# A Question for Doug Wilson Fans



## Semper Fidelis

Great blog post: https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/a-question-for-wilson-fans/

I've tried to learn to be more circumspect as I get older but recent events convince me more than ever that Doug Wilson is dangerous. Between the news of ministers being removed for moral failure and the hubris of Doug Wilson I found myself in daily prayer asking that the Lord would keep my foot from slipping. It makes me shudder to think of a man so blind to his own sin that every criticism is, de facto, affirmation that he's doing the Lord's work.


----------



## Pergamum

Do you believe there is a cluster of traits surrounding men such as this, so that we might safeguard ourselves? Any doctrinal or character or personality distinctives that put one at greater risk?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I would agree that there are many troubling aspects of Wilson's beliefs and practices, while at the same time I must also admit that I have enjoyed and agreed with many other things that he has said or written. I guess the question we must ask ourselves is, is there enough meat on these bones to make it worth the time to pick through, or is the whole bird rotten and worthy to be discarded? Virtually every preacher or teacher will have at least something worthwhile to say from time to time, but few of us would bother to search for the nuggets of truth in someone like Osteen. Perhaps we shouldn't do so with Wilson either.


----------



## yeutter

Thanks for the link. I was not aware that Doug Wilson was self ordained.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Has the CREC ever 'corrected' Wilson's self ordination or has he/they simply let it stand?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pergamum said:


> Do you believe there is a cluster of traits surrounding men such as this, so that we might safeguard ourselves? Any doctrinal or character or personality distinctives that put one at greater risk?



It's practically impossible to know this (yet to be stated below) most necessary of things respecting a young would-be minister, which is a reason for needing various stages or trials to determine a man's fitness for ministry. Not just for others to judge him, but also for an honest man to self-judge. But it must be discovered, and defects addressed sooner rather than later. Because, too late and a virulent plague comes upon a man, or a church, or a whole body.

After "godliness" (Gk. eusebia, quite an all-encompassing term), which is something akin to a "quality" or stamp of character as compared to a "trait," and of first importance--the term is nowhere more prevalent than in the the pastoral epistle--I'm not unalterably sure, but suppose the church needs most to find a man who seeks to be *humble*. No man is as humble as he should be; but he needs to be at war with his pride.

He must study it as his chiefest foe. Even his besetting sin--if it isn't pride--is subaltern to Commander Pride.

Our Lord's witness, Mt.20:24-28


> And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles *exercise dominion* [katakurieuo] over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. *But it shall not be so among you*: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."



Peter writes to the elders, which are overseers or bishops, among whom he (who is an apostle) counts himself, 1Pet.5:1-3


> The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as *being lords over* [katakurieuo] God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.



Beware of any man--regardless of his gifts, his putative wisdom, his charisma/leadership; all which (along with other attractions) can be used to blind eyes and mollify outrage--guard yourself from anyone who likes controlling other people.

Be especially wary of those who avoid and resist (often with remarkable adroitness) all efforts to bring _him_ into any position of subordination, any place of true and unfeigned accountability. If there are formal arrangements into which a "lordly" man engages himself, which seem to set him in an equal-relation to others or make his words and deeds subject to review, watch closely to see if real practice accords with formality. Paper arrangements have all the substance of whatever characters make, and later own them.

Don't mistake me: for saying that a man who is sufficiently self-effacing is thereby qualified for ministry. Or that "natural leaders" are dangerous. TRAITS, one or many, do not make a trustworthy guide. A man is not the sum of his parts. More importantly, a church's leadership is more than its "public face," regardless of the significance of it. The session of a church is a multitude of counselors conferring as one mind for the sake of the body. Every one of those counselors is a gift (to the church), which is meant to complement the whole.

The great hurt to the church are those with uninhibited, unchecked _libido dominandi_. Men like Diotrephes, who _love to be first_ (Gk. philoproteuo): "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the *preeminence *among them, receiveth us not." 3Jn.1:9


----------



## arapahoepark

Semper Fidelis said:


> Great blog post: https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/a-question-for-wilson-fans/
> 
> I've tried to learn to be more circumspect as I get older but recent events convince me more than ever that Doug Wilson is dangerous. Between the news of ministers being removed for moral failure and the hubris of Doug Wilson I found myself in daily prayer asking that the Lord would keep my foot from slipping. It makes me shudder to think of a man so blind to his own sin that every criticism is, de facto, affirmation that he's doing the Lord's work.



Finally someone brought it up.
I was always concerned when some here and plenty elsewhere (*cough*Baylys*cough*) hold him up solely for his 'complementarian' views. They'd fellowship with him (probably not the ones on the board though) but not egalitarians who adhere to sola fide.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> Do you believe there is a cluster of traits surrounding men such as this, so that we might safeguard ourselves? Any doctrinal or character or personality distinctives that put one at greater risk?



But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. (2 Pet 1:9)

The 'these things' are faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity. These are all positive qualities as opposed to negative. It is one thing to NOT be a drunk and another thing to BE temperate. It is one thing to NOT be wrathful and another thing to BE patient. Just because a man is not divorced does not mean he loves his wife as Christ loves the church. 

For true teachers, however, "these things be in you, and abound..." (Verse 8) As a general rule, true teachers strive to grow toward the divine nature, while false teachers strive to get as close to the line of sin without going over. They are good at avoiding negative characteristics, but have no interest in, and often mock those who pursue these positive characteristics.


----------



## KMK

Contra_Mundum said:


> Be especially wary of those who avoid and resist (often with remarkable adroitness) all efforts to bring him into any position of subordination, any place of true and unfeigned accountability.



A good friend was telling me a sad story just the other day about his church where the new pastor is in some hot water for resisting any accountability from the membership. He spent the entire sermon explaining how some of the older members of the church are 'being divisive' (which may be true), but more importantly defending his spending the evening in a bar watching a baseball game with his buddies because he happened to have a spiritual conversation with an unbeliever. Whether or not it is sinful to watch a baseball game in a bar is beside the point. The point is, he is trying to get as close to the line of sin as possible and then using an entire sermon to defend himself. That makes me suspect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

KMK said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be especially wary of those who avoid and resist (often with remarkable adroitness) all efforts to bring him into any position of subordination, any place of true and unfeigned accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good friend was telling me a sad story just the other day about his church where the new pastor is in some hot water for resisting any accountability from the membership. He spent the entire sermon explaining how some of the older members of the church are 'being divisive' (which may be true), but more importantly defending his spending the evening in a bar watching a baseball game with his buddies because he happened to have a spiritual conversation with an unbeliever. Whether or not it is sinful to watch a baseball game in a bar is beside the point. The point is, he is trying to get as close to the line of sin as possible and then using an entire sermon to defend himself. That makes me suspect.
Click to expand...


Can you explain further how this is true? 



> The point is, he is trying to get as close to the line of sin as possible


----------



## Miss Marple

Several in my family have watched baseball games in bars and it never occurred to me to consider this as a sinful activity (?)


----------



## KMK

Miss Marple said:


> Several in my family have watched baseball games in bars and it never occurred to me to consider this as a sinful activity (?)



That is not my point. He spent an entire sermon explaining how he was not guilty of sin instead of simply saying, "I'm sorry that my trip to the bar offended my sheep, I will lay down my liberty as an act of charity." And then he could have preached a real sermon and not waste everybody's time defending himself.


----------



## MW

I think a shorter way to address the problem would be to simply point out that ministers should not have "fans." As with sports and entertainment folk, "fans" introduce an element of unaccountability which makes it impossible to impose normal moral standards on those to whom more is given and of whom more is required. If people would stop acting like "fans," ministers would feel no reason to act like "celebrities," the balance of the moral order would be restored, and faults could be addressed and corrected in a spiritual manner.


----------



## Peairtach

From reading Wilson's "clever Dick" _Credenda/Agenda_ magazines in the '90s, and then seeing his descent into heresy, I can see that the Evil One can carry very clever people away in their own "brilliance", if they don't watch and pray.


----------



## Captain Picard

Are we even allowed to identify as Doug Wilson "fans" on this board, or will the guardians of the deposit of the faith on here boot us for "denial of sola fide"?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Paul1976

I'll admit to being a big C.S. Lewis fan, and he must have at least half a dozen viewpoints that could get one booted from this board. Some with extreme prejudice...

I think an important point to consider is that a number of teachers hold or have held wrong views at some point in their ministries. Yet, in spite of Lewis' flaws, he had so many correct and deep insights that I still love reading his works. After listening to a Desiring God conference on Lewis, I'm convinced much of the reason Lewis had so much of an influence is that he possessed a real love for God and for his people. Despite some serious doctrinal errors, he was a very deep Christian, at least from what I was able to gather. Another example to consider is John Bunyan. If my memory serves, he was neither seminary educated nor ordained, but produced a number of books that have now stood the test of time.

So, I'm a little concerned with dismissing individuals simply over wrong views or backgrounds. My personal experience with Wilson is that I heard him speak at several Desiring God conference recordings, and liked his messages there. I was not aware of the controversy around him at the time. I later downloaded a series of sermons from his church, but stopped listening after a serious interpretation error where he simply ignored what Jesus specifically stated elements in the parable of the wheat and the tares represented, and assigned different meanings to them which happened to be more appropriate to his theology. That, in my view, is an excellent reason to disregard a teacher. Perhaps the others are serious yellow flags?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Dunno; don't recall it happening; but just maybe for rolling the eyes snarkiness.


Captain Picard said:


> Are we even allowed to identify as Doug Wilson "fans" on this board, or will the guardians of the deposit of the faith on here boot us for "denial of sola fide"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> I think a shorter way to address the problem would be to simply point out that ministers should not have "fans." As with sports and entertainment folk, "fans" introduce an element of unaccountability which makes it impossible to impose normal moral standards on those to whom more is given and of whom more is required. If people would stop acting like "fans," ministers would feel no reason to act like "celebrities," the balance of the moral order would be restored, and faults could be addressed and corrected in a spiritual manner.



I agree. The title merely reflected the Blog article.


----------



## py3ak

Wilson answered this question for his fans. People like him, according to him, because he is clear and because he fights. I would tweak that a bit: people like him because he is vivid and entertaining, and because he fights. I don't think he is an exceptionally clear writer, but his illustrations and turns of phrase can be quite forceful (it seems like a sign of a lack of clarity that he confuses that for conceptual clarity). Other people also fight, and in some cases what popularity they have is based on that; but most of them lack that verbal sparkle.


----------



## KMK

py3ak said:


> people like him because he is vivid and entertaining, and because he fights.



That sounds like one of our presidential candidates!


----------



## bookslover

Who knows? Maybe this latest scandal will be the one that finally knocks Wilson off his perch.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Wilson answered this question for his fans. People like him, according to him, because he is clear and because he fights. I would tweak that a bit: people like him because he is vivid and entertaining, and because he fights. I don't think he is an exceptionally clear writer, but his illustrations and turns of phrase can be quite forceful (it seems like a sign of a lack of clarity that he confuses that for conceptual clarity). Other people also fight, and in some cases what popularity they have is based on that; but most of them lack that verbal sparkle.



That was a very good description. His conceptual clarity is masked by his command of the language and charisma. He's hard not to like.

I think people look at Church history and assume that the orthodox always had the winsome and popular on their side. The opposite is the case. Christianity has always been embattled by people who have charisma and make the orthodox look small and insignificant in their time. It's hard to go through even months (much less years) where the simple ministry of the Gospel seems overshadowed by those who seem to have a voice that others are paying attention to. We want a voice like Doug's to stand up for the little people - to put his finger in the chest of the culture and say: "I'm not going to take it any more!"

But ministries like his won't last.

