# Doug Wilson Vindicated?



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

http://ecsowder.blogplot.com

Featuring Dr. matt McMahon




[Edited on 8-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peter (Aug 2, 2005)

I remember Craig. Generally, a godly guy. Unfortunately what I remember about him most was his penchant for Popish worship (all the while claiming to believe in the RPW), and from his blog it seems he also has quasi-popish views on salvation. The 2 seem to go together.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I remember Craig. Generally, a godly guy. Unfortunately what I remember about him most was his penchant for Popish worship (all the while claiming to believe in the RPW), and from his blog it seems he also has quasi-popish views on salvation. The 2 seem to go together.



I am not being debative here, but could you give me some links/examples of him espousing popish views on worship? Just curious.


----------



## Peter (Aug 2, 2005)

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7880#pid126409
http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8568#pid126362
http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7102&page=4

VirginiaHuguenot made this comment on the last linked thread:

"Craig,

Most of your comments are self-condemning and therefore I will not continue to belabor the point. Suffice to say that in the matters under discussion where you disagree with the Second Commandment, the Regulative Principle and the Westminster Standards, I happen to agree. You seem to have a low view of Puritan worship and a high view of Anglican worship. That's your prerogative, but we are approaching worship in vastly different ways like ships passing in the night."

This was his response:
"Yes, it's true that we view the RPW differently. But I critiqued your view of the RPW. All you have said about my view is essentially, "looks like you prefer Anglican worship to Puritan worship". Simply appealing to the Puritans doesn't vindicate anybody's view of worship..."

BTW, Craig may object to my use of the appellative "Popish", but I think he has admitted that he doesnot believe in the historic definition of the RPW.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 2, 2005)

Thank you. You answered my question with respect to the links.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 2, 2005)

> They read the things that are written about Wilson, and nobody is allowed to offer another perspective.



It starts off with a lie. 

Jacob has talked favorably of him and others have discussed and defended N. T. Wright.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Aug 2, 2005)

Let's be careful to be charitable to our "departed" brother, Craig. He is not here to defend himself. (Not saying that anyone is doing this.) Perhaps we should change the subject...

By the way, kudos to Dr. McMahon for linking to such an article. It takes a big man to point people to writings that paint one's own in an unfavorable light. (I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically)


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > They read the things that are written about Wilson, and nobody is allowed to offer another perspective.
> ...



That is partially-correct. I have defended Tom Wright on the historicityof the gospels and his powerful presentation of the resurrection. I will have nothing to do with Tom's view on justification/righteiousness/church.

As to Wilson; all of his family stuff that I have read is edifying. I don't think I hold to his view of justification (whatever that is). I always use the shorter catechism answer on justification in evangelism/apologetic encouunters.

EDIT: I do make a point of reading them as to analyze their views. In other words, I usually don't go by internet reviews (whether they are good or bad) primarily. I also think--and I think this has been the bone of my contention--that one ought to go the source (ad fontes) rather than a critic first. 

That being said, I have serious disagreements with what some of the FV are saying; but out of charity to them I read their books so when I debate them in person I won't be embarrassed or ask the wrong questions. 

[Edited on 8--3-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > They read the things that are written about Wilson, and nobody is allowed to offer another perspective.
> ...



Isn't it now a rule that posters may not defend Wilson?


----------



## Peter (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> Let's be careful to be charitable to our "departed" brother, Craig. He is not here to defend himself. (Not saying that anyone is doing this.) Perhaps we should change the subject...
> 
> By the way, kudos to Dr. McMahon for linking to such an article. It takes a big man to point people to writings that paint one's own in an unfavorable light. (I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically)



My conscience has pricked me a little about this, but Craigs account is still active and appearently he follows the board and he has friends on the board, so if I have said anything false about him (and I dont believe I have) he or they may correct me and I will apologize.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

The link is dead; possibly, Craig pulled the plug.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...




