# Doug Wilson is a... ?



## AThornquist (Jan 24, 2012)

For those familiar with FV and Doug Wilson, is it fair to say that he is a heretic? Or is he a brother propagating a serious error? Is he a heretic/serious error-propagator worth reading on other subjects (i.e., marriage) and inviting to conferences, or should he be totally avoided?

Interested in your input. Thanks.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 24, 2012)

That was a helpful thread, thanks. It doesn't directly answer the questions I pose, but given Wilson's position on the Gospel I can't currently see how he's _not_ a heretic. Of course, I want to be careful with that designation.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 24, 2012)

Brother in Christ, very gifted, redefines historical meaning of theological terms to come up with something that is very complicated. As rc sproul said amoung all the federal visionists he is the less guilty, but he isn't squeeky clean either. And yes, Reformed is enough.


----------



## Philip (Jan 24, 2012)

In my opinion, the level of error is on a par with Arminianism.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 24, 2012)

I have hesitated for a long time over whether Wilson is blinded by his friendship with the less orthodox, or whether he is a conscious front-man and spin doctor for them. He may be the least problematic of the bunch, but he functions as a gateway drug.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 24, 2012)




----------



## Jack K (Jan 25, 2012)

This is about how you use terms, but I save "heretic" for those who deny the ecumenical creeds. That usually means non-trinitarians of some sort. By that standard, the guy we're discussing here does not even come close.


----------



## Tripel (Jan 25, 2012)

Jack K said:


> This is about how you use terms, but I save "heretic" for those who deny the ecumenical creeds. That usually means non-trinitarians of some sort. By that standard, the guy we're discussing here does not even come close.



Ditto.


----------



## Philip (Jan 25, 2012)

Tripel said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > This is about how you use terms, but I save "heretic" for those who deny the ecumenical creeds. That usually means non-trinitarians of some sort. By that standard, the guy we're discussing here does not even come close.
> ...



Likewise


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 25, 2012)

It would seem that this issue has already been settled on this board. Here is what is stated in the forum rules;

10. Banning

It is not the general practice of the Board Administrators to ask a participant to leave. Generally the Board tries to be tolerant of postings, issuing warnings where appropriate first. Members in the past have been banned only after sufficient warning and repeated violations of Board Rules, behavior unbecoming a Christian and/or espousing heresy (such as the *Federal Vision*, Roman Catholicism or Modalism). The banning of members is at the discretion of the Administrators. Because the Puritanboard is not a local church there is not a session or forum to address issues as we are not set up in this manner.

I don't think I need to remind anyone that Douglas Wilson signed the joint Federal Vision statement.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 25, 2012)

Thanks all for your input. 

Good find, Bill; I didn't realize the board rules explicitly labeled Federal Vision heresy.


----------



## J Miles (Jan 25, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> In my opinion, the level of error is on a par with Arminianism.



^This. I would consider him a definite false teacher. With that thought in mind...



AThornquist said:


> Is he a heretic/serious error-propagator worth reading on other subjects (i.e., marriage) and inviting to conferences, or should he be totally avoided?



Would you buy a written by Jacobus Arminius? Would you by a book by Jacobus Arminius if there was a chance he was able to receive money from the sale through royalties on that book?

Just my thoughts.

I would also like to point out the board rules compare the FV heresy to Modalism, which is non-trinitarian.



py3ak said:


> He may be the least problematic of the bunch, but he functions as a gateway drug.



Of all the posts on this page, I agree with this one the most. Wilson last fall put on an anti-evolutionary event on campus where he was the main speaker. I did not attend, but I know of people who did just because it was against evolution. They latter came back and had positive things to say about Wilson, and seemed to praise his debate with Hitchens.


----------



## Philip (Jan 26, 2012)

J Miles said:


> Would you buy a written by Jacobus Arminius? Would you by a book by Jacobus Arminius if there was a chance he was able to receive money from the sale through royalties on that book?



Yes.


----------



## Tim (Jan 26, 2012)

J Miles said:


> ^This. I would consider him a definite false teacher. With that thought in mind...



Hi Jacob. I have to ask, what ever are you doing in Moscow, then?


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 27, 2012)

I wonder over these things in an euchumenical context. How much difference in doctrine does one need to have to be outside of any form of euchumenical engagment? Does he have that much difference? Is he only outside our confession or outside christianity? How do we view his denomination the CREC? He is definately not orthodox but a heretic, I just don't know.


----------



## Philip (Jan 27, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Is he only outside our confession or outside christianity?



He's not outside Christianity any more than Arminians, Anglo-Catholics, or Lutherans.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 27, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Is he only outside our confession or outside christianity?
> ...



Oh I agree, I was just being rhetorical. I think though wrestling with this particuler person only raises the larger problems of doctrinal divisions and echumenical problems. Not take this thread into a discussion of echumenicalism but I just wanted to get people thinking.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 27, 2012)

There is perhaps a seperate discussion to be had with regard to the definition of heresy and/or heretic. But I have typically used the term(s) to designate a damnable error in doctrine (denial of deity of Christ, Trinity, &c.). I use the term error for those who's teaching wile unbiblical potentially dangerous, does not rise to the level of damnable heresy. 

With that definition in mind, I have read quite a bit of Wilson over the years and feel that that the label "heretic" would be unjustified. I also see much of the controversy surrounding him and FV to be unique to the Reformed paedobaptist churches. In other words, it seems to me to be an in-house, "Presbyterian" issue. Granted, I haven't studied the FV debate in detail, but this issue is non-existent in Reformed Baptist churches and I think for obvious reasons. 

As far as CREC is concerned, their confessional standards are as follows:



> Each church will adopt into its statement of faith at least one of the
> following:
> 1. Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
> 2. American Westminster Confession of Faith (1788)
> ...



The only one in question would be the _Reformed Evangelical Confession_ which is nothing more than a compilation of the Ecumenical Creeds and the statement of faith from the National Association of Evangelicals. So is there error in this group of churches? Yes. Can it be immediately found in their doctrinal statements? No. So one would be wise to exercise careful discernment.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 27, 2012)

James Durham's definition of heresy is:


> And, first, _Heresy,_ is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavor to propagate the same.


_A Treatise Concerning Scandal_ (Naphtali Press, 1990) 225.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 27, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> James Durham's definition of heresy is:
> 
> 
> > And, first, _Heresy,_ is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavor to propagate the same.
> ...



I wonder if we are shellshocked in our overly sensative world about the "H" word. Are Lutherans heretics? Are people in Reformed churches who think that contemporary style of worship is o.k. heretics (which would make me a heretic)? I mean heresy in this definition is way too broad to differentiate between friend and foe.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 27, 2012)

I cited Durham because he supports the idea the term is chiefly or principally used of fundamental error.


jwright82 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > James Durham's definition of heresy is:
> ...


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 27, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I cited Durham because he supports the idea the term is chiefly or principally used of fundamental error.
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> ...



That makes more sense. So then the question is does Wilson teach any "fundemental errors"?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 27, 2012)

It does not need answering as far as determining whether most folks should avoid him. 


jwright82 said:


> That makes more sense. So then the question is does Wilson teach any "fundemental errors"?


----------



## yoyoceramic (Jan 27, 2012)




----------



## jwright82 (Jan 27, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It does not need answering as far as determining whether most folks should avoid him.
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> ...



That is one way to look at it, it is good practical advice after all.


----------

