# A Few Reasons Why Doug Wilson Needs to be Avoided



## JOwen

Someone, I can't recall who, asked for some quotes from Wilson himself regarding his erroneous teachings. I forgot I had these...

*Doug Wilson Quotes From the Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference.*

“The church today has adopted a number of assumptions that are diametrically opposed to what the word of God teaches. Now when we recognize that we have met the enemy, and he is us. This means that in Christian circles, in evangelical circles and particularly in reformed circles, we have to stop confessing our sins and start confessing our virtues. The things that we thought were our strengths are the things that have been dogging us for a long, long time, for a number of centuries. For 350 years in this country, we have been getting some of the fundamental issues with regard to the word of God, and the covenant, and the gospel, and what is a Christian, we have been getting them wrong” (page 20, line 23-28. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“When we say that all of God’s word is perfect, converting the soul. When we don’t divide it up into law and gospel, when we don’t say law over here, gospel over there, when we say it’s all gospel, it’s all law, it’s all good” (page 21, line 29,30. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“We say, for example, well we want to make sure this kid really understands the Lord’s Supper before he partakes. Oh, like you really understand it? Who understands it, who fully understands the Lord’s Supper, raise your hand, I dare you. Little Johnny, you grow up big and strong and after you have grown up big and strong, then we will give you some food. And then, of course, he keels over. He dies of starvation, wonders off, apostatizes and then we say, “oh, see? He died of starvation. It’s a good thing we didn’t give him any food. He died.” He died because you weren’t feed him” (page 22, line 12-17. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“The Bible says, we say basically, well before you can come to the Lord’s table, you’ve got to, you’ve got to be like an adult. Jesus says before you come to the kingdom of God, you adults have got be like a child. Jesus says, you adults, you’ve got to work on being more childlike and we say, you children have got to be working on becoming more adult like. And what’s more, you reformed people say that the gold sanctifies the alter. Well, no, no, we don’t say that last one. Well, why not, go ahead, why stop where you stop. God says this, we turn it on its head, upside down, backward. We couldn’t get it more entirely wrong. And then we say, well, this is our tradition, we just want to protect the purity of the faith and. That’s not how you protect the purity of the covenant people of God. You don’t protect the purity of the covenant by starving covenant members” (page 22, line 18-27. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“Wisdom is vindicated by her children", Jesus says. Well we have to understand is that Jesus said, whoever stumbles one of these little ones, it would be better for him to tie a millstone around his neck and have him be thrown into the sea. And we in the reformed tradition, I am talking specifically the American reformed tradition, we have 350 years of “millstone ‘r us.” Well, that’s how we think. Well, some kids stumble, some kids stumble, that’s a shame, that’s a shame, it’s a shame when kids stumble, but we have to preserve the purity of the table. Who put you in charge of it? Who told you it was your table? The Lord is the head to the table and he defends it quite nicely (page 22, line 28-32, page 23, line 1-3. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“If we abandon the Hellenistic ontological division between invisible and visible and adopted a more Hebraic biblical way of thinking and toppled the whole thing on its side, the invisible church is the eschatological church and the visible church is the historical church. Now notice what this does, if I topple the whole thing on its side and it is now in history, the eschatological church is now the historical church and it is at the culmination of history, all right, and the visible church is that same church at an earlier point in time. You don’t create the question which of these two churches is the true church” (page 28, line 8-13. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“All right, there are questions that reformed exegetes have been dishonest with and perseverance of the saints is one of the prime areas where we say these are hypothetical warnings and they are plainly in the text very, very real warnings” (page 34, line 27-30. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“The true church is the church in history, the gathered throng of all professing households assembled in covenant around the word in Christ’s sacraments whether they understand that or not. Okay, they are not saved by works, they are not saved by passing a test. They are saved because of their connection to Christ and if they have that connection to Christ, they’re saved” (page 36, line 3-6. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).