The older I get the more I appreciate something that will endure. I'm less attracted by those who gain large followings. If one wants to know what it's like to really feel the reproach of the world then try regular ministry and keeping the doors open for the simple preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. Deal with the indwelling sin in your members and have the courage to shepherd those who are battling their own and resisting the means of grace with patience and endurance. Do battle within the Church for Her peace and purity.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## DMcFadden

Ruben and Richard are spot on. In a world of colorless blandness and the proverbial man in the grey colored suit approach to the faith, someone like Wilson stands out just as Trump does among politicians. That should not surprise us.

On the substantive point, it is exceedingly doubtful that heresy ever comes packaged so neatly as the charts in the theological dictionaries. If Arius, Pelagius, or Finney were wrong on EVERYTHING, nobody would have been seduced by their falsity. Rather, the admixture of truth with error, all served up in a winsome or compelling manner fuels the heretical enterprise. 

It will always be a judgment call how much time to spend in the works of errorists in order to find the truth stated helpfully and applicably. At my age, I'm more in the camp of reading the ones who get it (generally) right and not worrying so much about having an encyclopedic knowledge of the ins and outs of the ones who get it (mostly) wrong.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DMcFadden said:


> On the substantive point, it is exceedingly doubtful that heresy ever comes packaged so neatly as the charts in the theological dictionaries. If Arius, Pelagius, or Finney were wrong on EVERYTHING, nobody would have been seduced by their falsity. Rather, the admixture of truth with error, all served up in a winsome or compelling manner fuels the heretical enterprise.



Well noted. Finney really tapped into the spirit of the age. Criticism of his methods must have appeared dour. Finney was "missional" after all and powerful. Ministry that didn't get on board would be left behind.

I was reflecting on this just yesterday thinking that revivalism has taken 150 years but has pretty much reached full burnout at this point. I think the fruit of it is the collapse of it's great-great grandchildren mostly into new forms of liberalism caving into the the spirit of the age.

I was reading Torrance the other day making a good point at how essentially Arian much liberal theology is. I think we always assume that our age is the first that's experienced theologians that see orthodox as out of touch or behind the times.

Wilson, Driscoll, and others with big followings appeal to those who want more bang. The bang they get, however, is a flash in the pan on the scene of Church history.


----------



## DMcFadden

Rich,

I blame the Lutherans, or more specifically, the "pietist" movement begun by the Lutheran Spener. Notice how "contemporary" Spener's six proposals sound, even though they were published in 1675!

In _Pia desideria_, Spener made six proposals as the best means of restoring the life of the Church:

1. His proposal that the study of the Bible should take place outside the church in private meeings (ecclesiolae in ecclesia - "little churches within the church") sounds just like the small group movement.

2. Greater lay share in the spiritual government of the church and a diminution of the role of the office of pastor.

3. Emphasis on the "practical" aspects of Christianity, particularly on the "practice of it."

4. Sympathetic and kindly treatment of unbelieving systems and heterodox believers. Reduction of bombast in favor of dialog and sympathetic understanding.

5. Less emphasis on the dead orthodoxy of creeds, confessions, and systems of thought in favor of giving more prominence to the devotional life.

6. A shift from rhetoric, doctrinal preaching, and didactic exposition to motivational preaching that implants the heart of Christianity in the inner man.

The essentially orthodox Spener + Puritanism were the primary sources for the First Great Awakening (also orthodox), which in turned morphed into the Second Great Awakening (infected with Finney), resulting in the revivalism of the Third Great Awakening and Moody's appropriation of Finney methods and means, passing through the Fundamentalist-Modernist years, and eventuating in the neo-evangelicalism of post-WWII evangelicalism.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

_Pia Desideria_ was a required text for our introductory spiritual formations course at my liberal PC(USA) seminary.


----------



## KMK

MW said:


> I think a shorter way to address the problem would be to simply point out that ministers should not have "fans."



We need to replace 'fanaticism' with 'confessionalism'. When Christians do not subscribe to a confession, they have no choice but to hang their hat on the most popular teachers they can find. "How can a guy with this many followers be wrong?" 

With confessionalism the Christian's faith and life stands upon doctrine and not the fickle whims of the masses. How many Christians today even remember "The Prayer of Jabez"?


----------



## Herald

There is a CREC church in nearby Lakeland that is hosting a conference headlining Doug Wilson. I'm glad I read the blog post Rich linked to in his OP. I didn't know much about Doug Wilson, but now I consider myself a bit more informed.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

KMK said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe there is a cluster of traits surrounding men such as this, so that we might safeguard ourselves? Any doctrinal or character or personality distinctives that put one at greater risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. (2 Pet 1:9)
> 
> _The 'these things' are faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity. These are all positive qualities as opposed to negative. It is one thing to NOT be a drunk and another thing to BE temperate. It is one thing to NOT be wrathful and another thing to BE patient. Just because a man is not divorced does not mean he loves his wife as Christ loves the church. _
> 
> 
> That is aptly said. Fine exegetical and pastoral insight.
Click to expand...


----------



## earl40

NaphtaliPress said:


> Has the CREC ever 'corrected' Wilson's self ordination or has he/they simply let it stand?



As a follow up should we considered him ordained?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the CREC ever 'corrected' Wilson's self ordination or has he/they simply let it stand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a follow up should we considered him ordained?
Click to expand...


He's clearly not. Like the movie, The Apostle, he essentially ordained himself.

His answer to the blog post was, essentially that Spurgeon was never ordained and that Calvin probably never was either. Since Doug is on par with both then, by extension, ordination is something that other people require for ministry. Apparently, Jesus and Doug are enough and anyone who says otherwise doesn't realize that God put this fighter in the right place at the right time to deal with the evils of today's society.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If he was self ordained, and remains so; it's not just irregular, but invalid, correct?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Or is he not claiming his self ordination was valid; but he doesn't need ordination? Sounds like it from Rich's comment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Wilson's own words:


> Is it my credentials? My suspiousy ordination? She quotes the account I give in Mother Kirk of how I became a pastor, an account I narrated there with a fair amount of ecclesial self-deprecation. But now that the Reformed establishment has decided to play hardball with me, I will merely report that my irregular ordination papers are filed in the same cabinet with those of Charles Spurgeon, who was never ordained, John Calvin, who was quite possibly never ordained, and John Knox, who was ordained a Roman Catholic priest, but called to the Protestant ministry by a pack of refugees in the middle of a hostage crisis. And I will merely note in passing that contemporary serminaries apparently don’t teach historic Reformed ecclesiology any more.



Doug Wilson is not ordained but he doesn't need to listen to the hardball "Reformed establishment":


> 2. The significance of the ministry for the church
> cPaul shows by these words that this human ministry which God uses to govern the church is the chief sinew by which believers are held together in one body. He then also shows that the church can be kept intact only if it be upheld by the safeguards in which it pleased the Lord to place its salvation. “Christ ascended on high,” Paul says, “that he might fill all things.” [Eph. 4:10.] This is the manner of fulfillment: through the ministers to whom he has entrusted this office and has conferred the grace to carry it out, he dispenses and distributes his gifts to the church; and he shows himself as though present by manifesting the power of his Spirit in this his institution, that it be not vain or idle. Thus the renewal of the saints is accomplished; thus the body of Christ is built up [Eph. 4:12]; thus “we grow up in every way into him who is the Head” [Eph. 4:15] and grow together among ourselves; thus are we all brought into the unity of Christ, if prophecy flourishes among us, if we receive the apostles, if we do not refuse the doctrine administered to us. Whoever, therefore, either is trying to abolish this order of which we speak and this kind of government, or discounts it as not necessary, is striving for the undoing or rather the ruin and destruction of the church. For neither the light and heat of the sun, nor food and drink, are so necessary to nourish and sustain the present life as the apostolic and pastoral office is necessary to preserve the church on earth.
> 
> 
> Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. (F. L. Battles, Trans., J. T. McNeill, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 1055). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.


Meh. What does this guy know? 

I want to know what Doug Wilson thinks. Apparently, this fellow who wrote something called the "Institutes" probably wasn't in an ordained office because that's what Doug Wilson says. Must not be a very smart man because this guy that wrote the "Institutes", if not ordained, believes he is utterly undoing the work of the Church by contemning the ordained pastoral office.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Oh, but wait, maybe Calvin received an immediate call from God and didn't think that ordination required the laying on of hands...



> 16. Ordination
> c(a)There remains the rite of ordination, to which we have given the last place in the call. It is clear that when the apostles admitted any man to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands.
> 
> 
> Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. (F. L. Battles, Trans., J. T. McNeill, Ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 1066–1067). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.



Never mind. Calvin needs to go read Doug's book because he's probably learned Ecclesiology from these newfangled Seminaries.


----------



## DMcFadden

I am no fan of Wilson and agree with you all that his ordination smacks more of solipsism than regularity. However, when you move into the realm of independent congregations, ordination is often little more than a group of board members agreeing that someone has gifts and should be their preacher. That is one of my problems with independent "autonomous" churches unaffiliated with a denominational body. Unless Wilson's congregation was part of a larger denomination when they started (he mentions the Evangelical Free and says that they did not elect to affiliate with them) there would have been nobody else to ordain him than his own leadership.

But, once he elected to become Reformed (or some facsimile of it), you would have thought that he would have gotten the ordination matter taken care of forthwith.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Much has been said already in this thread but just this further bit about the historical claims regarding Calvin and Spurgeon. 

It seems clear enough that Calvin was never ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, but that he did submit to such in Geneva or Strassburg. There is enough evidence to infer such, even in some materials quoted by Rich, as well as in other places. Certainly, Calvin never admitted to not being ordained nor disdained the necessity of such. Given his place in history (on the cusp of the rise of Protestantism), it is understandable that his situation may have had some irregularities associated with it, none of which is the case with Wilson in his situation. 

Spurgeon clearly and unmistakably disdained the need for a man to be ordained, arguing that not only that it was unnecessary for preaching but for administering the sacraments and pronouncing the benediction. He did not believe that one must be ordained at all to perform such functions. He himself did, in fact, have what might be said to be a kind of ordination ("recognition" he preferred to call it), though he argued against there being any necessity for it as we would understand such. What he believed to be necessary was the divine call and the approbation of a local congregation. 

One would think that as Wilson's polity developed he would have submitted himself to what he came to believe to be warranted even though he had earlier ministered without ordination. It is the case that he has submitted himself to certain things (presbytery examination) that would speak to this, but does not argue from those sorts of things but rather argues from the presumptive lack of ordination of Calvin and the known antipathy to ordination of Spurgeon--all a very odd kind of special pleading, it seems to me. 

It distinctly sounds like he acknowledges the need for ordination and requires it for others, but exempts himself from it (not even bothering to argue that he's otherwise successfully surmounted all that would lead to a laying on of hands). The oddity of asserting the lack of ordination of other worthies is quite striking and more than a little curious. It bespeaks one who sees himself as exempt from the ordinary procedures. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## KMK

Alan D. Strange said:


> What he believed to be necessary was the divine call and the approbation of a local congregation.



This is consistent with Reformed Baptist polity.



> LBC Chapter 26, Paragraph 9. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself;16 and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein;17 and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.18



For a Presbyterian to appeal to a Baptist when it comes to 'ordination' seems like grasping at straws.

