# Debunking Doug Wilson



## bookslover (Mar 9, 2019)

A friend of mine recently told me he thinks Doug Wilson has renounced the Federal Vision theology. I told him that I'm skeptical of that.

Can anyone recommend a good book or article demonstrating that Wilson has not, in fact, renounced the FV?


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 9, 2019)

bookslover said:


> A friend of mine recently told me he thinks Doug Wilson has renounced the Federal Vision theology. I told him that I'm skeptical of that.
> 
> Can anyone recommend a good book or article demonstrating that Wilson has not, in fact, renounced the FV?


Doug Wilson hasn't renounced anything that he has taught. Here is the blog post that your friend may be confused about: https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html

Wilson simply isn't going to use the term "Federal Vision" to describe his views anymore because of the different meanings of the term and various doctrines and practices associated with the term that Wilson doesn't own.

Here's a key portion of the post:


> So I have finally become convinced that the phrase _federal vision_ is a hurdle that I cannot get over, under or around. The options are therefore limited. I could abandon my actual position and adopt what most people think of when they think _federal vision_, or I can continue my futile quest of explaining it just one more time, or I could abandon the phrase, and let everyone know that I have done so. So I have finally become convinced that the phrase federal vision is a hurdle that I cannot get over, under or around. The latter option is what I have decided to do. I am doing this in an attempt to communicate charitably, and have no desire to obscure.





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

Reactions: Informative 4


----------



## bookslover (Mar 9, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Doug Wilson hasn't renounced anything that he has taught. Here is the blog post that your friend may be confused about: https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html
> 
> Wilson simply isn't going to use the term "Federal Vision" to describe his views anymore because of the different meanings of the term and various doctrines and practices associated with the term that Wilson doesn't own.
> 
> Here's a key portion of the post:



Thanks, Tyler. Confirms my suspicions. He still subscribes to Federal Vision views, but you have to read his statement very carefully (avoiding all the slippery language) to understand that. I'll recommend it to my friend.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 10, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Can anyone recommend a good book or article demonstrating that Wilson has not, in fact, renounced the FV?



He hasn't. He saw that Leithart and Jordan were going in bizarre areas. He also saw that if he were going to get in on that big Baptist money, he couldn't be associated with FV.

Specifically, he hasn't apologized for the lives and ministries damaged and churches split because of his teaching.

Reactions: Amen 4


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Specifically, he hasn't apologized for the lives and ministries damaged and churches split because of his teaching.


This has become a major red flag in my experience. I used to believe I had to refute a specific philosophical point to be able to question someone's position. I've discovered how critical a person's relationships can be. When there is no fruit in his life, no peace and gentleness, you have at best a barren tree and possibly worse. The destruction gathers over time and can look like the path of a tornado if left to go too long.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Edward (Mar 10, 2019)

bookslover said:


> (avoiding all the slippery language)



That's an important point when dealing with FVers (or those that say they aren't but really are). You need to make them define every word that they use, since they may have their own secret meaning for the word, and not be using it as it is commonly understood.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2019)

Edward said:


> That's an important point when dealing with FVers (or those that say they aren't but really are). You need to make them define every word that they use, since they may have their own secret meaning for the word, and not be using it as it is commonly understood.


They are Clintonesque (what do you mean by "is") with the same motivation, to hide the plain truth.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Funny 2


----------



## ZackF (Mar 10, 2019)

Edward said:


> That's an important point when dealing with FVers (or those that say they aren't but really are). You need to make them define every word that they use, since they may have their own secret meaning for the word, and not be using it as it is commonly understood.



The slap happy use of terminology did more damage than anything. I'm one of the few examples of where the FV/NPP was a bridge from Rome to Geneva and not the other way around.

Wilson is one of those people I'd like to have an hour with personally in a room. I don't think I can get the info I need to come down definitively on him one way or another. James White, Sye Ten Bruggencate, John Piper, RC Sproul and Jeff Durbin are all friends of Wilson and are rock solid on Justification. They are not soft on RCism. So ultimately I don't know as far as that is concerned. Now his pastoral decision making and overall track record is something else altogether.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 10, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> They are Clintonesque (what do you mean by "is") with the same motivation, to hide the plain truth.



When it comes to the Federal Vision, Doug Wilson will tell you that he smoked, but he did not inhale.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 10


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

Edward said:


> That's an important point when dealing with FVers (or those that say they aren't but really are). You need to make them define every word that they use, since they may have their own secret meaning for the word, and not be using it as it is commonly understood.


It can work both ways. I used the language of "nourishment" in the Lord's Supper when asking a question on the Heidelblog once and I was labeled FV.


----------



## Physeter (Mar 10, 2019)

FV is an onion with the 'Two Tiered election'. He's now trying to wrap it in Christmas paper by not using the FV name. How did he come up with this? It's not even supported by scripture.

He's saying his beliefs are pretty much the same, he's just relinquishing the name.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 10, 2019)

ZackF said:


> James White, Sye Ten Bruggencate, John Piper, RC Sproul and Jeff Durbin are all friends of Wilson and are rock solid on Justification.



And they all categorically disagree with Wilson on this point. (Can't say about Bruggencate. His response to everything is, "How do you know?").

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And they all categorically disagree with Wilson on this point. (Can't say about Bruggencate. His response to everything is, "How do you know?").


Lol. Ten Bruggencate is solid on it as I’ve heard him say as much.


----------



## Edward (Mar 10, 2019)

ZackF said:


> RC Sproul



Which RC? 

Junior is known for his issues - both theological and otherwise.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 10, 2019)

Edward said:


> Which RC?
> 
> Junior is known for his issues - both theological and otherwise.


Senior in this case though now that you mention it the friendship with senior might have been because of junior.


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 11, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> This has become a major red flag in my experience. I used to believe I had to refute a specific philosophical point to be able to question someone's position. I've discovered how critical a person's relationships can be. When there is no fruit in his life, no peace and gentleness, you have at best a barren tree and possibly worse. The destruction gathers over time and can look like the path of a tornado if left to go too long.



You should revisit your old opinion. If you disagree with Doug Wilson on a specific position you should know why and how to do so. That's what you would want, that's what you ought to offer.

As far as your judgment of Wilson's relationships and fruit of his ministry you're wrong. Look at his family and their work. Look at his church. Look at the schools. Take into account the books published, the blog, and the various media (podcasts, videos, etc.).

To throw the entirety of a man's work out because we disagree on a single issue that rarely comes up is silly. Let's have this board work the same way regarding baptism and see where we find ourselves.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 11, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> You should revisit your old opinion. If you disagree with Doug Wilson on a specific position you should know why and how to do so. That's what you would want, that's what you ought to offer.
> 
> As far as your judgment of Wilson's relationships and fruit of his ministry you're wrong. Look at his family and their work. Look at his church. Look at the schools. Take into account the books published, the blog, and the various media (podcasts, videos, etc.).
> 
> To throw the entirety of a man's work out because we disagree on a single issue that rarely comes up is silly. Let's have this board work the same way regarding baptism and see where we find ourselves.



All of these things are chaff and don't take into account the serious controversies and scandals that have arisen in his Moscow compound. He's a self-ordained cult leader. Then you have the controversies and damage done and continuing to be done in numerous other orthodox churches by his false teachings which are substantial. 

Additionally, even if it was just one issue, that issue is the article by which the church stands or falls, to quote Luther. That is enough. But it is not just one issue, it is a large complex of important issues we disagree (to put it mildly) with. Covenant theology, ecclesiology, sacraments, law/gospel distinction, worship, etc. He was a signatory of the FV statement and still has not retracted it, though he has tried to sidestep some of the nomenclature. Who cares if he might have some decent materials on marriage and homeschooling? If anything he is the worst of all of the FV'ers because he tries to play both sides of the controversy. The others are clear about their deviations from Protestantism, he hides and disguises his. He is a wolf and perhaps the most dangerous figure in ostensibly Reformed Protestantism.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 11, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> All of these things are chaff and don't take into account the serious controversies and scandals that have arisen in his Moscow compound. He's a self-ordained cult leader. Then you have the controversies and damage done and continuing to be done in numerous other orthodox churches by his false teachings which are substantial.
> 
> Additionally, even if it was just one issue, that issue is the article by which the church stands or falls, to quote Luther. That is enough. But it is not just one issue, it is a large complex of important issues we disagree (to put it mildly) with. Covenant theology, ecclesiology, sacraments, law/gospel distinction, worship, etc. He was a signatory of the FV statement and still has not retracted it, though he has tried to sidestep some of the nomenclature. Who cares if he might have some decent materials on marriage and homeschooling? If anything he is the worst of all of the FV'ers because he tries to play both sides of the controversy. The others are clear about their deviations from Protestantism, he hides and disguises his. He is a wolf and perhaps the most dangerous figure in ostensibly Reformed Protestantism.