“If you adopt some of the things that were adopted in the seventeenth century about visible and invisible church, if you adopt some of the thinking about election, you have to go in this Reformed Baptist direction. And this Reformed Baptist assumption is the assumption that those who fall away from the covenant were never really members of it” (page 104, line 23-27. Doug Wilson: Doug Wilson: Curses of the New Covenant Tape 7).


----------



## Sven

Doug Wilson is certainly not the best theologian ever to grace the Church. There are a good deal more quotes that could be provided that give evidence of his questionable theology. However, I wouldn't quite say avoid him altogether. I have read some of his stuff on marriage which is quite good.


----------



## Peairtach

_“If you adopt some of the things that were adopted in the seventeenth century about visible and invisible church, if you adopt some of the thinking about election, you have to go in this Reformed Baptist direction. And this Reformed Baptist assumption is the assumption that those who fall away from the covenant were never really members of it” (page 104, line 23-27. Doug Wilson: Doug Wilson: Curses of the New Covenant Tape 7). _

This stuff that the FV advocates go on about is quite easily resolved if its pointed out to people that they can be in the covenant in one sense and not of the covenant in another sense or vice versa. 

And this is taught throughout the Bible; weren't the wicked Israelites and Jews that the prophets and Christ condemned not in the covenant in one sense and not of the covenant in another sense? Weren't they chosen in the sense that God had put them among the Jewish people and not elect in the sense that they did not show they were God's true people? Clear distinctions have to be made between different aspects and senses.

If Federal Visionists are trying to be or are accidentally confusing in these matters they are a grave danger to the church - particularly conservative evangelical and Reformed presbyterianism. The Devil is the author of confusion.


----------



## Sven

That last line about adopting some of the 17th century things about the visible/invisible church and going in a reformed baptist direction is quite ridiculous. It wasn't Reformed Baptists who were making these distinctions; it was the Reformed themselves, and they weren't going in any Reformed Baptist direction, and we still aren't. Silly Douglas, rhetoric is for people who can't use logic.


----------



## TimV

Great work, Pastor L.


----------



## Scott1

One thing to consider here is that while Mr. Wilson is right on some things, he is wrong especially in the context of the federal vision as a whole. Don't forget, he co-authored the book _The Federal Vision_ which as a whole confuses or denies justification, imputation, the visible/invisible church distinction, sanctification, union with Christ, emphasizes paedocommunion... all sorts of views we would say are not confessional or are unorthodox.

The other part is that he is a leader of this errant theology and defends and gives place to others who are more errant than he is.

Biblically, to whom much is given, much is required. (Scripture) teachers will be judged by a higher standard. Whether he has intended it or not, he has promoted schism and disrespected church authority (discipline).

We don't consider individual statements or positions at a given time in a vacuum.


----------



## Craig

It was me that requested someone ante up with some Wilson quotes...in none of those quotes did Wilson actually postulate a false gospel...were some of his assertions wrong? Yes. Another gospel? No.

To my mind, some of what Wilson says is a "corrective" to the way we do Church...so I take his words as pastoral rather than attempting to be theologically precise...sometimes what he says is an over-reaction rather than a corrective. By the same token, when people insist Wilson preaches another gospel, they haven't corrected Doug Wilson: They have also over-reacted.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> “When we say that all of God’s word is perfect, converting the soul. When we don’t divide it up into law and gospel, when we don’t say law over here, gospel over there, when we say it’s all gospel, it’s all law, it’s all good” (page 21, line 29,30. Doug Wilson: Visible and Invisible Church Revisited Tape 2).



This is very disturbing. It's all gospel? It's all law? He and St. Paul are not in agreement if this is taken or being understood in the correct context. And seeing how he views the Covenant of Works, I would have to assume that I am understanding his context.