Does anyone (on PB) know whether there was an existing eldership at Waterbeach when Spurgeon was installed as Pastor? If not, there wouldn't have been any laying on of hands, but it would still be consistent with the LBC.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Ken:

If you read Spurgeon carefully, you'll see that he did not require whatever office-bearers a church might have solemnly to set apart the candidate with prayer and fasting and then to lay hands upon said candidate. That is indeed an orderly procedure among our Baptist brethren and one that I would not regard as invalid, being ordination in that context. Spurgeon argued that while such is not inappropriate, it is not required: all that is required is that the man have a divine call and a call from a congregation; he need not having the solemn setting apart and the laying-on of hands. It appears that Spurgeon did not have that, although that's a little tougher to discern. At any rate, I do not regard his ministry as invalid in any sense of the word. 

I am careful, as was Hodge and the Princetonians generally, not to unchurch all of those who are not Presbyterians. I do not intend to be schismatic because others may do things that are irregular. We must maintain all the attributes of the church, which include catholicity. Even if Baptists don't recognize me (and I used to be--when young--one who only recognized those of my own party, shamefully), this does not mean that I don't recognize them and others who are properly part of the Church catholic. These matters belong not to the essence of the church but to its perfection. 

None of this, of course, changes one whit the bizarre nature of Mr. Wilson's approach. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Captain Picard said:


> Are we even allowed to identify as Doug Wilson "fans" on this board, or will the guardians of the deposit of the faith on here boot us for "denial of sola fide"?



You seem to think that we should take Doug Wilson's professions of belief in _sola fide_ at face value. Some of us beg to differ.


----------



## DMcFadden

Alan,

I don't know what you have seen, but in my experience, some of those who are "self taught" (e.g., skipping seminary) are often the first to argue against the "formalities" of regular procedure in other areas as well (e.g., ordination). It is almost as if admitting the importance of doing things decently and in order would throw light upon the irregular route they had chosen for themselves. Blessedly, there are plenty of men who did not have the opportunity to go to seminary who, nevertheless, stand on the side of biblical polity and regular order, even if the denominations each differ among each other on what it requires.

Baptist ecclesiology soft peddles ordination generally. It is almost a corollary of their autonomous church structure, even though the early Baptists tried to balance independence with interdependence. [They reason that] since each church has the "right" to select its own leaders, why should they submit to outsiders in the matter at all? Standard Baptist denominations all have their official procedures for ordination. But, the tendency to independency militates against a high degree of accountability and coopertion, even in ordination. I used to belong to a group that had very structured procedures for vetting and recommending candidates for ordination. Still, some of the larger congregations would "do their own thing" and ordain people raised up in their congregation without submitting to the procedures at all. The Evangelical Free is quite "baptistic" in polity. And, if Wilson's group did not even join with them, there would have been little reason to follow a regular procedure for examination and ordination. However, as you and I both noted, you would think that a conversion to Reformed theology would have brought with it a willingness to submit to the requirements customary in the body they were joining.


----------



## KMK

Alan D. Strange said:


> I am careful, as was Hodge and the Princetonians generally, not to unchurch all of those who are not Presbyterians. I do not intend to be schismatic because others may do things that are irregular.



I appreciate that about my Presbyterian brethren on PB. I would never assume that you would. I was just trying to point out that Mr. Wilson's appeal to Spurgeon doesn't really support his defense. There are some baptists who would probably refer to Spurgeon as 'ordained' because he was called by a local church to be so even if no hands were laid on him. 

And I speak for many of us on PB, Dr. Strange, how much we appreciate your contributions to our discussions here.


----------



## earl40

So overall we (Presbyterians)recognize pastors that are simply not ordained...correct? To not recognize these men would be essentially schismatic and cause all kinds of problems. If so I suspect we recognize female pastors and the duties they performed like baptisms and such?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> So overall we (Presbyterians)recognize pastors that are simply not ordained...correct? To not recognize these men would be essentially schismatic and cause all kinds of problems. If so I suspect we recognize female pastors and the duties they performed like baptisms and such?



I think what Alan is saying is that we don't completely "un-Church" other Churches. We recognize unlawful practices and call them as such in our Confessions. We recognize the sinfulness, for instance, of "contemning" (neglecting) the proper administration of Sacraments but we don't simply say they're "non-Churches".

As an aside to this discussion, we just had a Presbytery meeting this morning and someone was asking me how my Seminary studies were going. I've been taking Seminary classes now for about 6 years. I'm doing this all while a full time employee with 5 kids and elder responsibilities. When I started I think I had a pretty good handle on a good deal of theology and the Scriptures. I even think that I thought that Seminary would be more "review" than actual learning.

What I've found with every Seminary class is that I learn something new and profound with each class. I cannot imagine having "self-studied" to gain the level of appreciation sitting with an instructor and other students for weeks at a time in the deep end of a particular aspect of theology. I would not have the grasp I have of many theological topics that I do now and it would not have been profoundly shaped in my daily ministry as I am without it. I'm grateful for the ongoing experience.

I'm not trying to despise the self-learned here but I think part of Wilson's problem is an assumed "self-taught" grasp of Christian theology that I might have if I had not submitted myself not only to instruction but the lengthy under care process as well as the sanctifying process of being accountable not only to fellow elders at the local session but to the Presbytery and the larger Church. By contemning the gifts that Christ has given His Church Wilson has cut himself off from the maturation process. He thinks he can grow, Pastorally, while forsaking all these things and it is a pity that so many see him as a mature voice for theology and life.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, it seems to me that part of the problem of a professional theologian who is not, likewise, a Church-man that he will likewise not be fully matured. I do not believe theologically mature thought can be developed outside the sphere of the life of the Church as Christ has ordained its gifts toward their proper end.


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think what Alan is saying is that we don't completely "un-Church" other Churches.



Yes I can see such. What I was asking if we also un-pastor unordained pastors. We accept the baptism of many who are baptized by RC priests and from other apostate churches like the PCUSA. I understand that the sacrament does not depend on the qualifications of the pastor and I would assume (not sure) we would accept the baptism of one who was baptized by "Pastor" Jessica in a PCUSA church. Thus we accept the work of improperly ordained pastors and female "pastors".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> Thus we accept the work of improperly ordained pastors and female "pastors".


It's not so much accepting _their_ work as recognizing that Christ is King of the Church. We are not rulers who, by our authority, bind and loose. The Church's authority is strictly ministerial. Even our Sessions, Presbyteries, etc are named "courts" because we do not make law but simply administer or adjudicate according to what the Lawgiver has given us. We can rightly deem that another Church is performing unlawful actions but we still recognize that they are unlawaful precisely because it is not _their_ Church but Christ's.


----------



## DMcFadden

Not being Donatists, most of us draw the line at baptism administered by Trinitarian formula as prerequisite for acceptance. The "who" done it is not nearly as important as in whose name it was done. My group recognizes and accepts the validity of baptisms properly administered (i.e., using water in any quantity and/or mode, together with the Trinitarian invocation instituted by Christ, Matt. 28:19) in all Christian churches. 

Unfortunately, for much of my life (and ministry) I also insisted on the "proper" mode.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> I've been taking Seminary classes now for about 6 years. I'm doing this all while a full time employee with 5 kids and elder responsibilities. When I started I think I had a pretty good handle on a good deal of theology and the Scriptures. I even think that I thought that Seminary would be more "review" than actual learning.
> 
> What I've found with every Seminary class is that I learn something new and profound with each class. I cannot imagine having "self-studied" to gain the level of appreciation sitting with an instructor and other students for weeks at a time in the deep end of a particular aspect of theology. I would not have the grasp I have of many theological topics that I do now and it would not have been profoundly shaped in my daily ministry as I am without it. I'm grateful for the ongoing experience.
> 
> I'm not trying to despise the self-learned here but I think part of Wilson's problem is an assumed "self-taught" grasp of Christian theology that I might have if I had not submitted myself not only to instruction but the lengthy under care process as well as the sanctifying process of being accountable not only to fellow elders at the local session but to the Presbytery and the larger Church. By contemning the gifts that Christ has given His Church Wilson has cut himself off from the maturation process. He thinks he can grow, Pastorally, while forsaking all these things and it is a pity that so many see him as a mature voice for theology and life.



There have been very few men who have been major blessings to the Protestant churches who were not formally trained in theology and ordained by churches. Calvin, Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones are probably the three best known and they are sufficient to illustrate the point that seminary training is not equivalent to being useable of and being used by the Holy Spirit. That said, too many people have underestimated the benefits that theological training brings to most men who have not been gifted with either the intellectual force or the physical or nervous energy that animated these exceptional men.


----------



## RamistThomist

Temporarily breaking my silence. Wilson's self-ordination (or no ordination) is only the tip of the iceberg. Court documents are public, including some with Christ Kirk letterheads. The evidence is damning. And it isn't just one or two pedophilia cases. That's why this issue is so hard to attack. There is simply too much damning information one doesn't know where to start. 

The problem is that he is the pope of the CREC. NAPARC cannot practically touch him. I hate to say it, but only the government can reign him in.

*He asked God to bless a pedophile with children.
*He publicly sl&t-shamed a rape victim.
*He strongly advised victims not to go to the police.
*His elder buddy's son ran a pot-ring at NSA and he failed to turn him into the police.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I was waiting for someone to mention MLJ. He was indeed one of the great preachers of the last century, trained in other disciplines.

It is simply not accurate, however, to say that Calvin was not theologically trained. He was. Before going to study law in Orleans at the insistence of his father, he had studied philosophy and theology in Paris at, _inter alia loca_, the Collège de Montaigu. As noted earlier, he apparently did not have an RCC ordination, but that he lacked any sort of ordination altogether is disputed. It is not the case, however, that he lacked theological training (though his training for the clergy was interrupted by his turning to study law).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## TheOldCourse

DMcFadden said:


> Not being Donatists, most of us draw the line at baptism administered by Trinitarian formula as prerequisite for acceptance. The "who" done it is not nearly as important as in whose name it was done. My group recognizes and accepts the validity of baptisms properly administered (i.e., using water in any quantity and/or mode, together with the Trinitarian invocation instituted by Christ, Matt. 28:19) in all Christian churches.
> 
> Unfortunately, for much of my life (and ministry) I also insisted on the "proper" mode.



My understanding is that Calvin, Turretin and others rejected lay baptisms as practiced in the RCC as legitimate baptisms even if done in the Trinitarian formula and with water--which means, for them, the "who" does matter to some extent. Turretin explicitly required baptism to be administered by a pastor lawfully called, of which he included RCC priests as ministers of an external but impure church, otherwise he considered it a nullity. No doubt many modern defenses of RCC baptism legitimacy have merely required the formula, but it seems to me that older defenses were somewhat more nuanced than that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> There have been very few men who have been major blessings to the Protestant churches who were not formally trained in theology and ordained by churches. Calvin, Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones are probably the three best known and they are sufficient to illustrate the point that seminary training is not equivalent to being useable of and being used by the Holy Spirit. That said, too many people have underestimated the benefits that theological training brings to most men who have not been gifted with either the intellectual force or the physical or nervous energy that animated these exceptional men.



My point was larger than Seminary training. I'm OK with men learning outside of formal Seminaries. My larger point is that theological development be done within the sphere of the Church and those whom Christ has gifted. This is why I followed up about the idea that the best Seminary professors are not those who think of their pursuit as academic research for its own sake but those who labor within the Church and not only participate regularly in its courts but see their aim as training men and women for service to the Church. 

When the Centurion sent a servant to ask that He heal one of his beloved servants, the Centurion noted that he was a man under authority and (because of this) he had authority over others. Authority and maturity is derived by being part of the living Church as it matures children in the faith into the mature and those living stones (built upon the foundation of the apostles) rise up to be the next generation of those performing the simple and sincere ministry of the Word. We are called to the ministry of being considered the "scum of the earth" for the sake of Christ and His Kingdom.