I didn't expect to sway anyone on a board where Wilson has been damned outright before (Board Rule 3a). What I don't care for is when it's not based on a specific teaching but just because we don't like him and then acting like he's never done anything good. I was responding to a specific post, which I quoted above.

Which of these other important issues do you have agreement with among even the reformed on this board concerning "ecclesiology, sacraments, law/gospel distinction, worship..."?

He's a cult leader? Really?

There aren't many in the reformed community who have done as much as Doug Wilson. (Like him or hate him, his influence is far reaching.) Maybe a little charity could be considered?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 11, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> I didn't expect to sway anyone on a board where Wilson has been damned outright before (Board Rule 3a). What I don't care for is when it's not based on a specific teaching but just because we don't like him and then acting like he's never done anything good. I was responding to a specific post, which I quoted above.
> 
> Which of these other important issues do you have agreement with among even the reformed on this board concerning "ecclesiology, sacraments, law/gospel distinction, worship..."?
> 
> ...



Considering all of those issues are confessional ones (and with sacraments I'm not talking about the credo/paedo distinction) and this is a confessional board, hopefully we have full agreement on them against Wilson. I'm still not sure what "good" he's done. At best he has some books on marriage, schooling, etc. that are themselves not free from controversy and contain advice better found elsewhere and at worst are trap doors into his truly harmful doctrines. N.T. Wright has defended the resurrection too. That's great, but he's still a man whose teachings I would recommend men stay far away from.

Yes, if you've read anything about his operations in Moscow, he comes off very much like a cult leader. It's a cult of personality run by a man who was not ordained by any church, that strongarms dissent, covers up issues of abuse and scandal, and has legions of fanatical devotees who slander and smear anyone who is bold enough to raise concerns about his leadership. He's charismatic and winsome, but so are most cult leaders.

I have a great deal of charity towards those I disagree with outside of our camp. It doesn't bother me when a baptist is a baptist (as are many of my friends and family), or an Anglican is an Anglican, or even an Arminian is an Arminian, even while I believe that they are in error and serious error in the last case. When one conceals and misrepresents their beliefs to subvert an orthodox body, however, they receive little charity from me. That is a viper and devourer of the flock. Wilson is, in my opinion, far more dangerous than a Roger Olson. Yes, Wilson's influence is wide, but so was that of Charles Finney or Nathaniel Taylor. That alone doesn't give him a free pass.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 11, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> What I don't care for is when it's not based on a specific teaching but just because we don't like him and then acting like he's never done anything good.



Just curious, what's the good he's done?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Santos (Mar 11, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> You should revisit your old opinion. If you disagree with Doug Wilson on a specific position you should know why and how to do so. That's what you would want, that's what you ought to offer.
> 
> As far as your judgment of Wilson's relationships and fruit of his ministry you're wrong. Look at his family and their work. Look at his church. Look at the schools. Take into account the books published, the blog, and the various media (podcasts, videos, etc.).
> 
> To throw the entirety of a man's work out because we disagree on a single issue that rarely comes up is silly. Let's have this board work the same way regarding baptism and see where we find ourselves.


 Amen....and thank you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 11, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> What I don't care for is when it's not based on a specific teaching but just because we don't like him and then acting like he's never done anything good.



Do Presbytery reports count? I think I can find official documentation for the following:

1) Condemned as a false teacher
2) Stealing a church from the OPC and shielding its errant minister from discipline.
3) Slut-shaming a rape victim and defending the rapist (and there are dozens of pages of court documents and police records).
4) Threatening the rape victim by releasing her journals.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 11, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> Yes, if you've read anything about his operations in Moscow, he comes off very much like a cult leader.



https://www.moscowid.net/

Yeah, I know that some of the people running the site are Leftists, but they have databases on official documents.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 11, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> You should revisit your old opinion. If you disagree with Doug Wilson on a specific position you should know why and how to do so. That's what you would want, that's what you ought to offer.
> 
> As far as your judgment of Wilson's relationships and fruit of his ministry you're wrong. Look at his family and their work. Look at his church. Look at the schools. Take into account the books published, the blog, and the various media (podcasts, videos, etc.).
> 
> To throw the entirety of a man's work out because we disagree on a single issue that rarely comes up is silly. Let's have this board work the same way regarding baptism and see where we find ourselves.


I've been around long enough to go through the original TR debacle and the formation of micro-denominations. People would write or speak points that were mostly laudable. (Who doesn't want strong families and godly children?) So often, they'd be so "right" they couldn't get along with anyone else.

The Bible lauds the peace-maker, the one who speaks with discernment. It speaks of the fruitful attributes of gentleness and self control. In church leadership positions a man is to be uncontentious, not self-willed.

When you can look across the perspective of decades and see churches and Christian schools rocked and a trail of dissension and bitterness, it's worth looking more closely as the well gushing bitter water.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## Edward (Mar 11, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> As far as your judgment of Wilson's relationships and fruit of his ministry you're wrong. Look at his family and their work. Look at his church. Look at the schools.



Looks like you need to do some homework on the fruits of his ministry.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do Presbytery reports count? I think I can find official documentation for the following:
> 
> 1) Condemned as a false teacher
> 2) Stealing a church from the OPC and shielding its errant minister from discipline.
> ...



It would only be right to source documentation now that you've posted this.
Is this from his own Presbytery?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> It would only be right to source documentation now that you've posted this.
> Is this from his own Presbytery?



Wilson's Presbytery basically rubber stamps anything he says. You won't find justice there
http://shaderenegade.blogspot.com/2002/04/presbytery-of-dakotas-takes-on-doug.html

https://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/where-does-he-get-this-stuff.html


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2019)

And several of Wilson's former colleagues who know too much went into self-imposed exile
http://www.moscowid.net/2016/12/06/doug-jones-to-the-uttermost-part-of-the-earth/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 12, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Wilson's Presbytery basically rubber stamps anything he says. You won't find justice there
> http://shaderenegade.blogspot.com/2002/04/presbytery-of-dakotas-takes-on-doug.html
> 
> https://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/where-does-he-get-this-stuff.html



So the OPC has problems with Wilson because he advised a man who resigned from the OPC to ignore their call to discipline?

From the first blog post: "Mr. Maneri’s position is that he had joined another church and therefore was not subject to OPC jurisdiction. This was also the counsel of Doug Wilson to him."

I'm not seeing the issue with counsel like that. 
1) If the guy doesn't belong to the denomination then it doesn't follow for him to be under their discipline.
2) I found it ironic that you say Doug Wilson cannot receive justice in his own Presbytery. That is quite the claim and quite the accusation of ineptitude regarding the elders within. (No worries though, it doesn't look like Wilson's church is signed on to the International Presbyterian Court. They'll probably let it slide.)

Even if the church/denomination the man was a part of says "No resigning once you've been accused." I can't help but think there might be a little confusion between a jilted session (all three leaving/resigning), disagreeable members (12 who forced a vote), and an organizing pastor in a church only two years old.

How was the situation explained to Wilson? (All the details or, "I'm out, but they keep pestering.")
Why would he not tell a man who had moved on to another church to ignore the old?

To me it looks like a case of Proverbs 26:17 in the worst case and off chance.
"Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears."


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 12, 2019)

As someone who is relatively new to Reformed Christianity, I feel a bit out of the loop concerning all this Federal Vision business.

Douglas Wilson is self-ordained? I did not know that! You'd think that alone should send alarms ringing. It's very much un-Reformed, indeed patently unbiblical.

But I hear his books on marriage and family are just _wonderful_...

But seriously, @Krak3n, I asked earlier about what good Douglas Wilson has done. What is it? It seems to me you are willing to balance it against all of the controversy.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 12, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> So the OPC has problems with Wilson because he advised a man who resigned from the OPC to ignore their call to discipline?
> 
> From the first blog post: "Mr. Maneri’s position is that he had joined another church and therefore was not subject to OPC jurisdiction. This was also the counsel of Doug Wilson to him."
> 
> ...



Well he was a member of the denomination. He made vows to that church. If you come under discipline you cannot simply just say you were crossing your fingers when you made the vows and run off and join another church. To violate the vows you took before God and church is a very, very serious matter. Of course Wilson would approve because he ordained himself and has made his church a home for countless men running from discipline. It's become an ecclesiastical penal colony for those who cannot abide the confessional restraints of other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations.