----------



## Iconoclast

Craig, those quotes came from one of the conference messages. It was even more disturbing to listen to the actual presentation. There were worse things taught and said in His messages,and he was in agreement with the other speakers . I might have the messages saved somewhere on my computer.
While he is an educated man,and many have enjoyed some of his ideas on christian education you might want to exercise much caution here.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Craig said:


> It was me that requested someone ante up with some Wilson quotes...in none of those quotes did Wilson actually postulate a false gospel...were some of his assertions wrong? Yes. Another gospel? No.
> 
> To my mind, some of what Wilson says is a "corrective" to the way we do Church...so I take his words as pastoral rather than attempting to be theologically precise...sometimes what he says is an over-reaction rather than a corrective. By the same token, when people insist Wilson preaches another gospel, they haven't corrected Doug Wilson: They have also over-reacted.



Perhaps I was wrong in what I was seeing in his statements, but saying that a person could be saved and then lost seems like a different gospel than then one I have read in scripture.

The opening paragraph of the OP seems to have him saying that he gets what a Christian is, but nobody else does. Definition of a cult.

I'd want to see more of what he is saying to decide if he is way out there, or just moderately out there.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Can anyone illumine us to Doug Wilson's views of corporate justification and corporate regeneration?


----------



## ExGentibus

Wow, that is quite a collection of disconcerting teachings! All is law and all is Gospel?? The visible/invisible distinction is a baptist invention? No perseverance?
I agree with pastor Lewis, better avoid this kind of utter confusion unless for apologetical purposes.


----------



## Blue Tick

Where did Mr. Wilson receive his theological training?


----------



## toddpedlar

Blue Tick said:


> Where did Mr. Wilson receive his theological training?



I might be mistaken, but I am pretty sure he never went to seminary. (not that that's an automatic black mark on his record)


----------



## Sven

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can anyone illumine us to Doug Wilson's views of corporate justification and corporate regeneration?



Where is greenbaggins when you need him?


----------



## toddpedlar

Craig said:


> It was me that requested someone ante up with some Wilson quotes...in none of those quotes did Wilson actually postulate a false gospel...were some of his assertions wrong? Yes. Another gospel? No.
> 
> To my mind, some of what Wilson says is a "corrective" to the way we do Church...so I take his words as pastoral rather than attempting to be theologically precise...sometimes what he says is an over-reaction rather than a corrective. By the same token, when people insist Wilson preaches another gospel, they haven't corrected Doug Wilson: They have also over-reacted.



None of those quotes show that Wilson postulates a false gospel? Are you planning to limit the gospel to the words (apart from meaning) 'saved by grace alone through faith alone'? Is that sufficient for you? 

Wilson teaches that TRUE, LIVING union with Jesus Christ is conferred upon every single baptized member of the church - EVERY ONE. He embraces the FV false understanding of John 15, wherein every baptized member (whom he calls "true Christians") is in living union with Christ, having the sap of Christ (his blood) flowing in them. There is massive confusion concerning union with Christ (and thus salvation, and thus the gospel) in what Wilson promotes.... If you don't see this as a problem in his conception (and promotion) of the gospel, then I fear we have little to discuss.


----------



## Sven

toddpedlar said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was me that requested someone ante up with some Wilson quotes...in none of those quotes did Wilson actually postulate a false gospel...were some of his assertions wrong? Yes. Another gospel? No.
> 
> To my mind, some of what Wilson says is a "corrective" to the way we do Church...so I take his words as pastoral rather than attempting to be theologically precise...sometimes what he says is an over-reaction rather than a corrective. By the same token, when people insist Wilson preaches another gospel, they haven't corrected Doug Wilson: They have also over-reacted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those quotes show that Wilson postulates a false gospel? Are you planning to limit the gospel to the words (apart from meaning) 'saved by grace alone through faith alone'? Is that sufficient for you?
> 
> Wilson teaches that TRUE, LIVING union with Jesus Christ is conferred upon every single baptized member of the church - EVERY ONE. He embraces the FV false understanding of John 15, wherein every baptized member (whom he calls "true Christians") is in living union with Christ, having the sap of Christ (his blood) flowing in them. There is massive confusion concerning union with Christ (and thus salvation, and thus the gospel) in what Wilson promotes.... If you don't see this as a problem in his conception (and promotion) of the gospel, then I fear we have little to discuss.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with Todd here. Wilson has not properly distinguished between Law and Gospel. Martin Luther said that a true theologian, i.e., a theologian of the cross, is one who properly distinguishes between Law and Gospel. Wilson and others want to mix the two together. Paul couldn't be any clearer however when he said, "The Law is not of faith." Mixing Law and Gospel=another Gospel.