To attempt to stand outside this living edifice and construct a building to the glory of God is dishonoring to the Lord and His gifts. I just don't see the Scriptures teaching that a man can expect to be matured by the Lord who is not likewise obedient to the gifts and offices that the Lord has ordained toward the building of His Church. Seminary is a means toward part of the whole but is not the whole if you catch what I'm trying to express.


----------



## Captain Picard

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we even allowed to identify as Doug Wilson "fans" on this board, or will the guardians of the deposit of the faith on here boot us for "denial of sola fide"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that we should take Doug Wilson's professions of belief in _sola fide_ at face value. Some of us beg to differ.
Click to expand...


He has always been guilty until proven innocent, which can't be done, because no matter how many formulations of the solas he isses, it's not enough, just like no explanation of the Sitler situation will be enough for some people.


----------



## RamistThomist

He openly communes with the harder elements in the FV who deny the solas. That means he communes with a common confession from them. I will grant him that when push comes to shove, he sounds confessional. But he also wants to say that he is in good standing with the "stout" elements of FV. He can't have both.

As to the Sitler case, I don't have to be satisfied with his explanations. At this point there are enough court documents to go on. FV guys and CREC guys have personally gone after me on this because I have a bulldog mentality on this point. I live in proximity to a major CREC church. I know the dangers that can go on. And I will fight to the hilt on this one.

But we can go by Wilson's own words:

In Fidelity he said pedophilia is a crime that deserves the death penalty. But when it applies to his parishonier Sitler, we should be all grace.


----------



## DMcFadden

TheOldCourse said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not being Donatists, most of us draw the line at baptism administered by Trinitarian formula as prerequisite for acceptance. The "who" done it is not nearly as important as in whose name it was done. My group recognizes and accepts the validity of baptisms properly administered (i.e., using water in any quantity and/or mode, together with the Trinitarian invocation instituted by Christ, Matt. 28:19) in all Christian churches.
> 
> Unfortunately, for much of my life (and ministry) I also insisted on the "proper" mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that Calvin, Turretin and others rejected lay baptisms as practiced in the RCC as legitimate baptisms even if done in the Trinitarian formula and with water--which means, for them, the "who" does matter to some extent. Turretin explicitly required baptism to be administered by a pastor lawfully called, of which he included RCC priests as ministers of an external but impure church, otherwise he considered it a nullity. No doubt many modern defenses of RCC baptism legitimacy have merely required the formula, but it seems to me that older defenses were somewhat more nuanced than that.
Click to expand...


In the context of my post, the comment about the "who" of the officiant being relatively less important than the fact of a Trinitarian Christian baptism was NOT intended to suggest that anyone could perform a valid baptism, merely that the baptisms performed by a recognized Christian church were typically acceptable by my group regardless of mode and even if the group was guilty of heterodoxy (as opposed to heresy). I disagree with the RCC, EO, Cambellites, pentecostals, and any number of other groups. But, the baptism of a pastor of any church that is within the orbit of the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed would be taken as valid despite mode and theological differences. My guess is that we would accept any baptisms administered by Mr. Calvin or Mr. Spurgeon too if you find any.  Not all groups treat ordination as seriously as some of us do. That offers no excuse for Mr. Wilson who evidently wants to identify with a group that DOES take it seriously but freely exempts himself from its strictures.


----------



## Captain Picard

ReformedReidian said:


> He openly communes with the harder elements in the FV who deny the solas. That means he communes with a common confession from them. I will grant him that when push comes to shove, he sounds confessional. But he also wants to say that he is in good standing with the "stout" elements of FV. He can't have both.
> 
> As to the Sitler case, I don't have to be satisfied with his explanations. At this point there are enough court documents to go on. FV guys and CREC guys have personally gone after me on this because I have a bulldog mentality on this point. I live in proximity to a major CREC church. I know the dangers that can go on. And I will fight to the hilt on this one.
> 
> But we can go by Wilson's own words:
> 
> In Fidelity he said pedophilia is a crime that deserves the death penalty. But when it applies to his parishonier Sitler, we should be all grace.



I'm not here to "defend stout FV" or the CREC, and even if I were interested in doing it, it would get me a board ban. But unless everyone here is saying Lutherans have a false gospel, I think the rhetoric about the FV guys could stand be dialed back, as the views on sacramentology's soteriological ramifications are similar.

Wilson said that Sitler should do time, and that if he commits another crime, he should do time again. He also said if a court had found in favor of the death penalty, he would not have opposed that, because civil punishment is distinct from divine forgiveness or repentance.


----------



## RamistThomist

Captain Picard said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> He openly communes with the harder elements in the FV who deny the solas. That means he communes with a common confession from them. I will grant him that when push comes to shove, he sounds confessional. But he also wants to say that he is in good standing with the "stout" elements of FV. He can't have both.
> 
> As to the Sitler case, I don't have to be satisfied with his explanations. At this point there are enough court documents to go on. FV guys and CREC guys have personally gone after me on this because I have a bulldog mentality on this point. I live in proximity to a major CREC church. I know the dangers that can go on. And I will fight to the hilt on this one.
> 
> But we can go by Wilson's own words:
> 
> In Fidelity he said pedophilia is a crime that deserves the death penalty. But when it applies to his parishonier Sitler, we should be all grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not here to "defend stout FV" or the CREC, and even if I were interested in doing it, it would get me a board ban. But unless everyone here is saying Lutherans have a false gospel, I think the rhetoric about the FV guys could stand be dialed back, as the views on sacramentology's soteriological ramifications are similar.
> 
> Wilson said that Sitler should do time, and that if he commits another crime, he should do time again. He also said if a court had found in favor of the death penalty, he would not have opposed that, because civil punishment is distinct from divine forgiveness or repentance.
Click to expand...


I wasn't actually attacking Wilson's soteriology as true or false. I was simply showing the claim that he can't say he's confessional and commune with the Rich Lusk/James Jordan elements.

The problem with Sitler case:

1) Wilson had previously written that first time offending pedophiles get the death penalty. Not second chancers. He clearly backed down on that one.

2) He asked God to bless a pedophile with children. I mean. Really. And Sitler later failed a lie detector test (not going into the details here).


----------



## Captain Picard

There is a gospel issue here as to whether or not regeneration and the grace of God really can take away pedophilia or depraved desires. This goes hand in hand with the simple fact that Wilson could not have prevented Sitler getting married had he wanted to.

And while you may be distinguishing between issues of association with Jordan or Lusk and Wilson's personal soteriology, those implying or outright stating that Wilson denies the solas did not appear to be quite that nuanced.


----------



## RamistThomist

There is a difference between these two statements

C1: The Gospel _can_ take away disorders like pedophilia.

C2: The Gospel _always does_ take away disorders like pedophilia.

Nobody doubts C1. The issue is C2. I dispute it. 

Counter-scenario:

C3: Women shouldn't have to dress modestly because the Gospel takes away bad sexual desires.



> This goes hand in hand with the simple fact that Wilson could not have prevented Sitler getting married had he wanted to.


Sure he could have. It's called saying "No." He is the Pope of the CREC. He could have said no and people would have had to obey.


----------



## Loopie

Before I say anything else, I want to make it clear that I am not a "fan" of Doug Wilson, nor do I seek to absolve him of any wrong doing. What I will say is that when I heard about some of the controversial issues surrounding him, I made it a goal of mine to try to be fair in my conclusions concerning him. So, a little over a year ago I determined to listen to every sermon of his for an entire year, to determine if he was preaching a false gospel or any other heresy. This month it has been a year, and I can say with certainty that the man does preach the gospel. Not once do I recall him preaching any false gospel or heresy, although he certainly did say a few things that I (as a Baptist) would disagree with. 

Of course, I have not read any of his books or listened to any of his other speaking engagements. In those areas I am completely ignorant and cannot speak to them. What I do know is that, whatever may be said of the man, he has been preaching the true gospel for the past year. In fact, I honestly have to say that one of the best presentations of the gospel I ever heard was in this sermon from last October: 

https://vimeo.com/108985846

That is all that I wished to say regarding this discussion, as I am not qualified to say any more.


----------



## RamistThomist

I am not denying that he will say propositions that sometimes line up with Gospel propositions. I am simply pointing out that his establishment throws women and children under the bus and given that he is pope of the denomination he created, he is beyond all ecclesiastical appeal.


----------



## kodos

Doug Wilson can be confusing to understand. He seems to say some things that make you say, "of course, he is orthodox", and then others that make you scratch your head. Of course, he is unambiguous about a variety of things that we would outright reject (the easiest is paedo-communion). He also seems to be very confused in his polity, as he serves alongside elders that affirm credo-baptism as well as paedo-baptists, and yet is in a church that encourages paedo-communion. The whole thing is very confusing. Read the constitution for his church sometime if you wish to see the sort of general confusion that surrounds this ministry. When it comes to the things of our Lord, confusion is not a virtue (1 Cor. 14:33). 

You see, there are things that members of this board believe (credo-baptism, congregationalism, hymns in worship, etc.) that I would outright reject, and there are things that I believe that others would outright reject (paedo-baptism, Presbyterian polity, Exclusive Psalmody, Covenanting, etc.). But the thing is that we are very clear with each other and I appreciate that. It is what allows iron to sharpen iron. Clear differences of opinion that are not confused, backed with robust discussion through the Scriptures. This is virtually impossible to the sort of hodge-podge theology that Mr. Wilson and others espouse in the Federal Vision camp.

But over the years, I've found the following to be the truly big danger signs with Doug Wilson:

He's effectively the head (Pope/Bishop/Grand Poobah, etc.) of his own denomination and I would find it hard to imagine him to be the subject of discipline or correction.
Has never been ordained or formally trained, and believes this puts him in hallowed company.
Has an ego the size of the state I live in.
Doesn't seem to understand Historic Reformed formulations too well, and quickly dismisses them.
He can be terribly unclear. This often happens with men who think they are smarter than they really are. And is quite unsuited for someone in pastoral ministry to begin with, but especially problematic with people who are not geniuses, yet believe they are. I've worked with many men like this.

In a sense, he's the sort of man you should avoid even if he was completely orthodox in his formulations. The biggest problem with Doug Wilson that I have is that he's really not the sort of man you want in pastoral ministry. He's a bit of a rabble-rouser, loves controversy, and in general has no real accountability as he's the "rockstar" of the CREC. When people take issue with him, instead of humbly and soberly considering their claims and interacting - he can have a tendency to "turn things to 11": sometimes make light of the issue, and to generally continue merrily along unashamedly. When there are legitimate concerns, here is how he responds: 



> "And Jesus doesn’t say we are to be a little bit glad. He says exceeding glad. He says that we are to go around the corner, get out of their sight, and do a little jig. In this case, Nancy — a Puritan jewel — celebrated by buying me a nice bottle of Laphroaig."



Excuse me, but this is not the sort of response I expect from a minister when people have concerns over a pedophile. This is the sort of behavior from someone who knows that no one in the visible church can truly keep him accountable.

I think is it fascinating to see how the Lord has been shaking the church recently, with many high profile men with this sort of personality coming under greater scrutiny. I am glad to see it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I would add a couple of fundamental danger in Wilson's teaching:

1. He tends to convert wisdom literature into apodictic law. In other words, he turns wisdom principles about how one ought to raise a child or wisdom literature concerning how a child will turn out based on certain principles into "thou shalt" formulas. If you've ever listened to his child rearing teachings at any length he proceeds from his application of a wisdom principle, turns it into a normative principle and then builds upon that principle to make other applications that turn his opinions into "thus saith the Lord". It is a very dangerous approach to wisdom and is, in part, the reason where many of the patriarchal and covenant succession people get off the rails. 