Frankly, this shouldn't be a debate. Wilson was one of the principal authors of the FV statement. Even while he has "distanced" himself from FV as a label he has admitted there has been no substantial shift in what he believes and said less than two years ago that he would not retract anything he signed on to in that statement. He just doesn't put it to the forefront as it would damage the image he's cultivated over the years. Peter Leithart and Rich Lusk pastor churches in his denomination and Leithart has taught at his college. Wilson wrote an essay honoring James Jordan in his _festschrift_. He's FV to the core. Everything else aside, this should be all we need to be done with him. I'm concerned that you are so willing to defend a man who teaches that which has been roundly condemned by virtually every confessionally Reformed body. Perhaps you were unaware of how close his ties are to that heresy, but you cannot be so any longer. Even if he didn't subscribe himself (he does), a man who defends heretics is no friend to the truth, no matter how manly a beard he grows.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1 | Amen 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 12, 2019)

You will always hear people chiming into these discussions (and I used to be one of them) about how wonderful Doug Wilson's books are on marriage and the family. They are not. They are full of legalism and they will fill your head with silly and irrational ideas.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> So the OPC has problems with Wilson because he advised a man who resigned from the OPC to ignore their call to discipline?



Yeah, that's pretty huge. It's a slap in the face of what it means to be Reformed.


Krak3n said:


> Mr. Maneri’s position is that he had joined another church and therefore was not subject to OPC jurisdiction. This was also the counsel of Doug Wilson to him."



What Wilson didn't understand is that the OPC doesn't have to accept the resignation, which means they can prosecute the minister and even excommunicate him. 



Krak3n said:


> That is quite the claim and quite the accusation of ineptitude regarding the elders within.



Study up on the history of Christ Kirk and ineptitude is the nicest way to put it. Some of these elders advised a girl to marry a known pedophile. 


Krak3n said:


> (No worries though, it doesn't look like Wilson's church is signed on to the International Presbyterian Court. They'll probably let it slide.)



That is correct. they are not in communion with mature, Reformed bodies.


Krak3n said:


> How was the situation explained to Wilson? (All the details or, "I'm out, but they keep pestering.")
> Why would he not tell a man who had moved on to another church to ignore the old?



There have literally been hundreds of pages written on this over 10+ years. In any case, I've provided links to all the documentation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Douglas Wilson is self-ordained? I did not know that! You'd think that alone should send alarms ringing. It's very much un-Reformed, indeed patently unbiblical.



That is correct. He was guitar dude at his church and then one day the pastor left and he sort of took on preaching duties. I have a blog post at tentsofshem.wordpress.com (type in Doug Wilson and turretin) that shows the problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 12, 2019)

Jacob,
I vaguely recall what u say in regards to ordination; is Moscow a congregational church?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jacob,
> I vaguely recall what u say in regards to ordination; is Moscow a congregational church?



It's trickier than that. At the risk of oversimplifying, the Presbytery has an advisory role but can't really do anything. That's why I said they rubber stamp. They can't really challenge him.


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 13, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> But seriously, @Krak3n, I asked earlier about what good Douglas Wilson has done. What is it? It seems to me you are willing to balance it against all of the controversy.



If you are asking seriously, I appreciate that. In an earlier post I mentioned some of the things that have been started from their church, at least involved in some way.

The books and blog are the things that I am most familiar with. So I am looking at this as someone who has actually read what he has said and scratch my head when he is painted as the devil. Can I be misled, sure, but I take his own words with more weight than a few blog writers.

This means that I can't point to just one thing as evidence of his worth. He writes alot, his family (wife, children, & in-laws) also write and are active with podcasts as well. Having their own publishing company enables the claim of nepotism, sure, but people are buying them and find them worthy of continued patronage.

This leads to another question. Ok, don't support Doug because of whatever, does that mean his family and his church cannot produce anything worth our time? Like the schools and online classes? (I haven't used these, I can't speak to how they rank, but I'm not opposed to someone attending.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 13, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> If you are asking seriously, I appreciate that. In an earlier post I mentioned some of the things that have been started from their church, at least involved in some way.



I am asking seriously. I don't know a whole lot about Wilson and his associates. I haven't read any of them. But from what I hear, the problems are too big to ignore. He's self-ordained, for starters. I'm a Presbyterian. I can't ignore that. Then there's the trail of damage and the countless controversies, to the extent of doctrinal differences on some very important points. What is it that so many Reformed have against Wilson?

In biblical terms, bad trees produce bad fruit. It's hard to understand that a man at the root of so much trouble could produce something untainted.

That doesn't necessarily mean he is not worth reading. Plato is worth reading. Confucius is worth reading. Neither were anything close to Christian. And that shows in their writing. I would imagine that Wilson's writing also carries his errors. So the question is, Is it worth the risk?

Reading Wilson is not like Plato or Confucius. You know when you're reading them that they're not believers. Wilson claims to be a Christian and he uses theological language. Yet teaches apparently harmful doctrines. It can be subtle.

Unless you're prepared to say everyone is wrong about him.



Krak3n said:


> The books and blog are the things that I am most familiar with. So I am looking at this as someone who has actually read what he has said and scratch my head when he is painted as the devil. Can I be misled, sure, but I take his own words with more weight than a few blog writers.



Do you think that any of his bad theology shows up in his writing? I'm asking honestly if you've ever noticed anything.



Krak3n said:


> This means that I can't point to just one thing as evidence of his worth. He writes alot, his family (wife, children, & in-laws) also write and are active with podcasts as well. Having their own publishing company enables the claim of nepotism, sure, but people are buying them and find them worthy of continued patronage.



I don't know what they've written. I haven't read their books or listened to their podcasts. What is it that should commend them? The mere fact that they have an audience is not a satisfying answer.



Krak3n said:


> This leads to another question. Ok, don't support Doug because of whatever, does that mean his family and his church cannot produce anything worth our time? Like the schools and online classes? (I haven't used these, I can't speak to how they rank, but I'm not opposed to someone attending.)



A lot of people are opposed to the materials because of what, according to them, is harmful stuff. Some very upstanding Reformed people vehemently oppose Wilson and his group's piblications.

Can they produce something worth our time? Probably. But is it worth the risk?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

As someone who's read everything he wrote (blog and book) until 2015, I agree. Some of the stuff he writes sounds good. Angels in the Architecture was really good (if factually wrong). And he has since exiled Doug Jones to Dubai.

But you can't call yourself a Reformed minister if you ordained yourself. If he truly repented for teaching justification by spirit-wrought sanctity, then something like the following would have happened:

1) Made moves to join a Reformed body (NAPARC or its equivalent) where he would be accountable. Since in the CREC the pastor is a member of the church and not the Presbytery, and the Presbytery only has advisory role, he is not accountable. Plain and simple.

2) Be publicly and theologically examined by a heavyweight like Joel Beeke.

https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/turretin-vs-doug-wilson-on-calling/


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 13, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> As someone who's read everything he wrote (blog and book) until 2015, I agree. Some of the stuff he writes sounds good. Angels in the Architecture was really good (if factually wrong). And he has since exiled Doug Jones to Dubai.
> 
> But you can't call yourself a Reformed minister if you ordained yourself. If he truly repented for teaching justification by spirit-wrought sanctity, then something like the following would have happened:
> 
> ...


Just curios. You are in the EPC, Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Your denomination allows women to be ordained as pastors and elders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Beeke have an issue with this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 13, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I am asking seriously. I don't know a whole lot about Wilson and his associates. I haven't read any of them. But from what I hear, the problems are too big to ignore. He's self-ordained, for starters. I'm a Presbyterian. I can't ignore that. Then there's the trail of damage and the countless controversies, to the extent of doctrinal differences on some very important points. What is it that so many Reformed have against Wilson?
> 
> In biblical terms, bad trees produce bad fruit. It's hard to understand that a man at the root of so much trouble could produce something untainted.
> 
> ...



Am I prepared to say everyone is wrong about him? No, my contention is that's it's easy to hop on the bandwagon around here specifically. Then people feel free to say things that will gather up "Likes" and "Amens" without a concern for judgment of the things we say. That's what initially brought me to speak up in this thread. Do I think well of him? Yes. Do I have time to chase every time he's demeaned on this site? Not a chance.

Do I think his bad theology has shown up in his writing? No, I honestly haven't noticed it in any of the works I've read. (I mean, I'm not a Presbyterian so certain things go without saying. ;^) I mainly read him for family and for culture information. I recommend his work in both of those categories. His blog normally addresses whats going on in Christianity, culture, and politics, but he has addressed some of the charges thrown at him there too.