-----Added 6/25/2009 at 08:42:46 EST-----

I can't see how any of what Wilson says in the Federal Vision and other writings is a corrective to the Church.


----------



## cbryant

Blue Tick said:


> Where did Mr. Wilson receive his theological training?



According to his wikipedia page (take that for what its worth I suppose) he has a B.A. in Classical Studies, B.A. in Philosophy and an M.A. in Philosophy all from the University of Idaho.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I am not defending the FV approach to the problem but their form of Covenantalism is an over-reaction to a real problem that exists in many Reformed circles these days. As correctives go, men often go to the opposite extremes they come out of instead of settling into an Orthodox position.

There is a tendency to depreciate the importance of the Covenant among some Reformed to assume that nothing real is conferred in the Sacrament. There is also a bit of fatalism with respect to God electing children that doesn't deal with the real sin of neglect where parents fail to train their childrn in the way the Scriptures command.

Of course the Standards and Puritan causistry have practical theological wisdom to how the precepts (what we are commanded) work themselves together with the decree of God (what God only knows) but many Reformed get caught in the abstraction of the Invisible Kingdom forgetting that where we labor is in the Visible. 

Thus, I find the FV complaints about the Reformed Confessions to be hollow because they're always aiming their criticisms at the wrong thing - some modern expressions of Reformed theology that are variously anti-nomian or forget the injunctions in the Confessions about "improving our baptisms" and the like. They act as if the only alternative to their mono-Covenantalism is anti-nomianism and a Zwinglian view of the Sacraments.

I've said this before but I believe one of the things that made many FV proponents so recalcitrant is that they couldn't stand the idea of being lectured about the Confession from people that had huge logs in their eyes concerning the Confession. In other words, if the Scriptures tell us to raise our kids in the fear and admonition of the Lord then its hard to receive criticism from a fellow who thinks that any third use of the Law violates his exclusive "BT-only" rule that you should never enjoin from the Word but only exhort about what Christ has done. The attitude might be: "Well, I might be doing too much but I'd rather err on the side of thinking too much about where my kids stand in the Covenant than not at all...." As with so many apparently "Either-Or" choices, the solution was not either or but the Confessional understanding all along, which neither group is faithful to.


----------



## Craig

Rich,

I think you nailed things pretty well. I do think FV (overall) is heterodox and a number of the proponents are preaching a false gospel.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can anyone illumine us to Doug Wilson's views of corporate justification and corporate regeneration?



I think Wilson tries to sound sticky on this...I believe he is trying to be "corrective" by saying things that sound equivocal. He believes in personal regeneration (which is what we all on the PB affirm)...in regard to corporate regeneration, I don't believe he means "regeneration" in the same sense as actually being "born again". There are promises with *real meaning* and *curses with real meaning* attached to being a member of the visible body. In the end, I came to understand that Wilson rejects the notion of the visible/invisible church but really ends up affirming it *while also* affirming the covenantal "strings" attached to professing faith, being baptized, and being numbered with the Church.

-----Added 6/25/2009 at 09:58:57 EST-----



ExGentibus said:


> Wow, that is quite a collection of disconcerting teachings! All is law and all is Gospel?? The visible/invisible distinction is a baptist invention? No perseverance?



As I noted before, Wilson ends up affirming the visible/invisible Church...those that "fall away" are part of the visible church only...which has *real* covenantal strings attached b/c they've failed to live up to a faith they professed to be real.

As far as "all law being gospel"...there are promises attached to the Law. It is not all "curse", otherwise we'd have no third use of the Law nor would it make sense that David found it renewing to meditate upon it.