2. This is related to the first danger. Because certain wisdom principles are turned into apodictic laws: "if you raise a child in a certain way then they will not depart from the faith..." this leads to an expectation that what the Scriptures promise is that parenting is a means of grace and that failure of a child to have saving faith is probably mostly attributed to the failure of good parenting: praying with your kids, disciplining, training them, etc. When you read Wilson's response to the blog's criticism you see some of this stuff at play - foundational to a "successful" home is the father being the strong, patriarchal priest of his house (being Christ for his wife in another strain of the analogy of love that Paul uses) and the mother functioning properly to raise the kids properly so that the children might continue in the faith they are baptized in.

3. Because of this strong expectation that the parental or "family covenantal" means of grace will lead to a child that follows the Lord, there is a deprecation of the notion of union with Christ. Wilson has taught, as other FV do, that all baptized people are in Covenant and are united to Christ in a certain sense. It is this foundational error that is most dangerous in the theology of Wilson. It's the idea that the things signified in baptism do not belong only to those to whom the grace belongs (the elect) but that all participate, in some sense, in the life of Christ. When one turns from the Church the consideration tends to turn back not to the operation of the Spirit but to whether or not all the familial "means of grace" misfired.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Alan D. Strange said:


> Spurgeon clearly and unmistakably disdained the need for a man to be ordained, arguing that not only that it was unnecessary for preaching but for administering the sacraments and pronouncing the benediction. He did not believe that one must be ordained at all to perform such functions. He himself did, in fact, have what might be said to be a kind of ordination ("recognition" he preferred to call it), though he argued against there being any necessity for it as we would understand such. What he believed to be necessary was the divine call and the approbation of a local congregation.





Alan D. Strange said:


> If you read Spurgeon carefully, you'll see that he did not require whatever office-bearers a church might have solemnly to set apart the candidate with prayer and fasting and then to lay hands upon said candidate. That is indeed an orderly procedure among our Baptist brethren and one that I would not regard as invalid, being ordination in that context. Spurgeon argued that while such is not inappropriate, it is not required: all that is required is that the man have a divine call and a call from a congregation; he need not having the solemn setting apart and the laying-on of hands.



It is a bit of a misnomer to say that Spurgeon didn't believe in ordination as such. He simply did not believe the ceremonial aspect of the imposition of hands to be something that continued after the apostolic period. In this, he fell right in line with his predecessor John Gill who believed that the vote of a local church extending a call to a man to be their pastor, when accepted, constituted his ordination. 

Dr. Gill says:

The election and call of them, with their acceptance, is ordination. The essence of ordination lies in the voluntary choice and call of the people, and in the voluntary acceptance of that call by the person chosen and called; for this affair must be by mutual consent and agreement, which joins them together as pastor and people. And this is done among themselves; and public ordination, so called, is no other than a declaration of that. - Gill, _A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity,_ p. 867​
Gill fleshes his position out in greater detail in his Body of Practical Divinity which I would recommend one read for a better understanding of issue. Along with Gill's view was the rejection of the idea that ordination conferred any ecclesiastical authority beyond the local church that had chose him as their pastor. So when the tie between pastor and people was dissolved, for whatever reason, so also was that man's ordination. In other words, he denied the idea of any man being a minister "at large" in any sense. 

Our church recognizes the laying on of the hands of the Eldership as a biblical practice which is valuable for setting a man apart in a visible way before the congregation. But I do believe, with Gill, that the essence of ordination consists of the "common suffrage of the church." And that it only extends to that man for the duration of his call with that church. When the tie is dissolved, his possession of that office is ceased. There is no such thing as a pastor without a flock. 

Baptist Confession of Faith, XXVI:9: 

The way appointed by Christ for the Calling of any person, fitted, and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the Office of Bishop, or Elder, in a Church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church it self; and Solemnly set apart by Fasting and Prayer, with imposition of hands of the Eldership of the Church, if there be any before Constituted therein; And of a Deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by Prayer, and the like Imposition of hands.​


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I did not in any way misrepresent the position of C.H. Spurgeon, which may be seen in a few places, particularly his article "Ordination and Religious Titles" in _Sword and Trowel_, v. 4 (1874), 111-117.

In fact, in the cited material itself (that alleges misrepresentation), I conclude both of the block quotes with the heart of what Spurgeon believed was required (a divine call and congregational approbation), which is in no way substantively different from what the one alleging error admitted. This is not my position, of course, but I am capable of rightly representing a position with which I may differ and have done so in keeping with Spurgeon's own words (who himself, interestingly, was not uncritical of Gill, on other grounds). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Dr. Strange, I never accused you "misrepresenting" Spurgeon's view. What I spoke of was really more innocent. I said that saying Spurgeon did not believe in ordination in any sense was a "misnomer," (i.e. a slightly inaccurate use of terms). Do accept my apology if I have offended you.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

With regards to blog post titled "A Question for Doug Wilson Fans" I would say:

First, I am not a Doug Wilson "fan." I do recognize the problems with Wilson's doctrinal views. I do not however, regard him as a heretic and on several occasions, I have found his teaching to be helpful. I am also thankful for his clear witness of the Gospel to unbelievers in universities and in debates. While I agree with some of the criticisms made here, I fear some of the them are unfair and opportunistic. I would even say they reveal problems in the bloggers thinking. For instance, I would be interested in knowing what exactly she objects to with regard to the selections she has quoted from Wilson on patriarchy and marriage. She puts it forward as if what is said in those quotes is altogether wrong. Which in my mind, makes me wonder about her own views of men, women and marriage. Lastly, I think on the whole, the tenor and spirit of the blog seems to me a violation of the ninth commandment. I can truly appreciate the objections she has with his theology and doctrine, what concerns me is the willingness to attack his name and character with little or no evidence. It reads like a hit piece. It does not seriously interact with Wilson on any point of dispute. 

I am sure some will disagree with me. That is fine, I am just giving my impressions of the blog post.


----------



## RamistThomist

While I can't go into all of it now, everything I've ever said about Wilson can be documented with court documents, police records, and Wilson's own writings. While the following picture might appear light-hearted, it does demonstrate how the CREC can view women.





This explains why CREC elders would encourage a naive girl to marry a pedophile who was serving a life-sentence and why CREC pastors would sit on the side of the convicted rapist in court and then in writing urge the rape victim to repent of sexual immorality and cut her and her father off from communion.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

ReformedReidian said:


> This explains why CREC elders would encourage a naive girl to marry a pedophile who was serving a life-sentence and why CREC pastors would sit on the side of the convicted rapist in court and then in writing urge the rape victim to repent of sexual immorality and cut her and her father off from communion.



I've read the back and forth on this matter. I doubt Wilson's enemies have as good a handle on the issue as the pretend to. And such is the nature of these things. We were not there. We do not have all the facts. We have not spoken with the parties involved. That isn't to say that Wilson's actions are unblameable and shouldn't be questioned. But I sense a willingness by some to accept a bad report and a unwillingness to even consider Wilson's reasoning for his actions. 

Dealing with men who are guilty of crimes of a sexual nature within the context of the local church presents unique challenges to pastoral ministry. Finding the balance between wisdom, justice, mercy, and love is not easy. Having dealt with these kinds of cases in my own ministry, I would be reluctant to condemn.

And while you mention CREC, was their not also the involvement of an OPC session in this matter?


----------



## RamistThomist

C. M. Sheffield said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This explains why CREC elders would encourage a naive girl to marry a pedophile who was serving a life-sentence and why CREC pastors would sit on the side of the convicted rapist in court and then in writing urge the rape victim to repent of sexual immorality and cut her and her father off from communion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the back and forth on this matter. I doubt Wilson's enemies have as good a handle on the issue as the pretend to. And such is the nature of these things. We were not there. We do not have all the facts. We have not spoken with the parties involved. That isn't to say that Wilson's actions are unblameable and shouldn't be questioned. But I sense a willingness by some to accept a bad report and a unwillingness to even consider Wilson's reasoning for his actions.
> 
> Dealing with men who are guilty of crimes of a sexual nature within the context of the local church presents unique challenges to pastoral ministry. Finding the balance between wisdom, justice, mercy, and love is not easy. Having dealt with these kinds of cases in my own ministry, I would be reluctant to condemn.
> 
> And while you mention CREC, was their not also the involvement of an OPC session in this matter?
Click to expand...


It's fairly clear cut. 

The OPC warned the CREC when Sitler came in the area, but since neither Sitler nor Katie TRavis were communicant OPC members, I'm not sure of the OPC's relevance.

ut I sense a willingness by some to accept a bad report and a unwillingness to even consider Wilson's reasoning for his actions. 

I've read Wilson's statements, the court documents, and the witnesses' statements. What's there not to consider at this point? Everytime Wilsonistas are brought under the light (not saying you are a Wilson disciple), they always bring the same line, "But you haven't heard Wilson's report." 

Yes I have. Unless he has new evidence he wants to disclose.


----------



## Captain Picard

ReformedReidian said:


> There is a difference between these two statements
> 
> C1: The Gospel _can_ take away disorders like pedophilia.
> 
> C2: The Gospel _always does_ take away disorders like pedophilia.
> 
> Nobody doubts C1. The issue is C2. I dispute it.
> 
> Counter-scenario:
> 
> C3: Women shouldn't have to dress modestly because the Gospel takes away bad sexual desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes hand in hand with the simple fact that Wilson could not have prevented Sitler getting married had he wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure he could have. It's called saying "No."* He is the Pope of the CREC. He could have said no and people would have had to obey.
Click to expand...


Yes, if Wilson had refused to marry Sitler, all other churches, pastors, and justices of the peace on the planet would have evaporated.


----------



## RamistThomist

Captain Picard said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between these two statements
> 
> C1: The Gospel _can_ take away disorders like pedophilia.
> 
> C2: The Gospel _always does_ take away disorders like pedophilia.
> 
> Nobody doubts C1. The issue is C2. I dispute it.
> 
> Counter-scenario:
> 
> C3: Women shouldn't have to dress modestly because the Gospel takes away bad sexual desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes hand in hand with the simple fact that Wilson could not have prevented Sitler getting married had he wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure he could have. It's called saying "No."* He is the Pope of the CREC. He could have said no and people would have had to obey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if Wilson had refused to marry Sitler, all other churches, pastors, and justices of the peace on the planet would have evaporated.
Click to expand...


The implied premise is that they could have gone to them. Yes, they could have. And those other officials could have shared in the stupidity and Wilson would have been in the clear. Instead, he blessed a union with a convicted pedophile and prayed that she would bear babies for this pedophile (who has since been sexually aroused by his infant son).

Her life is ruined. Little Timmy can never be alone with his daddy. Who wants to explain that one to him? 

A fairy tale ending.


----------



## Edward

ReformedReidian said:


> Her life is ruined



Didn't she invite herself to the party?


----------



## kodos

Edward said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her life is ruined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't she invite herself to the party?
Click to expand...


The reason that our Lord provides undershepherds for His sheep is so that the sheep will be counseled against becoming wolf food.


----------



## Captain Picard

Even were I to grant every one of the ideas about Sitler, the situation, and pedophiles generally that are essayed by the armchair quarterbacks on this, I would at worst call this a tragic mistake rather than attributing the sinister intent to Wilson that most people seem to be.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Captain Picard said:


> Even were I to grant every one of the ideas about Sitler, the situation, and pedophiles generally that are essayed by the armchair quarterbacks on this, I would at worst call this a tragic mistake rather than attributing the sinister intent to Wilson that most people seem to be.