No one here has to read anything by him. Evidence (witness) is only required for condemnation. What members here ought to be careful of is deciding they can make a judgment regarding someone by hearsay. They don't have to look beyond what they wish to, that's for their own conscience to take into account - I don't expect anyone to need exhaustive knowledge to make a just decision. That said, I'd advise they have more to go on than gossip from the Internet. This is not directed at you personally, it is a general statement regarding this thread.

[1Ti 5:19 ASV] Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at [the mouth of] two or three witnesses.

If Wilson's writings and doings don't come up for what your studying, you probably shouldn't be too worried.

If you're honestly new to the Reformed fun then you probably don't know what the FV stuff is about. Familiarize yourself so you can decide what level of hell to throw people in on your own. ;^)



BayouHuguenot said:


> As someone who's read everything he wrote (blog and book) until 2015, I agree. Some of the stuff he writes sounds good. Angels in the Architecture was really good (if factually wrong). And he has since exiled Doug Jones to Dubai.
> 
> But you can't call yourself a Reformed minister if you ordained yourself. If he truly repented for teaching justification by spirit-wrought sanctity, then something like the following would have happened:
> 
> ...



Pull the bit about Doug Jones from another blog? I read that too. What did Jones actually say about it?

As to whether or not he is a Reformed minister is really not your judgment to make. Who's is it then? If it's not for us, you and me nobodies, we could look to his own denomination.

"Pastor Douglas Wilson, having already been properly received by this body as an orthodox, ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is presumed to be such unless proven otherwise. There have been no charges brought against him, thus this is not a judicial trial. It is a voluntary examination requested by the Christ Church session."

It turns out that they have discussed this very thing. See appendix F on page 86.
https://www.crechurches.org/documents/minutes/2004crec.pdf

From the "Conclusion" of Appendix F
----
Brothers and sisters, we want you to know that Pastor Wilson is a faithful minister of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. He loves Jesus. He loves the church of Jesus Christ. We have personally witnessed his dedication to gospel ministry. We are pleased to serve our Lord together with him within the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. We are delighted to call him our brother. All of us can say – without any hesitation - that Pastor Wilson’s teaching has greatly influenced our ministries. He is a great blessing to us all.

Congregation, receive Pastor Wilson with all joy and thanksgiving. We encourage your continued confidence in Pastor Wilson as he watches over your souls with the other elders of Christ Church. He is a minister in good standing in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and he is robustly orthodox. We are convinced that Presbyterian and Reformed churches can learn much from him. “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.... Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive to them, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must given account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you (Heb. 13:7, 17).
---


----------



## Herald (Mar 13, 2019)

I am curious as to why my fellow Baptists would be attracted to Doug Wilson? Is it because of his position on family and homeschooling? FV really shouldn't be a thing for Baptists as it's an offshoot of things Baptists don't believe.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 13, 2019)

Herald said:


> I am curious as to why my fellow Baptists would be attracted to Doug Wilson? Is it because of his position on family and homeschooling? FV really shouldn't be a thing for Baptists as it's an offshoot of things Baptists don't believe.


I think we read those for whom we believe will reinforce our preconceived positions and will give us ammunition to be better apologists for our cause. I have done this my whole life, to a fault, which has led me to Wilson and others in his camp. Homeschooling became a religion itself for me. 
The man has every right to work within the parameter of his camp. We should all stay in our own camp. There is a place in the church for distinctives of belief. That's why I don't read Baptists. Not that I condemn their system, I just don't need to muddy my own water. I never recommend Baptists read Presbyterians. Though we can commune here on this forum, we don't need to get in bed together.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 13, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> No one here has to read anything by him. Evidence (witness) is only required for condemnation. What members here ought to be careful of is deciding they can make a judgment regarding someone by hearsay. They don't have to look beyond what they wish to, that's for their own conscience to take into account - I don't expect anyone to need exhaustive knowledge to make a just decision. That said, I'd advise they have more to go on than gossip from the Internet. This is not directed at you personally, it is a general statement regarding this thread.





Krak3n said:


> If you're honestly new to the Reformed fun then you probably don't know what the FV stuff is about.



I know enough about Federal Vision. The ideas have been around for a little while, and proponents have not really hidden their views. Are you not bothered by their takes on the sacraments? Or that doctrine on which the church either stands or falls, justification?

Further, it's not just here on PB that people have railed against FV. FV has been rejected by the PCA, OPC and RPCNA (as well as a number of other denominations) not to mention the many pastors and theologians that have spoken out against it.



Krak3n said:


> As to whether or not he is a Reformed minister is really not your judgment to make.



Well, he's not an ordained minister. Apart from very exceptional circumstances (consider the Waldensians) if a man is neither called nor ordained he is not a minister. Not a Reformed minister, at least. Reformed people don't believe that individuals can simply set themselves up as elders.

It's not an issue of whose "call" that is to make. The fact is that there was no call to begin with!



Krak3n said:


> ...we could look to his own denomination.



_His own denomination_. Hmm. About that...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 13, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> Can I be misled, sure, but I take his own words with more weight than a few blog writers.



Perhaps this is where you are mistaken. If it was a few loonies with discernment blogs I would agree. The issue is that it's not. The church courts of multiple denominations have ruled that FV is heresy. At least the OPC, URCNA, RPCNA, ARP, PCA, and RCUS have all done it. Many respected ministers and theologians who are by no means quick to condemn a man without careful consideration have concluded that Wilson is outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy including our own Lane Keister, a more judicious and charitable minister you will hardly find. It's not hearsay. It's based on his own writings and actions. 

As for the lack of his ordination, Jacob already demonstrated it. The denomination of which he is the pope rubber-stamping his position hardly qualifies as confirmation. I know that you are a Baptist and as such don't agree with Presbyterian polity, but Wilson does not claim to be a Congregationalist.

Keep reading his other work if you like. As Jacob and others have mentioned there is more than a little legalism in it and he's a poor historian but most of it only has a hint of his truly heretical positions and I can't say there's no value in it, considered alone. But I urge you to look deeper into this matter so that when you do recommend his other writings you can do so with appropriate caveats. Read some of what Lane and Scott Clark have written on the subject. Read the study reports by the OPC, URCNA, etc. Read past threads here. This is not a light matter to toy with. 

I've read many of his family and cultural books--his marriage book was actually the text assigned for my wife and I's premarital counselling. At the time I appreciated them but as I've become more aware of his theological issues I just don't see that it's worth it to sift the wheat from the chaff when the chaff is so poisonous. Now I tend to recommend Beeke instead.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Herald (Mar 13, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> I think we read those for whom we believe will reinforce our preconceived positions and will give us ammunition to be better apologists for our cause. I have done this my whole life, to a fault, which has led me to Wilson and others in his camp. Homeschooling became a religion itself for me.
> The man has every right to work within the parameter of his camp. We should all stay in our own camp. There is a place in the church for distinctives of belief. That's why I don't read Baptists. Not that I condemn their system, I just don't need to muddy my own water. I never recommend Baptists read Presbyterians. Though we can commune here on this forum, we don't need to get in bed together.


Bill, you are fencing your camp a bit too much for my taste. Many Presbyterians have profited greatly from reading Spurgeon, just as many Baptists have profited from reading Sproul. Wilson is a bit different. Whereas Presbyterians and Baptists share many theological distinctives, FV is so far off the Baptist reservation as to make it irrelevant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 13, 2019)

I have read them too. The problem is that I have not benefitted any more reading them than I have Augustine, Gregory, Calvin, Peter Van Mastricht, Boston, Vos, Van Til, Kline, Joseph Pipa, Ryan McGraw and all in between. Even with the variance between these men, they never gave me cause to muddy my covenant theology. When I read a Baptist, our difference on the Covenant strains our perspective. 

That is why I would not read Wilson, it strains my Covenant perspective.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 13, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> and he's a poor historian



And the award for understatement of the year goes to ... This post.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> As to whether or not he is a Reformed minister is really not your judgment to make. Who's is it then? If it's not for us, you and me nobodies, we could look to his own denomination.



The Reformed standards are fairly clear on this point.


Krak3n said:


> "Pastor Douglas Wilson, having already been properly received by this body as an orthodox, ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is presumed to be such unless proven otherwise.



This is simply not true. He went from guitar dude to pastor in an independent church.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Just curios. You are in the EPC, Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Your denomination allows women to be ordained as pastors and elders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Beeke have an issue with this?