Wilson is opposing a distinctively Lutheran view of the Law/Gospel divide...a view that sees only division and no unity. So yes, Law is also Gospel just not in the same sense...again, I think Wilson speaks pastorally and not with theological precision. It sounds equivocal, but who doesn't do this at times when he preaches? Especially if he is trying to preach a corrective.


----------



## toddpedlar

Craig said:


> As I noted before, Wilson ends up affirming the visible/invisible Church...those that "fall away" are part of the visible church only...which has *real* covenantal strings attached b/c they've failed to live up to a faith they professed to be real.



But what he ALSO says is that those who fell away had real, living, vital UNION with Christ.

What of that? Is that not a gross perversion of Gospel truth?


----------



## Peairtach

The way to deal with this is to take on board anything that's Biblical and then make clear distinctions.

Fair enough Israel was elect/chosen in some sense. They were chosen to grow up under the sound of the Gospel, which is a great privilege. But we know that individuals weren't deemed elect unto salvation until they "brought forth fruit unto salvation". 

(The idea that God intended that people automatically assume that they were justified merely because they were in the Covenant and had managed to keep their noses relatively clean is ridiculous. Clearly by the first century, Pharisees like Saul thought that, but he was caught out by the fact that even if you keep your nose clean and stay free from "big" outward sins, you still have deep down sins like covetousness that have to be washed away. Covenantal nomism is good - no-one wants scandal and discipline problems in the church - but it's not good enough to justify you.)

The same goes for Covenant children today; they are chosen by God to have special priviledges, promises and responsibilities. But we can't say any individual child is elect unto salvation until we see the fruits.

God told the Israelites that it was not enough that they were circumcised outwardly and they needed circumcision of the heart. In like manner today's Covenant children should be reminded that it is not enough to be baptised with water; it is but a token to remind them that they need to be baptised in the Spirit/regenerated/hearts washed in Jesus' blood. See e.g. the Larger Catechism Q on ''improving'' your baptism.

This wouldn't be enough for the Visionistas, but it takes the Covenant seriously without being dangerously confusing.


----------



## greenbaggins

The problem with Wilson, in my opinion, is not so much what he affirms, although there are problems there, but what he is unwilling to deny, that's the problem. I once told someone (and got blasted to Mars because of it) that I thought Wilson was orthodox on justification by faith alone, but that I would not ordain him in my Presbytery. 

On the issue of union with Christ, he does go too far in interpreting John 15 in the FV sense, but he does not go near as far as, say, Wilkins does. For instance, recently (and the chronology is important for someone like Wilson) he said that those who "fall away" were never regenerated in the Westminsterian sense. What is confusing here is that he sometimes uses regeneration to refer to the entire redemptive-historical new epoch, as he claims is in use in Matthew 19:28. We need to be very careful about which views we impute to Wilson, and which views he merely tolerates among his fellow FV'ers. 

Wilson never had any formal theological training. As a result, he has grown on some of these issues. For instance, he used to think that the visible/invisible church distinction was a load of rubbish, and he used to speak of tipping that distinction over on its side and making it into the historical/eschatological distinction (he said this both in the AAPC lectures, and in RINE). However, recently, he admitted that the v/i distinction is not only distinct from the h/e distinction, but that both distinctions are biblical. 

You have to understand also the historical context for Wilson. He is quite the poster boy for the FV. Since he is a "pale ale," he is constantly making this move to say "Well, I'm orthodox, so what's your problem with Wilkins?" And yet, as soon as one makes a blanket statement about all FV belief, he quickly notes that FV'ers don't agree on everything. I've lost count of the number of times he has pulled that one off.


----------



## Romans922

Sven said:


> That last line about adopting some of the 17th century things about the visible/invisible church and going in a reformed baptist direction is quite ridiculous. It wasn't Reformed Baptists who were making these distinctions; it was the Reformed themselves, and they weren't going in any Reformed Baptist direction, and we still aren't. Silly Douglas, rhetoric is for people who can't use logic.



Someone should send this quote of Doug Wilson's to John Piper and see if he really wants him at his conference then.