No it shows a complete lack of rationality in Wilson, and his responses show a need to be the final authority. The man acted beyond foolishly as the supposed shepherd of those involved and his blog posts show a complete inability for him to take hold of any guilt for his folly. Saying something like "oh well someone else would have married them" is folly and skirts the issue. If some other fool married them it would be on them, instead the everwise Wilson did.


----------



## Captain Picard

Does the Scripture authorize pastors to forbid persons to marry or have children because they have specific prior sin issues?

If you're going to ignore the fact that the wedding was likely to take place anyway, that's the only question even remotely relevant to the whole situation.


----------



## Edward

Captain Picard said:


> If you're going to ignore the fact that the wedding was likely to take place anyway, that's the only question even remotely relevant to the whole situation.



Under that rationale, any pastor should participate in homosexual 'marriages', because the 'wedding' is likely to take place anyway. 




kodos said:


> The reason that our Lord provides undershepherds for His sheep is so that the sheep will be counseled against becoming wolf food.



But if someone chooses to play with wolves, they really shouldn't be considered the victim when they get bitten. Folks need to take ownership of their poor decisions. And in this case, she appears to still be happy with the choices that she made, doesn't she?


----------



## RamistThomist

Edward said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her life is ruined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't she invite herself to the party?
Click to expand...


Yes and she bears a lot of the responsibility. But she is also in a church situation that encourages her to shut up and listen to the men-folk.


----------



## RamistThomist

Captain Picard said:


> Does the Scripture authorize pastors to forbid persons to marry or have children because they have specific prior sin issues?



I am not aware of Scripture saying yay or nay. I am not saying Wilson sinned in this particular situation. I am just saying he is not very bright and was quite foolish. And this pattern of foolishness has been going on for a long time.


----------



## timmopussycat

Edward said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her life is ruined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't she invite herself to the party?
Click to expand...


Whether she did or didn't invite herself to the party is not the question. What ultimately is at issue are the obligations and the scriptural and wisdom considerations governing the actions of Christ's ministers faced with that situation and whether Wilson complied with those obligations and considerations.


----------



## Edward

timmopussycat said:


> Whether she did or didn't invite herself to the party is not the question. What ultimately is at issue are the obligations and the scriptural and wisdom considerations governing the actions of Christ's ministers faced with that situation and whether Wilson complied with those obligations and considerations.



I understand that is the core discussion here. But I was responding specifically to the comment which suggested her life had been ruined (her present actions seem to suggest that she may not share that view) and by implication, she's a victim. 

As to the core issue - we can't know what all might have been discussed in pre-maritial counseling, and so can't discuss the pastor's actions there, but I'm fully on board with the position that no pastor should have participated in the ceremony itself. Whether such participation reflects naiveté or hubris in this case, I don't know.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Captain Picard said:


> Does the Scripture authorize pastors to forbid persons to marry or have children because they have specific prior sin issues?
> 
> If you're going to ignore the fact that the wedding was likely to take place anyway, that's the only question even remotely relevant to the whole situation.



One of the reasons why a person should not attend a wedding that they believe is improper is that a person's attendance at a wedding actually makes them a party to its solemnization. When I attend a wedding I'm not only asked if there's any reason why the two ought not to be married but then I'm a witness before God that the two have been joined and it is my responsibility, in part, that they would keep their vows.

It's the height of hypocrisy for someone like Doug Wilson, who hyper-elevates the status of the husband as head and assigns all sorts of un-Biblical categories to it (based on the methodology I already articulated) to say: "Hey, they're going to get married anyway."

Really? So he ought to be the one in the Church he pastors to solemnize and require his flock to participate in the solemnization? A union, after all, that places the woman under the headship of the man? He cannot simply fall back on the: "Well, whatever two consenting adults want to do..." whenever it's convenient.

At a minimum he could refuse to marry them. He could also have protected the woman from the folly of marrying. After all, didn't she have some strong patriarchal head that could have forbidden the marriage?

The "they're going to get married anyway" defense works for a libertine person but not for people that promote patriarchy as the basic unit for the salvation of children.


----------



## Captain Picard

Semper Fidelis said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Scripture authorize pastors to forbid persons to marry or have children because they have specific prior sin issues?
> 
> If you're going to ignore the fact that the wedding was likely to take place anyway, that's the only question even remotely relevant to the whole situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why a person should not attend a wedding that they believe is improper is that a person's attendance at a wedding actually makes them a party to its solemnization. When I attend a wedding I'm not only asked if there's any reason why the two ought not to be married but then I'm a witness before God that the two have been joined and it is my responsibility, in part, that they would keep their vows.
> 
> It's the height of hypocrisy for someone like Doug Wilson, who hyper-elevates the status of the husband as head and assigns all sorts of un-Biblical categories to it (based on the methodology I already articulated) to say: "Hey, they're going to get married anyway."
> 
> Really? So he ought to be the one in the Church he pastors to solemnize and require his flock to participate in the solemnization? A union, after all, that places the woman under the headship of the man? He cannot simply fall back on the: "Well, whatever two consenting adults want to do..." whenever it's convenient.
> 
> At a minimum he could refuse to marry them. He could also have protected the woman from the folly of marrying. After all, didn't she have some strong patriarchal head that could have forbidden the marriage?
> 
> The "they're going to get married anyway" defense works for a libertine person but not for people that promote patriarchy as the basic unit for the salvation of children.
Click to expand...


In fairness, I don't think they "they're going to get married anyway" was an argument as much being advanced by Wilson as it was one being advanced by me. And I don't necessarily share 100% of Wilson's views on marriage and gender anyway.

I still think that this thread started with calling Wilson a snake, a pope, a heretic, a denier of the solas, and comparable to Arius,
then shifted to "how awful that he performed the marriage", and is now on "it wasn't sin, he is just a fool". At least maybe I succeeded in dialing back the rhetoric a bit.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

ReformedReidian said:


> Yes and she bears a lot of the responsibility. But she is also in a church situation that encourages her to shut up and listen to the men-folk.



What specifically do you mean by this statement? And what do you do with I Corinthians 14:34, 35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"? 

Do you believe a women shouldn't listen to their fathers, husbands, and elders? You sound an awful lot like the feminists who speak in much the same way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Captain Picard said:


> In fairness, I don't think they "they're going to get married anyway" was an argument as much being advanced by Wilson as it was one being advanced by me. And I don't necessarily share 100% of Wilson's views on marriage and gender anyway.
> 
> I still think that this thread started with calling Wilson a snake, a pope, a heretic, a denier of the solas, and comparable to Arius,
> then shifted to "how awful that he performed the marriage", and is now on "it wasn't sin, he is just a fool". At least maybe I succeeded in dialing back the rhetoric a bit.


Actually, the "they're going to get married anyway" was advanced by Wilson in some of his interactions.

I edited my initial post because I thought "snake" was too strong but still consider him very dangerous. We've covered his pastoral irregularities among other things about why he is dangerous.

I would add that he is a disturber of the peace and purity of the Church. He could have stayed out of Reformed Church's dealing with the Federal Vision issues but chose to weigh in - primarily, it seems, because he believes he can just opine on things with impunity.

Wilson is not Reformed and could not be ordained in the historic Reformed Churches given his views. He ought to respect our distinctives but, instead, pretends as if what he's teaching is normal Reformed thinking and disrupts the Church's peace and purity by those he influences with his rhetorical skills.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

C. M. Sheffield said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and she bears a lot of the responsibility. But she is also in a church situation that encourages her to shut up and listen to the men-folk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically do you mean by this statement? And what do you do with I Corinthians 14:34, 35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"?
> 
> Do you believe a women shouldn't listen to their fathers, husbands, and elders? You sound an awful lot like the feminists who speak in much the same way.
Click to expand...


Jacob is not talking about women speaking in the context of public worship. I think that point is pretty clear from the context of the whole discussion. He is not saying that women should not listen to their male leaders, but that the precise form of deference to male authority that is promoted within such circles is unhealthy.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> I edited my initial post because I thought "snake" was too strong but still consider him very dangerous.



I think you got it right the first time; Doug Wilson is one of the most slippery customers that I have ever come across. He also has a great "gift" of making nonsense sound attractive.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and she bears a lot of the responsibility. But she is also in a church situation that encourages her to shut up and listen to the men-folk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically do you mean by this statement? And what do you do with I Corinthians 14:34, 35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"?
> 
> Do you believe a women shouldn't listen to their fathers, husbands, and elders? You sound an awful lot like the feminists who speak in much the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jacob is not talking about women speaking in the context of public worship. I think that point is pretty clear from the context of the whole discussion. He is not saying that women should not listen to their male leaders, but that the precise form of deference to male authority that is promoted within such circles is unhealthy.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I am not promoting priestesses or anything in worship, but I can point to cases where the women were encouraged to shut up and trust the men-folk's advice in the CREC.

Why we left the CREC: The Engagement.

And when Natalie Rose would comment on Wilson's blog, calling him to account with specific, objective evidence that destroyed his whole narrative, he refused to engage her. The reasoning is simple. She is a "she."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

C. M. Sheffield said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and she bears a lot of the responsibility. But she is also in a church situation that encourages her to shut up and listen to the men-folk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically do you mean by this statement? And what do you do with I Corinthians 14:34, 35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"?
> 
> Do you believe a women shouldn't listen to their fathers, husbands, and elders? You sound an awful lot like the feminists who speak in much the same way.
Click to expand...


Is there a spectrum, in your thinking, between Wilson's views and liberalism? Is it either Wilson's views are the normative Biblical view of male/female relationships *or* we might as well just ordain women if we don't adopt Wilson's views?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

My remarks were in response to Jacob's characterization of Wilson and his fellow elders. I am not aware of Wilson saying anything like this beyond simply affirming the biblical role of women in the church. 

But apparently, I am not as familiar with Wilson as you all are. What is the distinction between Wilson's view and the "normative Biblical view of male/female relationships"? The quotes offered by the blogger as evidence of his "extreme" views are hardly problematic. 

Please read nothing into this. It really is an honest question. Is there something more that he has said on record that is at variance with the Bible's teaching?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pastor Sheffield,

It's sort of what I described as the general hermeneutical danger in Wilson. He takes wisdom, interprets it as "do this in this way" and it becomes the norm. He over-develops good themes and makes them unbalanced. The fact that man is head of woman as Christ is head of the Church means, for Wilson, that he sees a correspondence between the offices of Christ and applies them to men. Man is a prophet, priest, and king of his family. That's not what Paul develops but it's how Wilson develops it. As it's Christ's work (by the Spirit) to sanctify His Bride, so it's the case that a husband is expected to be the sanctifying agent for his wife. There are all sorts of other things that Wilson just runs with that over-develop the analogies that the Scriptures would use. Look at that blog post that Jacob posted and you'll see the dangerous fruit in the way that men and women start to expect male/female relationships to function. I'm in no way an egalitarian and believe a man should be strong and able to teach his family but I've seen the fruit of this imbalanced Patriarchy that seems to supplant Christ in the home with Patriarchy in the home. I've seen good friends now divorced whose kids hate the Christian faith because they've mistaken their father's over-bearing patriarchy for the Christian faith. I've witnessed a divorce where the man is still complaining about how male-female relationships are supposed to have functioned and arguing that the Session stepped in to his authority.


----------



## RamistThomist

C. M. Sheffield said:


> My remarks were in response to Jacob's characterization of Wilson and his fellow elders. I am not aware of Wilson saying anything like this beyond simply affirming the biblical role of women in the church.
> 
> But apparently, I am not as familiar with Wilson as you all are. What is the distinction between Wilson's view and the "normative Biblical view of male/female relationships"? The quotes offered by the blogger as evidence of his "extreme" views are hardly problematic.
> 
> Please read nothing into this. It really is an honest question. Is there something more that he has said on record that is at variance with the Bible's teaching?