Unfortunately, yes.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

More from OpenAirBoy:

http://www.theareopagus.com/blog


----------



## Peter (Aug 3, 2005)

For consideration, PB RULES


#6. Remember that this is a Reformed Discussion Group. The Puritanboard uses volunteer moderators as leadership to facilitate general order and guide the Reformed discussions that they may be exhortative as well as educational to the Reformed Christian. Many of the moderators and affiliates on Puritanboard are actively involved in Pastoring churches; the others being involved in various ministerial capacities at their respective local churches. The board and owners feel that order originates with God. Moderators follow Reformed principles and convictions, and we have openly allowed using the Reformed Confessions as a starting principle by which any moderator or member must abide by. The order that the moderators help facilitate is to be aligned with their statements of faith (comprised in the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Canons of Dordt, The Belgian Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689)

#7. The Puritanboard is subject to Christ´s church.
The Puritanboard is owned by two Presbyterians, and those Presbyterians are subject to their local session. However, because the Puritanboard is moderated by both Presbyterians and Baptists, we endeavor to live in some level of harmony in edification and fellowship. Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to its standards in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard. Some of our moderators are Baptist and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Others hold to the Three Forms of Unity. Those who desire to join the Puritanboard must embrace an historic confession. All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, The Chalcedonian Creed, etc. However, one must hold to an orthodox confession of the church. This does not mean that the owners of the Puritanboard and the moderators see these confessions as the "œWord of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are documents that sufficiently comprise personal beliefs based on exegetical work taken from the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "œCan two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The owners of the Puritanboard believe the Westminster Confession of Faith to comprise the most accurate systematization of the Word of God. Some of our moderators believe the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith to do the same, and there is disagreement on certain points, though in love. The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> For consideration, PB RULES
> 
> 
> ...




How does this post relate to this thread?


----------



## Peter (Aug 3, 2005)

some ppl on the thread have been grumbling that its not fair that they're not allowed to defend D.Wilson. The PB has committed itself to the historic creeds of the Reformed faith, which the owners believe Wilson has departed from.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

If someone publically blogs, I have no problem wuoting them here in the board. What we do not want to have happen is to quote people from other boards because it is a community that is not necessarily a "published article."


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> some ppl on the thread have been grumbling that its not fair that they're not allowed to defend D.Wilson. The PB has committed itself to the historic creeds of the Reformed faith, which the owners believe Wilson has departed from.



I've been grumbling too. But I'm aware of what you said above, and I don't want to be banned from posting on here. The edification I've received on this board has been phenominal, so I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I guess you just have to take the good with the bad.


----------



## Goosha (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The link is dead; possibly, Craig pulled the plug.



No, Craig doesn't know what exactly is wrong (to my knowledge) but he hopes for the blog to get back up on its feet...he also hopes to continue going through Matt's article....

By the way, Craig and I have talked about this on many occasions and both of us agree that we are not frustrated with people disagreeing with Wilson as much as we are frustrated with folks not representing Wilson accurately. God requires us to represent our opponents honestly and accurately. 

We have both experienced several folks down here in florida speak of things of which they know not of. One gentleman told me that he knew everything there is to know about Wilson and made the most basic misrepresentation namely, that he was excommunicated from RPCUS (i.e. Joe Morecraft's denomination). This isn't true and the person I spoke with continued on with several basic mistakes about Wilson's situation. I was so frustrated that I actually called Wilson's church to ask someone personally on several of this person's points. They turned out to be false.

I don't wish to be removed from this board so let me be clear that I am not defending Doug Wilson!

I just want you to know that Craig's concern is not to justify Wilson's beliefs. His concern is for Christians to represent Wilson accurately.

We need to remember that slander is as much a sin as heresy.

cordially,

Jayson


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Goosha_
> God requires us to represent our opponents honestly and accurately.
> 
> <snip>
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > They read the things that are written about Wilson, and nobody is allowed to offer another perspective.
> ...



So was Craig banned for defending Wilson or was he told not to defend or offer another perspective? I am not up to date. He did u2u me about a week ago concerning EP.

[Edited on 8-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## daveb (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> More from OpenAirBoy:
> 
> http://www.theareopagus.com/blog



I've been quoted from PB board on the blog. 

