds think alike." Once again, Reformed Covenanter and Daniel Ritchie have arrived at the same sound conclusion

Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 6


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2022)

I'm not sure what politics or CVT have to do with Wilson's theology? The danger, as I see it, is his stance on culture is informed by his stance on Evangelicalism (which he sees as weak both theologically and culturally). His overreaction theologically with the objectivity of the covenant is in part what drives his stuff on culture. I'm not saying you can't be strong on culture and theologically orthodox, you can. But how many lay people might ignorantly agree with his assessment of the problem and then think his "solution" is the only option. 
I don't know if this is happening or not but its seems like a natural trajectory to me. Anyway just my opinion. I highly doubt if CVT were alive and competent he would side with Wilson's theology. Not withstanding his defense of Shepherd, with which he was old and not competent but wrong.
One last thing I am highly skeptical of tying Orthodoxy to any one political party, as if there're not all corrupt. Even a so called Reformed political party will still have to "play" the corrupt game of politics, if you play in a pig pen you will get muddy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