He sees fathers as priests and his view of paedocommunion means that fathers, not elders, hold the keys of the kingdom.


----------



## arapahoepark

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pastor Sheffield,
> 
> It's sort of what I described as the general hermeneutical danger in Wilson. He takes wisdom, interprets it as "do this in this way" and it becomes the norm. He over-develops good themes and makes them unbalanced. The fact that man is head of woman as Christ is head of the Church means, for Wilson, that he sees a correspondence between the offices of Christ and applies them to men. Man is a prophet, priest, and king of his family. That's not what Paul develops but it's how Wilson develops it. As it's Christ's work (by the Spirit) to sanctify His Bride, so it's the case that a husband is expected to be the sanctifying agent for his wife. There are all sorts of other things that Wilson just runs with that over-develop the analogies that the Scriptures would use. Look at that blog post that Jacob posted and you'll see the dangerous fruit in the way that men and women start to expect male/female relationships to function. I'm in no way an egalitarian and believe a man should be strong and able to teach his family but I've seen the fruit of this imbalanced Patriarchy that seems to supplant Christ in the home with Patriarchy in the home. I've seen good friends now divorced whose kids hate the Christian faith because they've mistaken their father's over-bearing patriarchy for the Christian faith. I've witnessed a divorce where the man is still complaining about how male-female relationships are supposed to have functioned and arguing that the Session stepped in to his authority.



This is exactly what Trueman is calling those who are like Wilson on.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Semper Fidelis said:


> The fact that man is head of woman as Christ is head of the Church means, for Wilson, that he sees a correspondence between the offices of Christ and applies them to men. Man is a prophet, priest, and king of his family. That's not what Paul develops but it's how Wilson develops it.





ReformedReidian said:


> He sees fathers as priests and his view of paedocommunion means that fathers, not elders, hold the keys of the kingdom.



Rich and Jacob,

Wilson is hardly the only one using this kind of language. Dr. Sam Waldron wrote a book titled "A Man as Priest in His Home" But as Dr. Waldron points out, this language is not uncommon among Puritan and Reformed worthies:

*Richard Baxter* comments,

“‘The husband is to be the mouth of the family, in their daily conjunct prayers unto God.’ Therefore he must be able to pray, and also have a praying heart. *He must be as it were the priest of the household*; and therefore should be the most holy, that he may be fit to stand between them and God, and to offer up their prayers to him. If this be cast on the wife, it will be his dishonour.” [Richard Baxter and William Orme, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 4 (London: James Duncan, 1830), 144.]​
*William Gouge* speaks several times of the man as a priest in his home:

Page 62 of A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage remarks:​“Always, therefore, without ceasing is this duty to be performed. Whenever husband and wife make any prayer, they must remember one another. Often they must purposefully make time to pray especially for one another: and that both in absence, and also in presence of one another. This latter especially concerns the husband, *who is as a priest to his wife, and ought to be her mouth to God when they two are together*: yet I doubt not, but that the wife may pray in the husband’s presence when they two are alone, either for trial (that he may have knowledge of her ability and gift in that kind) or for help (if the wife is much more able to perform that duty than the man is, as many wives are). Not without cause therefore have I reckoned this among common mutual duties.”​
Page 177 of the same work has these comments:​
*He is, under God, all in all to her; in the family he is a king to govern and aid her, a priest to pray with her and for her, a prophet to teach and instruct her*. As the head is placed in the highest place over the body, and understanding placed in it, to govern, direct, protect, and every way seek the good of the body, and as Christ is united to the church as a spouse, and made her head, that she might be saved, maintained, and provided for by him; so for this end was a husband placed in his place of higher rank; and his authority was committed to him, to be a savior of his wife. Therefore if none of the former motives prevail with wives and move them to be subject to their husbands, yet this should.

For from this reason flow these two conclusions: 1. The submission required of a wife is for her own good. 2. In refusing to obey she shows herself both ungrateful to her husband, and also harmful to herself.​
Page 246 of the same work adds:​
In this provident care which a husband ought to have of his wife, we will consider the extent and duration of it. It ought to extend both to herself, and to others; regarding herself, to her soul and body. For her soul, means of spiritual edification must be provided, and those both private and public. Private means, are holy and religious exercises in the house, as reading the Word, prayer, catechizing, etc. These, being the spiritual food of the soul, are to be provided and used every day, as our bodily food. A husband as a master of a family must provide these for the good of his whole house, but as a husband, especially for the good of his wife. *To his wife, as well as to the whole house he is a king, a priest, and a prophet.*​
*John Angell James* in A Help to Domestic Happiness:

“This mutual help should extend to the maintenance of all the habits of domestic order, discipline, and piety. *The husband is to be the prophet, priest, and king of the family* to instruct their minds, to lead their devotions, and to govern their tempers. But in all that relates to these important objects, the wife is to be of one mind with him. They are in these matters to be workers together, neither of them leaving the other to labor alone, much less opposing or thwarting what is done…A lovelier scene is not to be found on earth than that of a pious couple, employing their mutual influence and the hours of their retired companionship in stirring up each other’s hearts to deeds of mercy and religious benevolence.”​
He adds in The Christian Father’s Present to His Children:​
“The want of discipline, wherever it exists, is supplied by confusion and domestic anarchy. Everything goes wrong in the absence of this. A gardener may sow the choicest seeds. But if he neglect to pluck up weeds and prune wild luxuriances, he must not expect to see his flowers grow or his garden flourish. So a parent may deliver the best instructions. But if he does not by discipline eradicate evil tempers, correct bad habits, repress rank corruptions, nothing excellent can be looked for. *He may be a good prophet and a good priest; but if he be not also a good king, all else is vain.* When once a man breaks his scepter or lends it to his children as a plaything, he may give up his hopes of success from a religious education…The misfortune in many families is that discipline is unsteady and capricious, sometimes carried even to tyranny itself, at [other times] relaxed into a total suspension of law, so that the children are at one time trembling like slaves, at others revolting like rebels; at one time groaning beneath an iron yoke, at others rioting in a state of lawless liberty. This is a most mischievous system, and its effects are generally just what might be expected.”​
*Charles Haddon Spurgeon* in his sermon “Hindrances To Prayer” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 20, number 1192) is typically plain:

“I believe that the bulwark of Protestantism against Popery is Family Worship. Take that away, and give over the instruction of children in the fear of God, and you lay this country open again to the theory that prayer is most acceptable in the parish church, and so you get into the sacredness of places: *then taking away the priesthood from the father of the family, who ought to be the priest in his own house*, you make a vacancy for a superstitious priesthood, and, leaving the teaching with these pretenders, mischiefs innumerable are introduced.”​
*D. Martin Lloyd-Jones’* comments in Life in the Spirit in Marriage, Home & Work: An Exposition of Ephesians 5:18 to 6:9:

“I regard this as a most serious matter. There is no more important influence in the life of a child than the influence of the home. The home is the fundamental unit of society; and children are born into a home, into a family. There you have the circle that is to be the chief influence in their lives. There is no question about that. It is the biblical teaching everywhere, and it is always in so-called civilizations where ideas concerning the home begin to deteriorate that society ultimately disintegrates…In the Old Testament, it is quite clear that *the father was a kind of priest in his household and family; he represented God.* He was responsible not only for the morals and the behavior but for the instruction of his children. The Bible’s emphasis everywhere is that this is the primary duty and task of the parents. And it remains so to this day. If we are Christians at all, we must realize that this great emphasis is based upon those fundamental units ordained by God—marriage, family, and home. You cannot play fast and loose with them…”​
It goes without saying that any authority exercised by fallible and sinful men may be and often is abused. But to suggest that Wilson's idea of a father's role being analogous to a prophet, a priest , and a king is somehow novel, unique, or extreme is simply not the case. And suggesting that this view tends toward abuse, would hazzard implicating the men above as advocating an abusive model for husbands and fathers. 

The concern I have in this discussion is not for Douglas Wilson. He can answer for himself. My concern is that some adopt the arguments of liberals and feminists simply because they don't like aspects of Wilson's theology and end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Are good men opposed to aspects of Wilson's doctrine for good reason? Yes. But there are also enemies of Christ and his church who hate Wilson for the same reason they hate the Bible. We should be careful not to lend legitimacy to those whose contempt for Wilson is really a contempt for God and his Word.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

C. M. Sheffield said:


> It goes without saying that any authority exercised by fallible and sinful men may be and often is abused. But to suggest that Wilson's idea of a father's role being analogous to a prophet, a priest , and a king is somehow novel, unique, or extreme is simply not the case. And suggesting that this view tends toward abuse, is to implicate the men above as abusive predators to those under their care.



The manner in which you put things on a spectrum is very curious. Your logic goes like this:

1. Men in the past that I respect used the word Prophet, Priest, and King.
2. Doug Wilson uses the same terms.
*Therefore*, there is nothing wrong with Doug's teaching on this subject.

In other words, it doesn't matter how Doug might be the same in his use of terms but _completely different in how far he runs with those topics_, all that matters is that we can find some people somewhere in Church history that draw analogies to demonstrate that Doug is not speaking out of turn.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ReformedReidian said:


> He sees fathers as priests and his view of paedocommunion means that fathers, not elders, hold the keys of the kingdom.



Apparently, we just learned that these men were also for paedocommunion because Dad is the family priest:

Baxter
James
Spurgeon
Lloyd-Jones


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Semper Fidelis said:


> The manner in which you put things on a spectrum is very curious. Your logic goes like this:
> 
> 1. Men in the past that I respect used the word Prophet, Priest, and King.
> 2. Doug Wilson uses the same terms.
> Therefore, there is nothing wrong with Doug's teaching on this subject.
> 
> In other words, it doesn't matter how Doug might be the same in his use of terms but completely different in how far he runs with those topics, all that matters is that we can find some people somewhere in Church history that draw analogies to demonstrate that Doug is not speaking out of turn.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Apparently, we just learned that these men were also for paedocommunion because Dad is the family priest:
> 
> Baxter
> James
> Spurgeon
> Lloyd-Jones



The list of quotations was compiled by Dr. Sam Waldron. Not myself. I was interacting with what you said in a straightforward and honest way. My contention was that his views (as you expressed them) were not novel or unique. That seemed to be your point. That is what I was addressing. If you have specific things that Doug Wilson has said that better illustrate your point, that would further our discussion in more helpful way. And I'm hopeful that can be done. 

What you have done here is misrepresent my statements and assigned motives to me that are contrary to the motives I have expressed--an insinuation of duplicity and dishonesty. This is regrettable. 

I do understand how easy it is in an online discussion board to speak in a way different that you would ever speak with someone in person. But we ought to labor to maintain a fraternal spirit even in our disagreements.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I think Rich's point is that there is a significant danger in committing word-concept fallacies. Sure, plenty of men in the past spoke about a father being, in some sense, a priest. The danger, however, is that we automatically assume that they were using this terminology in exactly the same sense as Doug Wilson _et al_. If we assume that they were, then Rich is correct in pointing out that they were also advocates of paedo-communion. Why? Because the form of patriarchy advocated by Doug Wilson includes a belief in paedo-communion. 

For what it's worth, I am not opposed to patriarchy with a small "p"; in the sense that I believe the husband is to be the head of the home under God. However, the term complementarianism is probably to be preferred.


----------



## RamistThomist

Analogical language. That's what I think MLJ and others are doing.

I can reason analogically and see myself as priest, king, prophet in the home. I'm not going to serve my 3 year old communion, though.

Wilson reasons univocally on these points, hence "Daddy-daughter communion."