Deacons and ruling elders, but not pastors.

Yeah, Beeke would disagree with us, but my denomination isn't a haven for people escaping church discipline from NAPARC churches


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 13, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Deacons and ruling elders, but not pastors.
> 
> Yeah, Beeke would disagree with us, but my denomination isn't a haven for people escaping church discipline from NAPARC churches


*WOMEN IN ORDAINED OFFICE*
The understanding of the role of women in the life of the church varies widely. For example, one Presbyterian denomination mandates that women be elected as pastors, ruling elders, and deacons. Another prohibits this. Yet equally sincere, Bible-believing Christians differ on this issue. *In the EPC, the decision to elect women as pastors, ruling elders, and deacons is left to the discretion of the presbytery and congregation, respectively. We believe that under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, God’s people should be free to follow His leading.

This is from your Website*. So, the holy Spirit is leading women to be Pastors and elders.

My point is that even your denomination has serious biblical error. So I wouldn't beat up too much on someone else's denomination until I got my own house in order.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> My point is that even your denomination has serious biblical error. So I wouldn't beat up too much on someone else's denomination until I got my own house in order.



Off the top of my head I can't think of which churches (if any) have women pastors. In any case, even if women deacons are wrong, it's not on the level of justification as faith + works.

Nor are we shielding child rapists from the law.

Nor are we blackmailing rape victims.

Nor are we encouraging unknowing girls to marry known pedophiles and have kids with them.

Nor are we telling pastors to spurn their oaths before God. That's what Wilson did on the OPC. Let's unpack that for a moment. Wilson believes in the objectivity of hte covenant. So basically he told the outlaw pastor, "Even though you called down a covenant curse from Yahweh on your head by breaking the oath, go ahead and spurn that oath." 

But all that aside. My church has women deacons. Maybe we are wrong. But we are not "hiding it." We are not being clever and misleading on justification by faith-works. We haven't spent the past 20 years teaching justification by spirit-sanctity and then saying, "No, no, we believe the confession" when called on it.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

If someone wants a reason why I am in the EPC, it's fairly simple:

1) The ARP church was too far away.
2) AAPC was the other option.
3) The church I am at preaches the gospel.

Not really a hard choice.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 13, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If someone wants a reason why I am in the EPC, it's fairly simple:
> 
> 1) The ARP church was too far away.
> 2) AAPC was the other option.
> ...



Sadly, not a lot of choices in Louisiana for P&R churches.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> Sadly, not a lot of choices in Louisiana for P&R churches.



A lot of church planters who come to La. are utterly clueless on this point. They don't realize that once you cross the Mississippi River, it drops off big time. The northern part of the state defaults to some variety of Baptist. The southern half is French and Roman Catholic. Simply being the big star in RUF isn't going to cut it.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 13, 2019)

Ordination of female elders and deacons, while wrong, is hardly on the same level as a denial of justification by faith. I would think that's fairly obvious.

Douglas Wilson and others are socially conservative. That's not bad. But they'd be far better off being a little more conservative concerning the gospel.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Edward (Mar 13, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> once you cross the Mississippi River, it drops off big time.



Six PCA churches and a handful of plants between Little Rock and the Gulf of Mexico. when you throw in the southern half of Arkansas. Bossier City and Leesville are probably worth an effort because of the military bases. The Monroe area should be workable with the right model and a long term commitment from First Presbyterian Jackson. And that's about as good as it's going to get in trans-Mississippi Louisiana. Looks like there could be a couple of opportunities in the Florida Parishes.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 13, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A lot of church planters who come to La. are utterly clueless on this point. They don't realize that once you cross the Mississippi River, it drops off big time. The northern part of the state defaults to some variety of Baptist. The southern half is French and Roman Catholic. Simply being the big star in RUF isn't going to cut it.


I wasn't trying to hurt you at all as I feel your pain. Merely I was trying to point out that there is much work to be done in our own denominations without picking on Wilson's. I like your thoughts and your resolve.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 13, 2019)

Edward said:


> Six PCA churches and a handful of plants between Little Rock and the Gulf of Mexico. when you throw in the southern half of Arkansas. Bossier City and Leesville are probably worth an effort because of the military bases. The Monroe area should be workable with the right model and a long term commitment from First Presbyterian Jackson. And that's about as good as it's going to get in trans-Mississippi Louisiana. Looks like there could be a couple of opportunities in the Florida Parishes.



I lived in the greater NOLA area and there's not even much there. Just a couple PCA churches which are either liberal or Baptisterian. One would think you could plant a confessional church in the area but it's probably a tough nut to crack. The white people are all Papists and the black people are all Baptists or prosperity gospel charismatics. Alexandria has a solid OPC church at least, and I'm guessing the Natchitoches OPC is good too since I think it was planted by the former. The state, for the most part, otherwise is a wasteland for P&R folks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> Alexandria has a solid OPC church at least, and I'm guessing the Natchitoches OPC is good too since I think it was planted by the former.



I got married in Pineville OPC. Good people.

The Nachitoches church is also good people.


----------



## Edward (Mar 13, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> Alexandria has a solid OPC church at least, and I'm guessing the Natchitoches OPC is good too since I think it was planted by the former.



Which contributes to them being unlikely candidates for a PCA plant. May the OPC prosper in Louisiana. The PCA generally made a mess of things there. 



TheOldCourse said:


> I lived in the greater NOLA area and there's not even much there.


 
If I was going to plant there, I'd probably look north of the Lake. Looks like they have one by Tulane and one up in Metarie (and one inner city). I can't think of anyplace else to put one. But I'm not that in tune with the post-Katrina demographics. I know the Lakefront used to be a nice area, but I understand it pretty much got wiped out, and I'm not sure how it is now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 13, 2019)

Edward said:


> Which contributes to them being unlikely candidates for a PCA plant. May the OPC prosper in Louisiana. The PCA generally made a mess of things there.
> 
> 
> 
> If I was going to plant there, I'd probably look north of the Lake. Looks like they have one by Tulane and one up in Metarie (and one inner city). I can't think of anyplace else to put one. But I'm not that in tune with the post-Katrina demographics. I know the Lakefront used to be a nice area, but I understand it pretty much got wiped out, and I'm not sure how it is now.



The Northshore could be a great place for it. A lot of middle and upper-middle class people are moving north of the lake these days and Mandeville, Covington, etc. seem to be growing fairly solidly. Lots of younger families who may not but quite as entrenched in Romanism.

The Metarie church is relatively conservative (culturally anyways, not super confessional), the other PCA churches are pretty liberal. I would think with the population there should be room for a more confessional church plant, but there would be a lot of work cut out for it. The Metarie church, like I said, was probably the most conservative so one would think that more confessionally minded folks would end up there (like we did for a time) and yet hardly anyone there was aware that you can get any more Reformed than John Piper. I heard that the Slidell PCA was pretty solid, however.

Lakeview is a bit of a mixed bag now. It's where most of the hipster population lives and it's gentrifying a bit but still definitely feels the effects of Katrina.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 13, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I got married in Pineville OPC. Good people.
> 
> The Nachitoches church is also good people.



Yeah we visited Pineville OPC while travelling. We really enjoyed our time with them. It seemed like an older congregation now so I hope they can grow and continue their ministry there for the long term. They are a beacon of light in a dark state.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 14, 2019)

Herald said:


> I am curious as to why my fellow Baptists would be attracted to Doug Wilson? Is it because of his position on family and homeschooling? FV really shouldn't be a thing for Baptists as it's an offshoot of things Baptists don't believe.



You're correct, FV really isn't a thing to me, and I've not come across it in his work. If you'd like an answer from one Baptist on what's attractive, I think he approaches culture the way Christians should, and not the way I see most Baptists do it. I see Baptists taking a more "We just worry about us in the church, we don't talk about the insanity of society (if we do it's while we twiddle our thumbs and wait for the end) and we especially don't speak into politics. Oh and never ever influence the government." I think that's one of those things Baptists removed after "borrowing" the Westminster Confession. I think some of the Presbyterian denominations revised that chapter as well. Chapter 23?



Tom Hart said:


> Are you not bothered by their takes on the sacraments? Or that doctrine on which the church either stands or falls, justification?



No I'm not bothered by these things, though I can't speak of "their" plural, I haven't read anyone else associated with FV stuff. I don't feel any real pull to it, and I've not seen it come up in his books. If we're talking about paedo-communion then I can only shrug, he's being more consistent than the other Presbyterians regarding the sacraments. 