I said: 



> In a recent WHI broadcast it was clear Wilson does not subscribe to either the WCF or the 3 forms



Here's what Wilson says:



> I currently subscribe to the Reformed Evangelical Confession. But Christ Church is in the process of adopting a Book of Confessions, which includes the 39 Articles, the Three Forms, and the original Westminster Confession of Faith. I have not yet subscribed to the Westminster Confession...



Wilson currently does not subscribe to the 3 Forms or WCF, just as I mentioned. He may be in process of adopting the 3 Forms or the WCF but he has not done so yet.

I said:



> (As far as I know the difference was justification, there may be other things)



All this means is that to my understanding there may be a difference on justification. Justification was what the WHI program centered on, this is what the debate has been around.

In that thread it was mentioned that there might be "other things" like paedocommunion. I acknowledged that.



> When a person claims to be Reformed but will not subscribe to a Reformed confession we have reason to be suspect.



I'm taking the WCF and 3 Forms as the classic Reformed confesssions. I do not know about the "Reformed Evangelical Confession".

Have I misrepresented Wilson with what I said? If you think so please let me know.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 3, 2005)

Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord:

I am no fan of Douglas Wilson. Even if he is entirely orthodox I don't think he has helped his cause or that of the Reformed churches at all. If you want to read about historic, confessional Reformed theology, just go read Calvin, Turretin, Berkhof etc. The Reformed world does not need Douglas Wilson. And if he could make some helpful contribution then so be it. But I haven't seen that to be the case...

One thing does concern me: we as Presbyterian and Reformed trust in the courts of our churches to do the job they were designed to do. Let's leave this matter up to them! I am not saying we shouldn't talk about it or discuss it here. But, as the saying goes, we often end up creating more heat than light. So let's be careful not to overstep our bounds as the individuals we are. 

In conjunction with that, I for one wish these FV men would repent, shut up and move on. If they want to teach what they believe then they should go to their consistories/sessions and make an appeal to their higher assembilies. Otherwise, please leave the rest of us alone because we are taking a lot of criticism and attacks simply by defending the truth in our own churches and it is costing us dearly. 

[Edited on 8-3-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Matthew French (Aug 3, 2005)

I have only posted here a few times, so maybe I've missed something...
When I read above that it was against the PB rules to defend Douglas Wilson I assumed that this was being said sarcastically. Then I continued down the thread and began to wonder. Is it really against the PB rules to defend Douglas Wilson? If so, am I to assume that it is within the rules to criticize Douglas Wilson? This is ludicrous!

You may disagree with things that Wilson has said or written but if you spend any amount of time reading his blog you will have trouble calling him a heretic. He posts some very edifying things on a daily basis. He's persecuted enough by haters of Jesus Christ. Those who love the Lord should stand up and defend him when he's right.

There... that's my defense of Douglas Wilson. If this is against the rules then I'll happily move on and and leave you all in your ghetto.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

Matt,
Why would you call PB a ghetto?


----------



## Matthew French (Aug 3, 2005)

Again, maybe I've misunderstood. Maybe it is OK to defend this particular brother in Christ.

Secondly, if it is unacceptable to the owners and moderators to defend Mr. Wilson, then I respect their right to set rules and I'll obey those rules by not posting at all. I know, not a big loss since I've contributed very little, anyway.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

That still does not answer why you would call the board a ghetto?


----------



## Matthew French (Aug 3, 2005)

Scott,

From Merriam-Webster:
3 a : an isolated group b : a situation that resembles a ghetto especially in conferring inferior status or limiting opportunity


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

Matthew,
Thank you for the Websters version, however, this board is a _ghetto_ in more ways than what you described then as we limit participation to creedal Christians as well.


----------



## Matthew French (Aug 3, 2005)

Dear Scott,

I'm reading between lines here. What is the rule? I've tried to find a rule on this but have had no success. All I see are general board rules which don't address anything specific.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2005)

I would like to see another personal, professional debate between a proponent of the FV and an opponent of it, similar to the Wilson/White debate. The FV complains of being misunderstood, very well, what better way to clear up the confusion than in public. The opponents of the FV would be given a good chance to lower their guns and silence it forever. What better way than a public debate.