----------



## Pergamum

Do you believe there is a systemic error on some Reformed circles that teach a high view of patriarchy...that this leads to authoritarianism and the mistreatment of women (through silencing them or not giving them enough say in matters of courtship and the home)...where submission is to be their key virtue even above common sense? From Gothard, to Vision Forum, to the Duggars, to the authoritarianism displayed by Sproul jr., to this Doug Wilson debacle, it seems the role of women is merely to be quiet and subject to their elders and their husbands and, in turn, these elders and husbands and parents "Lord it over" their "inferiors" and treat women as objects to be acquired through marriage, etc? 

Is there something in their theology, a common strand, that gives elders and parents too much say in the lives of others (church members and daughters)?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

C. M. Sheffield said:


> What you have done here is misrepresent my statements and assigned motives to me that are contrary to the motives I have expressed--an insinuation of duplicity and dishonesty. This is regrettable.
> 
> I do understand how easy it is in an online discussion board to speak in a way different that you would ever speak with someone in person. But we ought to labor to maintain a fraternal spirit even in our disagreements.



I was actually using a bit of reductio ad absurdum. It wasn't nice. I could have been more fraternal. Please forgive me. Others have expressed the point. I get the impression you're either reading past what has already been said. I'm speaking in brief. I'm not a big fan of the prophet, priest, and king language applied to Dad but will grant it can be used responsibly. That's not what Wilson does. I described a dangerous hermenuetical method early on that puts partriarchy and the family as a central theological tenet that even overshadows election in its import. He won't say it does but the practical theological import is to put the family at the center of Sacramental theology. In one sense, the focus on Dad is so great that it supplants Christ and His benefits that are not only supposed to be signified but sealed in those sacraments. The purpose of the Sacraments is to help the worshiper raise their senses by the Spirit to where Christ is seated and place the focus on him. Patriarchy (with a big P) is always emphasizing "family integration" and how important Dad is in ministering to the kids. I don't want my children or my wife thinking of me as their priest or "vicar" any more than I want my mom and brothers thinking of Mary or the Pope as Christ's vicar. I want to point them to the Mediatorial office of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King.

Yes, revivalism is dangerously pietistic and focuses too much on the individual worshiper and even downplays family worship. The remedy to imbalance with checked out pietistic Dads is not to put Dad in the center of worship. Dad is not what was supplanted by pietism. The family was not supplanted by pietism. It was Christ and His work in Word and Sacrament that was sacrificed.

Pursue partriarchy and the family as a means to true Christian worship and you won't get to Christ. Purse true worship and the living Christ and His offices and gifts and all the other things will follow to include fathers whose hearts are for their wives and children, wives that love and submit to their husbands, and children who respect and love their parents.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

ReformedReidian said:


> Analogical language. That's what I think MLJ and others are doing.
> 
> I can reason analogically and see myself as priest, king, prophet in the home. I'm not going to serve my 3 year old communion, though.
> 
> Wilson reasons univocally on these points, hence "Daddy-daughter communion."



I do not see a neat and tidy difference between the statements above and those attributed to Wilson in the blog. This is what was put forward as exibit A:



> Patriarchy simply means “father rule,” and so it follows that every biblical Christian holds to patriarchy. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23), and fathers have the central responsibility to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Children are required to obey their parents (both of them), and since the wife is to follow the lead of her husband in all things (Eph. 5:24), this means that the father is responsible to provide for and protect his family. Father rule. That’s the good part.
> 
> The point is that patriarchy is inescapable, and our only choice is between men being faithful, for blessing, and men failing, for humiliation and chastisement. The thesis is not that men are good, but rather that men are crucial. When they are crucial and selfish, a lot of bad things happen. When they are crucial and obedient, a lot of good follows.



Now, where is the obvious error here? I don't object to this. Explain to me why I should? And don't just say "It's bad because Wilson said it!" 

I have no dog in the paedocommunion fight. That's a in-house Presbyterian issue. As for as I am concerned, paedocommunion and paedobaptism are equally erroneous. 

My comments have dealt with Wilson's views on the roles of men and women in the family and church. What I have read of Wilson on this issues (Reforming marriage) as well as what has been posted here seems consistent with Scripture. No one here has given a clear explanation of the material problem with his view of marriage and how it is unbiblical. If someone just wants to say pox on all of Wilson's views, they can. But I am not willing to call something unbiblical simply because Wilson has expressed it as his view.


----------



## MW

It might be worth pointing out some key qualifying phrases. They make it appear that the quoted authors were alluding to some kind of an analogy.



> He must be as it were the priest of the household...
> 
> ...who is as a priest to his wife...
> 
> ...the father was a kind of priest in his household and family...



It is not safe or wise to turn a partial likeness into an exact identity, especially not in a matter of such importance.


----------



## Loopie

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pursue partriarchy and the family as a means to true Christian worship and you won't get to Christ. Purse true worship and the living Christ and His offices and gifts and all the other things will follow to include fathers whose hearts are for their wives and children, wives that love and submit to their husbands, and children who respect and love their parents.



With all due respect, I honestly believe (from listening to Wilson's sermons on marriage), that he would agree with this. One continuous theme that I have seen throughout this past year's sermons from Wilson is the theme of true worship and love for Christ being the core of everything else in our lives.

Again, I have not read any of Wilson's books, nor do I follow his blog. I have simply listened to his sermons for the past year in order to discern what kind of teacher/pastor he is. Whatever faults there may be, he does CONSISTENTLY preach the gospel. He doesn't just say a few good things here and there, but he always preaches the gospel. For instance, there are a few themes that he uses several times in his sermons that I found to be quite good:

1) He describes the Law as the stop sign on the road. It cannot control the speed of your car, but it tells you that you are offending and breaking the law.

2) He describes saving faith as finally realizing that we cannot pedal any harder, and that we can only look to Christ.

3) He describes grace as something that cannot be merited, and that God is completely sovereign over one's salvation.

In the end, I think that we should avoid condemning a man until we look at ALL of the information. This includes what the man preaches every Lord's Day. I would encourage anyone who thinks Wilson is a heretic to listen to his sermons for even just six months and then decide whether he teaches heresy. Maybe he is not a good communicator when it comes to writing or blogging, and perhaps he should just stick to preaching. But either way, it seems unfair to condemn a preacher without taking into consideration what he is preaching.


----------



## TylerRay

Loopie said:


> In the end, I think that we should avoid condemning a man until we look at ALL of the information.



That is precisely the key when it comes to evaluating a teacher like Wilson. It's true that Wilson will preach salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The problem is that he also teaches things contrary to that. The advocates of the Federal Vision believe that they can hold together mutually exclusive propositions. Their epistemology of paradox gives them a way out of submitting to the rules of logic in their teaching.


----------



## RamistThomist

Loopie said:


> Again, I have not read any of Wilson's books, nor do I follow his blog.



But we _have_, some of his for over a decade



> but he always preaches the gospel. For instance, there are a few themes that he uses several times in his sermons that I found to be quite good:



He also intimidated witnesses, falsified reports, and if not he, then his elders hacked into email accounts. He shelters sexual predators and slut-shames rape victims.




> 3) He describes grace as something that cannot be merited, and that God is completely sovereign over one's salvation.


Thomas Aquinas and Anselm believed in grace alone, too, just not quite in faith alone.



> In the end, I think that we should avoid condemning a man until we look at ALL of the information.



I have looked at all the info. I've read everything he and his wife have written on family. I Have been reading his blog daily for 13 years. I have read all of the court documents, police reports, witness statements, and Wilson's statements. And hundreds and hundreds of his mp3s.


----------



## earl40

Loopie said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pursue partriarchy and the family as a means to true Christian worship and you won't get to Christ. Purse true worship and the living Christ and His offices and gifts and all the other things will follow to include fathers whose hearts are for their wives and children, wives that love and submit to their husbands, and children who respect and love their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I honestly believe (from listening to Wilson's sermons on marriage), that he would agree with this. One continuous theme that I have seen throughout this past year's sermons from Wilson is the theme of true worship and love for Christ being the core of everything else in our lives.
> 
> Again, I have not read any of Wilson's books, nor do I follow his blog. I have simply listened to his sermons for the past year in order to discern what kind of teacher/pastor he is. Whatever faults there may be, he does CONSISTENTLY preach the gospel. He doesn't just say a few good things here and there, but he always preaches the gospel. For instance, there are a few themes that he uses several times in his sermons that I found to be quite good:
> 
> 1) He describes the Law as the stop sign on the road. It cannot control the speed of your car, but it tells you that you are offending and breaking the law.
> 
> 2) He describes saving faith as finally realizing that we cannot pedal any harder, and that we can only look to Christ.
> 
> 3) He describes grace as something that cannot be merited, and that God is completely sovereign over one's salvation.
> 
> In the end, I think that we should avoid condemning a man until we look at ALL of the information. This includes what the man preaches every Lord's Day. I would encourage anyone who thinks Wilson is a heretic to listen to his sermons for even just six months and then decide whether he teaches heresy. Maybe he is not a good communicator when it comes to writing or blogging, and perhaps he should just stick to preaching. But either way, it seems unfair to condemn a preacher without taking into consideration what he is preaching.
Click to expand...


With all due respect I rather not listen to a preacher (especially for 6 months no less) who the pastors here have warned us about. Also I do not recall any condemning him but condemning some of his teachings. One other thing I am learning is that the FV stuff is probably the most cunning devise Satan has used because it sounds like "Did not God say". I am glad of the elders here who are willing to share what they discern as bad and many of them have done the work for us because that is their job and we ought to take heed to what they are warning us about.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

ReformedReidian said:


> I have looked at all the info. I've read everything he and his wife have written on family. I Have been reading his blog daily for 13 years. I have read all of the court documents, police reports, witness statements, and Wilson's statements. And hundreds and hundreds of his mp3s.



Yes, yes. No one's knowledge of Wilson holds a candle to yours. You are quite the "Wilsonista". You have read all this and when asked politely to provide examples of the things you are talking about for the sake of discussion, you will not. You will only assure us that Wilson is every bit the perverted and deviant monster you declare him to be. 

End of discussion. Jacob has done all of the reading necessary. No one need read anything for themselves or come to any conclusion different than the one he has handed down. The court (i.e. Jacob) has found Wilson to be a witness-bullying, document-falsifying, account-hacking, predator-harboring, slut-shaming Son of Belial. And because he read all this on the internet, you can be sure it's true. He is hereby declared to be ANATHEMA. And anyone who does not agree with this decision, is obviously a Wilson minion doing his bidding. Let them also be ANATHEMA. The court is adjourned.


----------



## au5t1n

Brethren, I would encourage each of you, as well as myself, to remember that we will give an account for the use of our time. Is it redeeming the time to spend hours reading about or discussing a scandal in a church in Idaho? Giving a celebrity pastor negative attention is still giving him attention. It may be worth the time of a few noted Reformed ministers to investigate this in order to warn others, but most of us are better off not following Wilson scandals in detail or arguing about them. This thread pairs well with the recent thread on news media. It is mostly entertainment, not keeping informed, and reformed news is hardly different.


----------



## VictorBravo

au5t1n said:


> Brethren, I would encourage each of you, as well as myself, to remember that we will give an account for the use of our time. Is it redeeming the time to spend hours reading about or discussing a scandal in a church in Idaho? Giving a celebrity pastor negative attention is still giving him attention. It may be worth the time of a few noted Reformed ministers to investigate this in order to warn others, but most of us are better off not following Wilson scandals in detail or arguing about them. This thread pairs well with the recent thread on news media. It is mostly entertainment, not keeping informed, and reformed news is hardly different.



I agree. Thread's done.


----------