Also, churches stand or fall by their obedience to Scripture. A church may claim it has the gospel, but if it goes against what Scripture clearly teaches they're just a club of religious people. There are a lot of churches with "the gospel" as understood in a truncated fashion, but if they're also antinomian how do they love Christ? John 14:15



TheOldCourse said:


> As for the lack of his ordination, Jacob already demonstrated it. The denomination of which he is the pope rubber-stamping his position hardly qualifies as confirmation. I know that you are a Baptist and as such don't agree with Presbyterian polity, but Wilson does not claim to be a Congregationalist.



All that has been demonstrated is that Wilson didn't start from the same place as other ordinations. He didn't follow the Reformed Talmud. His denomination has stated that he's official, I brought that in from their website earlier, not a blog.

As far as polity goes, I don't question the validity of Presbyterians elders apart from Scriptural reasons. So if there are irregularities of process, meh. You want to ordain women, then I'd say that's invalid. I can point to Scripture for that.

---

I'm really not sure what else to say, it's been decided that a man's denomination has nothing to say about his ordination. That this is actually for the other denominations to decide. There are many denominations and if ordinations were invalidated by the statements of others we'd all have a real problem. It's also been stated that not only is Wilson invalid but the other elders in CREC are inept. That's a heavy charge.

Please do try to apply some caution to your speech.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 14, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> If we're talking about paedo-communion then I can only shrug, he's being more consistent than the other Presbyterians regarding the sacraments.


By other Presbyterians do you mean the Westminster Divines? If you feel paedo-communion is the “logically consistent” conclusion of Paedo-Baptism, then ones understanding of the the reformed position of infant baptism needs to be revisited.

It’s clear the Lord has used Wilson to help your walk. It may be best for this thread to closed before it gets anymore nasty.

P.S. I say Amen to your charge of using caution, but let’s makes sure we All apply that in this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Mar 14, 2019)

The standards and process of testing in Confessional Presbyterian Churches is the "*Reformed* *Talmud*". Shrugging off the dangers of *paedocommunion* with a backhanded insult to Presbyterians.

This is what passes as cautious speech, evidently.

Reactions: Like 4 | Sad 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> Please do try to apply some caution to your speech.



Like "Reformed talmud?" In Judaism the Talmud says Jesus is boiling in semen right now. I'm fairly sure that isn't a good comparison to the reformed divines

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Santos (Mar 14, 2019)

I've been a bit under the weather so I have been observing this thread from my sick bed. I wanted to comment but my brain power and attention span was operating at about 50%. I think I may finally be nearing my typical 51% so here is my .02.

For the past couple of years I have read several books and numerous blogs from Doug Wilson. I have yet to see anything from him that is legalistic or biblically unorthodox. I have however, seen much spoken about his being a legalist, denying sola fide, being an ecumenist, a racist, etc. But again, I have yet to see any of those things in his writing, blogging, sermons, or videos. As a matter of fact on his website he has a 'Controversy Library' where he addresses most if not all of the accusations leveled against him here on PB and elsewhere. I will provide the link below and you can see if his answers are satisfactory for you as I have found them to be for me.


https://dougwils.com/controversy

It would appear at the very least those who speak about his denying sola fide (which is why they unjustly accuse him of heresy), no matter what else they may have against him, are either mistaken (which means that they haven't done their due diligence) or they are guilty of breaking the 9th. 

Which are you? 

Grace and Peace,
Santos


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 14, 2019)

Santos said:


> I've been a bit under the weather so I have been observing this thread from my sick bed. I wanted to comment but my brain power and attention span was operating at about 50%. I think I may finally be nearing my typical 51% so here is my .02.
> 
> For the past couple of years I have read several books and numerous blogs from Doug Wilson. I have yet to see anything from him that is legalistic or biblically unorthodox. I have however, seen much spoken about his being a legalist, denying sola fide, being an ecumenist, a racist, etc. But again, I have yet to see any of those things in his writing, blogging, sermons, or videos. As a matter of fact on his website he has a 'Controversy Library' where he addresses most if not all of the accusations leveled against him here on PB and elsewhere. I will provide the link below and you can see if his answers are satisfactory for you as I have found them to be for me.
> 
> ...



The allegations have been well substantiated. He wrote at least a significant portion of the Joint Federal Vision Statement, he signed his name to it, and he not only has not retracted said signature but as recently as 2017 said "I would still want affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement." That statement and the body of theology it describes have been condemned as heresy by virtually every confessionally Reformed church body. That's aside from his numerous quotes and statements supporting FV errors elsewhere which have been marshalled _ad nauseum_ in books and reports already. Until he comes out and clearly repents of the heretical views FV represents and confesses an orthodox doctrine of justification (and not merely saying "I believe in _sola fide_"--of course he will claim that), there really isn't a debate. If you haven't found anything legalistic or unorthodox in his teaching in a few years of reading, it's because either you weren't looking for it or you aren't grounded in Reformed orthodoxy enough yourself to detect the deviations.

That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

Santos said:


> I have yet to see anything from him that is legalistic or biblically unorthodox.



His signing numerous FV documents doesn't count?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to.



Part of what gave him a shot in the arm was that so many big names were waffling on Wokism, and he knew that by opposing Wokism, he would look really good. 

When I was a theonomist I ignored Wilson's compromises because he was "good on secularism." But you can't trade the gospel for the culture war.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 14, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But you can't trade the gospel for the culture war.



That's a great way to put it. Amen.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 14, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> The allegations have been well substantiated. He wrote at least a significant portion of the Joint Federal Vision Statement, he signed his name to it, and he not only has not retracted said signature but as recently as 2017 ("I would still want affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement") and subsequent to has claimed he still believes it. That statement and the body of theology it describes have been condemned as heresy by virtually every confessionally Reformed church body. That's aside from his numerous quotes and statements supporting FV errors elsewhere which have been marshalled _ad nauseum_ in books and reports already. Until he comes out and clearly repents of the heretical views FV represents and confesses an orthodox doctrine of justification (and not merely saying "I believe in _sola fide_"--of course he will claim that), there really isn't a debate. If you haven't found anything legalistic or unorthodox in his teaching in a few years of reading, it's because either you weren't looking for it or you aren't grounded in Reformed orthodoxy enough yourself to detect the deviations.
> 
> That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to.


Indeed. Well said.

For anyone needing a brief timeline of Federal Vision (Doug Wilson gets a shout out), the below is a great short read:

https://heidelblog.net/2013/11/for-those-just-tuning-in-what-is-the-federal-vision/


----------



## Santos (Mar 14, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> The allegations have been well substantiated. He wrote at least a significant portion of the Joint Federal Vision Statement, he signed his name to it, and he not only has not retracted said signature but as recently as 2017 said "I would still want affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement." That statement and the body of theology it describes have been condemned as heresy by virtually every confessionally Reformed church body. That's aside from his numerous quotes and statements supporting FV errors elsewhere which have been marshalled _ad nauseum_ in books and reports already. Until he comes out and clearly repents of the heretical views FV represents and confesses an orthodox doctrine of justification (and not merely saying "I believe in _sola fide_"--of course he will claim that), there really isn't a debate. If you haven't found anything legalistic or unorthodox in his teaching in a few years of reading, it's because either you weren't looking for it or you aren't grounded in Reformed orthodoxy enough yourself to detect the deviations.
> 
> That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.


He does not merely state that he affirms but explains what that means in detail. Have you listened to any of that?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 14, 2019)

Santos said:


> It would appear at the very least those who speak about his denying sola fide (which is why they unjustly accuse him of heresy), no matter what else they may have against him, are either mistaken (which means that they haven't done their due diligence) or they are guilty of breaking the 9th.
> 
> Which are you?



Neither. As someone who has followed the Federal Vision controversy since early 2006, I consider myself to be tolerably well-informed on the subject of Doug Wilson's slipperiness and sophistry. What you have to remember about Doug Wilson is that he subscribes to Paradox Theology (the notion that the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes). As a result, he will affirm something that sounds orthodox (we are justified by faith alone), while, at the same time, affirming the polar opposite viewpoint (we are justified by faith and covenantal faithfulness). For that reason, you cannot take anything he says at face value.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 14, 2019)

Moderators- Quick question...if the majority of Reformed churches have deemed FV heresy why are we allowing people on the PB to stick up for a person who affirms FV doctrine. It seems it should be an open and shut case. It’s one thing to inquire about it and another to defend one of the main proponents of FV

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Reformed Quest (Mar 14, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.



As a newly Reformed person, ~ 5 years or so, I appreciate the current discussion because I am facing a Federal Vision problem. I have been mining old PB forum posts and have found gold, but up-to-date information is a big help, as you never know what may have changed in the last decade.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 14, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.