The Wilson/White debate, while intereseting and helpful on a few issues, didn't really solve anything because it was more of a credo/paedo debate.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I would like to see another personal, professional debate between a proponent of the FV and an opponent of it, similar to the Wilson/White debate. The FV complains of being misunderstood, very well, what better way to clear up the confusion than in public. The opponents of the FV would be given a good chance to lower their guns and silence it forever. What better way than a public debate.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

The Wilson/White debate was on the subject of whether Romes baptism is a valid baptism, and in my opinion, not even a debate; James did not know what to make of Wilsons' covenant expertise; he just did not know what to make of it. The whole discussion muttled down to almost mumbling.......

The PCA is dealing with this issue; the issue is a church issue; open debate would not be prudent at this time. It is official so should be dealth with as such until the time it is deemed appropriate.

Again, like I have said before on numerous occasions, the FV camps seems to go to the 'you don't understand us' position. J by F alone is not that difficult of a doctrine and the church contmeporary are unified on the terms. Why redefine it or carry it to the minutia? Doing this is what has caused the problem for the FV camp.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 3, 2005)

> In conjunction with that, I for one wish these FV men would repent, shut up and move on. If they want to teach what they believe then they should go to their consistories/sessions and make an appeal to their higher assembilies. Otherwise, please leave the rest of us alone because we are taking a lot of criticism and attacks simply by defending the truth in our own churches and it is costing us dearly.



Well said. As a dear friend of mine who is one of my mentors (and Presbyterian BTW) said yesterday, 'These are good men who have gone off the deep end in soteriology. I wish they would just go ahead and say, "We are Calvinists, but we really like some of what Rome says and does." ' 

In saying that he is not calling the Papists, but is pointing to the eventualy destination of the predominant FV line of thinking. It is a shame what is happening with those men.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 3, 2005)

I think the Colloquium down at Knox will be the last comprehensive debate. If you haven't read Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons, you should. I believe that book answers just about everything you would want to know from both sides. Plus these guys are very understandable.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Aug 3, 2005)

Jewish Reformed Mother here: 

The word ghetto is a YIDDISH word. It means ENCLAVE. The word has been hijacked.

So I guess we are all here in our Puritan ENCLAVE.

Think: Warsaw Ghettos WWII Poland.........


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I think the Colloquium down at Knox will be the last comprehensive debate. If you haven't read Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons, you should. I believe that book answers just about everything you would want to know from both sides. Plus these guys are very understandable.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew French_
> Dear Scott,
> 
> I'm reading between lines here. What is the rule? I've tried to find a rule on this but have had no success. All I see are general board rules which don't address anything specific.



Matthew,

The Apostle Paul said that Hymaneus and Philetus had shipwrecked their faith because they taught 1 thing incorrectly, and that was the resurrection of our bodies. They taught a form of preterism. Now they could have been orthodox all across the board, but in this area, Paul says they are teaching false doctrine and heresy and hands them over to Satan.

Now, help me understand, if Wilson is propagating in his published works a deviant form of justification by faith, would the Apostle Paul hang out in the ghetto or not?


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 3, 2005)

An apostle in the 'hood? I don't think so.


----------



## Matthew French (Aug 3, 2005)

Dr. McMahon,

Who says it's deviant? Give this some time and let the church deal with it. A group of people on an internet board don't get to decide what's heresy. I'm not saying that I agree with the FV, I'm just saying that it strikes me as ridiculous to have a rule against speaking positively about anyone. Again, maybe I've misunderstood the rule but so far nobody will answer my question.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew French_
> Dr. McMahon,
> 
> Who says it's deviant? Give this some time and let the church deal with it. A group of people on an internet board don't get to decide what's heresy. I'm not saying that I agree with the FV, I'm just saying that it strikes me as ridiculous to have a rule against speaking positively about anyone. Again, maybe I've misunderstood the rule but so far nobody will answer my question.



 

I hope I don't get in trouble for agreeing with you, Matthew.

(I can abide by the current PB rule, but I don't have to agree with the current PB rule.)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

> Who says it's deviant?



Officially, I'm not allowed to say, and I'm not allowed to say why I can't say.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2005)

Closed

(Not because of your post Paul....it's just done; nothing more to add)


----------