As I get older, I realise that some things need to be continually talked about for the sake of younger people who were not around at the time the controversy took place. Failure to do so renders them more susceptible to the error in question.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 14, 2019)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Moderators- Quick question...if the majority of Reformed churches have deemed FV heresy why are we allowing people on the PB to stick up for a person who affirms FV doctrine. It seems it should be an open and shut case. It’s one thing to inquire about it and another to defend one of the main proponents of FV


Right now, this is just a thread with information in it. I haven't seen advocacy of the FV heresy, or the substance proposed under different language. That should, and shall, stay elsewhere.

It would behoove anyone who wants to engage productively in the conversation to

1) Get acquainted with primary source documentation. Links have been provided.
2) Not toss around accusations of lies, slander, and libel (9C violations) unless you can substantiate it, i.e. refute the warnings by adducing contrary information to the documentation currently touted as reason for the warning.

If you once read a book or a blog by someone with a certain reputation and profited thereby, that doesn't make the author generally reliable. Supposing he were generally reliable notwithstanding, it doesn't make him worthy of your time, for a variety of reasons. For example, a man can be orthodox theologically, and an ecclesiastic cancer and the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you like a certain loudmouth on the radio, for example; his politics are right down your alley, and you enjoy his skewering of opponents--you still might have to concede to your friend (whose opinions you'd like to see improved) that your taste in shock jocks is not for everybody. Advertising his product might do more harm than good. You are pretty adept at screening your fave's bad side, in appreciation for that 20% high quality roast. But for too many others, the toxicity is too much. And its just a fact that half his fanboys are actually off to his left/right away from you.​There is no shortage of substantive criticism of FV available; along with critiques of particular proponents (and one in particular) on a wider range of topics than FV alone. If you don't understand what is the big deal, and why so strong a reaction from multiple ecclesiastical bodies and individual churchmen, it may be that you are smarter than all those analysts. Or, maybe you haven't been around the block as long.

_Caveat emptor._

Reactions: Like 13


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2019)

Here is an interesting experiment. Let's compare Wilson with another FV guy, John Barach. There is a difference in how they talk. While we would not agree with Barach, he comes off as more mature and straightfoward. Probably because he went to a real Reformed graduate school, studied under real professors (e.g., Nelson Kloosterman), and took real presbytery/synod/classis exams in a real denomination (prior to his entering the CREC).

So when Barach says something we might not agree with on the covenant, we know what he is saying. He isn't trying to be a chucklehead or hide behind some cute remark he stole from PG Wodehouse.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2019)

And here is another angle: how many of these Young Turk FV guys have read the Reformed sources (outside of Calvin)? Answer: zero.

I disagree with the Reformed divines on a number of points. I am closer to Klaas Schilder. Yet, pace Wilson and his disciples, I have read Turretin, Witsius, volumes of Owen, Buchanan, Bavinck's four volumes (volume 2 at least three times).

Only now do I feel comfortable suggesting areas where I disagree with how some formulations are worded. That is a far cry from what Wilson is doing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Mar 15, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And here is another angle: how many of these Young Turk FV guys have read the Reformed sources (outside of Calvin)? Answer: zero.
> 
> I disagree with the Reformed divines on a number of points. I am closer to Klaas Schilder. Yet, pace Wilson and his disciples, I have read Turretin, Witsius, volumes of Owen, Buchanan, Bavinck's four volumes (volume 2 at least three times).
> 
> Only now do I feel comfortable suggesting areas where I disagree with how some formulations are worded. That is a far cry from what Wilson is doing.



Well thank goodness you have read more Reformed sources than they....What does that even mean? .....And how can you prove your statement?.....And what do the "other" proponents of FV have to do with the price of tea in China?
I am speaking of Doug Wilson's clear articulation and teaching on Sola Fide. So he denies your assertion and you say uh huh and I am obligated to side with your assertion despite what the man says/teaches himself. Have you listened to his examination by his own presbytery?


----------



## Santos (Mar 15, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Right now, this is just a thread with information in it. I haven't seen advocacy of the FV heresy, or the substance proposed under different language. That should, and shall, stay elsewhere.
> 
> It would behoove anyone who wants to engage productively in the conversation to
> 
> ...


Point taken.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2019)

Santos said:


> Well thank goodness you have read more Reformed sources than they....What does that even mean?



For starters, that I know what the Reformed have historically taught.


Santos said:


> .And how can you prove your statement?



I used to be FV and ran in the FV crowds. And even former FV guys like Steven Wedgeworth have documented where FVers almost never interacted with the Reformed texts. I would pull up his site, but I can't access blogspot at work.


Santos said:


> I am speaking of Doug Wilson's clear articulation and teaching on Sola Fide.



Which means absolutely nothing since he still upholds what he wrote in the FV statement.


Santos said:


> So he denies your assertion and you say uh huh



No, we have all pointed to facts and links.


Santos said:


> I am obligated to side with your assertion despite what the man says/teaches himself.



You are obligated to side with the facts. 
Fact 1: He says he teaches sola fide
Fact 2: He still upholds the FV statement.



Santos said:


> Have you listened to his examination by his own presbytery?



Over a decade ago. This isn't new stuff to us. Until he formally rejects and retracts the FV stuff, he is still liable to the charges.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2019)

Santos said:


> .And how can you prove your statement?



I've been thinking about this. How can I prove it? Let's look at the fruits. How many books about the munus triplex has Canon Press or Athanasius Press published? How many books about paedocommunion or presumptive regeneration have they published?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Mar 15, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've been thinking about this. How can I prove it? Let's look at the fruits. How many books about the munus triplex has Canon Press or Athanasius Press published? How many books about paedocommunion or presumptive regeneration have they published?


Really? Lol....how does that prove that you've read more than they have? How many books on presumptive revelation have you published. 
I'm pretty sure Canon Press writes more on family and current events? Does everyone who calls themselves a reformed teacher necessarily need to write on nuance of this or that doctrine? Or can some write on things that are immediately profitable to the laymen?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2019)

Santos said:


> How many books on presumptive revelation have you published.



Thankfully, none.


Santos said:


> I'm pretty sure Canon Press writes more on family and current events?



I'm good friends with several of the distributors of Canon Press literature. I used to get first selection on anything Canon Press released. In any case, you can't really separate their theology from their family lit. In fact, they would argue against doing that.

Here is a former FVer on how the FV doesn't interact with Reformed texts.
https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/the-federal-vision-and-reformed-theology/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 15, 2019)

Hi All,

Long time, no see. 

I saw some traffic from the PB to the Heidelblog and noticed the topic. 

The place to start your understanding of Wilson is here:

https://moscowid.net

This is a invaluable treasure trove of primary source documents and analysis. One might dispute the analysis but one cannot gainsay the documents (e.g., court documents, a video of W officiating a marriage etc). 

The site documents his plagiarism, his long-time (and continuing) support of the Federal Vision theology, which has been roundly condemned by the confessional Reformed churches, and his abuse of the sheep. This last has been recognized by his own federation of churches (CREC). Their report analyzing it and rebuking him for it is posted there. The video shows him officiating at the wedding of pedophile to a daughter of the church. See sittler.moscowid.net. See also wight.moscowid.net for documentation of that case.

This is a great intro to the problems issues generally:

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

As to the FV itself, here is extensive documentation of and response to W on the FV. 

The heart of the FV doctrine is this: In (i.e., elect, justified, adopted etc) by baptism, stay in by cooperation with grace (works). It is essentially the very thing rejected by the Reformation. It teaches two kinds of election, temporal (“covenantal”) and “decretal.” It does so in their own “Joint Federal Vision Profession” (2007), which they recently deleted from the FV site but which I’ve preserved on rscottclark.org. Look at the section on Apostasy. There the whole error is quite clear. As with the Remonstrants, as someone has already noted, what they give with one hand (a formal affirmation of justification _sola fide_) they take away with the other. 

Finally, Hohn Cho, at Pyromaniacs, wrote a brilliant response to W re Rachael Denhollender.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 16, 2019)

kodos said:


> The standards and process of testing in Confessional Presbyterian Churches is the "*Reformed* *Talmud*". Shrugging off the dangers of *paedocommunion* with a backhanded insult to Presbyterians.
> 
> This is what passes as cautious speech, evidently.



Regarding the "dangers of paedocommunion", I was responding to a direct question to me about Wilson's handling of the sacraments (Was I bothered by it.). I answered according to what I believe about it. I don't agree with him or you. My current understanding it that you're both wrongheaded but he's more consistent. I'm not going to argue about it, there are other threads and sub-forums for that. I was asked here, so I answered here.

A "backhanded insult"? Should I be offended whenever a Presbyterian talks about baptism? No, I just shrug and move on. Half the members here disagree with the other half on the issue of sacraments. (Ok, it may not be half, I don't know how the population of alignments exist on the PB.)

"Cautious speech" doesn't mean I need to mince words. It means we should be slow to the damning of a man and saying his denomination's elders are inept.

I get it, you wouldn't call it the "Reformed Talmud".
It's not Scripture but we condemn people by it. 
If that is the proper use then it is the "Reformed Tradition of the Elders".



BayouHuguenot said:


> Like "Reformed talmud?"
> ...
> I'm fairly sure that isn't a good comparison to the reformed divines



The implication was for the way it's used, not it's contents. I added "Reformed" to the title to convey a difference. You can quote all the blasphemous trivia you want, but were you really so offended that you'd post such a stupid thing?

---

I posted this earlier, but I'll post it again.
https://www.crechurches.org/documents/minutes/2004crec.pdf

Appendix E on page 63: Written Examination Questions for Pastor Douglas Wilson

Appendix F on page 86: Report of the Special Committee to Examine Pastor Douglas Wilson


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> . You can quote all the blasphemous trivia you want, but were you really so offended that you'd post such a stupid thing?



No. I wasn't offended but simply showed why it might be disingenuous for you to compare us to the Talmud while saying we should all chill out.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 16, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. I wasn't offended but simply showed why it might be disingenuous for you to compare us to the Talmud while saying we should all chill out.



As long as you're convinced it justifies posting a blasphemous statement. That's a costly way to make a point.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> As long as you're convinced it justifies posting a blasphemous statement. That's a costly way to make a point.



Um....okay. 

Back to the point. So have you interacted with the links that Dr Clark posted?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## kodos (Mar 16, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> I get it, you wouldn't call it the "Reformed Talmud".
> It's not Scripture but we condemn people by it.
> If that is the proper use then it is the "Reformed Tradition of the Elders".



If you don't believe that Reformed Churches conduct ordinations through the pattern prescribed by the Scripture (no man takes this honor on himself; do not lay hands on a man hastily; neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, etc.), and by _Good and Necessary Consequence_, then I don't know what to tell you but to study how these things are gleaned from the Scripture. 

You may disagree, which is one thing, but to believe we make this stuff up and assert ourselves _over_ the Scripture with our own tradition is not cautious in any sense.

Besides, "Exhibit A" as to why Scripture prescribes testing is because of men like Doug Wilson and the trauma others like him cause the Church. Just look at this thread. What a mess.

As to your claim this is the Reformed Talmud, you might as well yell "Pharisee!" at men but say you expect "cautious" speech from them in turn. What kind of wisdom compels you to do such a thing?

No one (I know of) is _condemning_ Wilson (those words have strict meaning) for not having a proper ordination, rather it is an important piece of the puzzle.

Finally, if you don't believe paedocommunion is a danger, you need to re-read 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. Both Baptists and Presbyterians can agree it is a _dangerous _thing, spiritually speaking, given these grave and solemn warnings. 

Why turn a blind eye to this man's dangers?

This is not a matter of a _consistency _of exegesis and interpretation given Paul's warning and should not be hand waved away as no big deal.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 16, 2019)

Krak3n said:


> https://www.crechurches.org/documents/minutes/2004crec.pdf



This seems like an odd portion of the confession to take exception to:_The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own_.

Is there any known reason why there is this exception?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 16, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Is there any known reason why there is this exception?


That is _original _WCF, and not the text of most American denominations. There is curious history (and someplace a WTS master's thesis) as to how the phrase was dropped. But somewhere along the line, a man married his brother's widow, and was charged with sin. The short story is: the phrase was dropped.

A longer historical context is this: Henry VIII's first wife was previously married to his brother, Arthur; he died, and Catherine, eventually a close relative of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry took to wife. He received a papal dispensation to do so, since canon law (based on interpreting Lev.18:16) forbade it. (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon)

When Henry wished to divorce Catherine, part of his argument was that his marriage to Catherine was a sin, and unlawful. One might argue that in English terms, it was an important point (politically and religiously) to maintain that the Bible forbade such marriages; and the subsequent divorce and all that followed _including the break with Rome and subsequent church reformation efforts_ was the good fruit of royal and national repentance.​
One is free, in WCF-American terms, to believe that the missing phrase is true and biblical, and be convicted by it (original WCF prooftext, Lev.20:19-21 https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html). But one is also free from being bound to confess it is biblical--no exception required. But, if one's subscription is to the unaltered WCF, and one does not believe this is a proper interpretation of the Bible, he should take exception.


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 16, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> That is _original _WCF, and not the text of most American denominations. There is curious history (and someplace a WTS master's thesis) as to how the phrase was dropped. But somewhere along the line, a man married his brother's widow, and was charged with sin. The short story is: the phrase was dropped.
> 
> A longer historical context is this: Henry VIII's first wife was previously married to his brother, Arthur; he died, and Catherine, eventually a close relative of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry took to wife. He received a papal dispensation to do so, since canon law (based on interpreting Lev.18:16) forbade it. (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon)
> 
> ...


Thanks! I should have pulled the PCA version and I would have see it missing


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 16, 2019)

Barry Waugh's dissertation was on the change and arguing for it (this is like a circa 1880s change I think; at least after 1850? but not as late as 1903 if I'm recalling rightly). When Samuel Miller was examined it was one scruple he was considering but after wrestling with it, resolved it in his mind, and affirmed the standards without exception (c. 1791).


Contra_Mundum said:


> That is _original _WCF, and not the text of most American denominations. There is curious history (and someplace a WTS master's thesis) as to how the phrase was dropped.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2019)

Stonewall Jackson was in love with his deceased wife's sister, and she loved him back. Yet they both knew the standards forbade it, so they didn't get married.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 16, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> This seems like an odd portion of the confession to take exception to:_The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own_.
> 
> Is there any known reason why there is this exception?



The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland also questions that part of the Westminster Confession in its Testimony. If I recall correctly, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland disagrees with the RPCI on this issue. I am not sure about the RPCNA's position on it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

This observation from John Davenant is all too applicable to Doug Wilson:

Christians must not lend their ears to those who undertake the office of preaching when they have not a legitimate call to it. For the Apostle seems in this place to oppose his lawful ministry to that of those seducers who had crept into the church of the Colossians, relying upon their own temerity not upon the Divine appointment. *No wonder, therefore, if those who possessed not lawful authority to teach at all, should teach falsehood*. 

John Davenant, _An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians_, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; 2 vols, London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), i, 268.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Krak3n (Mar 18, 2019)

Santos said:


> I will provide the link below and you can see if his answers are satisfactory for you as I have found them to be for me.
> 
> 
> https://dougwils.com/controversy



In the above quote Santos linked to Douglas Wilson's blog, where he has articles and documents addressing the many charges against him. Thank you Santos, I did not remember that such a compilation existed.

https://dougwils.com/controversy

Having read through the "elder's meetings minutes" concerning the Child Abuse cases at that church, and the way that sin destroys families and affects churches has given me no stomach to continue in this thread. _Judge for yourselves._

It is just as easy for me to speak rashly and clumsily as anyone else. Multiple users have posted in that regard and so I will heed their warnings.

I have nothing else to say regarding this matter.

This is not because I now reject Wilson or find him unworthy of defense. I now feel more sympathy for them at that church. Understand that I do not mean this in a backhanded way. I pray that our churches do not have to deal with the sin that had occurred against some of their members and the consequences for that church.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Mar 18, 2019)

I first became born-again at a PCA church in 1994. I quickly discovered Doug Wilson and _Credenda Agenda. _The journal were instrumental in changing my thinking from secular to Christian. As I read the articles I found someone who could respond to, and even make fun of, modernity and postmodernism. I gobbled up every issue and read it cover to cover. Sometime in the early 2000's I began to realize that were was a problem with his teaching even if I did not exactly understand why. Since then, I read about his slut slamming a rape victim, the FV heresy, and my heart broke. I have since thrown out all the issues of _Credenda_, as well as several items of his. When I moved to St. Louis I was warned to be careful of PCA churches since a number of them are either flirting with, or fully embrace, FV. Really, Doug Wilson could have done so much good and instead, has done so much damage. So sad.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## py3ak (Mar 18, 2019)

This thread seems to have run its course.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------