----------



## Theognome

Romans922 said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last line about adopting some of the 17th century things about the visible/invisible church and going in a reformed baptist direction is quite ridiculous. It wasn't Reformed Baptists who were making these distinctions; it was the Reformed themselves, and they weren't going in any Reformed Baptist direction, and we still aren't. Silly Douglas, rhetoric is for people who can't use logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should send this quote of Doug Wilson's to John Piper and see if he really wants him at his conference then.
Click to expand...


Would that really work? Sven said that rhetoric is _*for*_ people who can't use logic...

Theognome


----------



## Craig

greenbaggins said:


> The problem with Wilson, in my opinion, is not so much what he affirms, although there are problems there, but what he is unwilling to deny, that's the problem. I once told someone (and got blasted to Mars because of it) that I thought Wilson was orthodox on justification by faith alone, but that I would not ordain him in my Presbytery.



That sets what's really at issue *clearly*. 

I'd rather if people are going to talk about Wilson's dangers that they talk about what is unbiblical about him...paedocommunion, for example (and that goes hand in hand with what he will not deny).

He clearly affirms the gospel, it's the other quirky things that may push people along a slippery slope if they don't read him with care.


----------



## JTDyck

Craig said:


> He clearly affirms the gospel, it's the other quirky things that may push people along a slippery slope if they don't read him with care.



I agree that Doug Wilson often speaks as a corrective. But that is not the work of a preacher. We are commanded to declare the truth, not to act as a "corrective". That is the work of the Holy Spirit. He will correct according to His sovereign purpose when He applies the preaching of the Word to the hearts of His own sheep.

And if Wilson does not speak or write with care, then why should I bother to take the time to read him with care?


----------



## Craig

JTDyck said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> He clearly affirms the gospel, it's the other quirky things that may push people along a slippery slope if they don't read him with care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Doug Wilson often speaks as a corrective. But that is not the work of a preacher. We are commanded to declare the truth, not to act as a "corrective". That is the work of the Holy Spirit. He will correct according to His sovereign purpose when He applies the preaching of the Word to the hearts of His own sheep.
> 
> And if Wilson does not speak or write with care, then why should I bother to take the time to read him with care?
Click to expand...


Speaking correctively is the role of a pastor if he is also an effective preacher. The Apostles didn't always speak "clearly" (you know, using precise theological terminology). As an example, consider the word "salvation" was used to convey a number of different things: justification, echatologically, sanctification, etc.

So I wonder if the role of a pastor is to speak the language of academic/systematic theology, or to address the idols of our day...which includes neat theological frameworks that have no room for the grace of law nor the real promises and threats to those unfaithful to the covenant that are part of the visible Church.


----------



## jogri17

Craig said:


> JTDyck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> He clearly affirms the gospel, it's the other quirky things that may push people along a slippery slope if they don't read him with care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Doug Wilson often speaks as a corrective. But that is not the work of a preacher. We are commanded to declare the truth, not to act as a "corrective". That is the work of the Holy Spirit. He will correct according to His sovereign purpose when He applies the preaching of the Word to the hearts of His own sheep.
> 
> And if Wilson does not speak or write with care, then why should I bother to take the time to read him with care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking correctively is the role of a pastor if he is also an effective preacher. The Apostles didn't always speak "clearly" (you know, using precise theological terminology). As an example, consider the word "salvation" was used to convey a number of different things: justification, echatologically, sanctification, etc.
> 
> So I wonder if the role of a pastor is to speak the language of academic/systematic theology, or to address the idols of our day...which includes neat theological frameworks that have no room for the grace of law nor the real promises and threats to those unfaithful to the covenant that are part of the visible Church.
Click to expand...


With all due respect sir I believe you are wrong. Of course the Bible doesn't use the language of 21st century reformed theology. You do not expect it too, heck Calvin doesn't even use the same terminology as modern day calvinists and confessionally reformed persons. In in a hundred years from now Reformed terminology will be different. Thats the beauty of language. The Bible is 100% consistant in its theology but because of the human nature of scripture (a divine authorship also YES, but God using humans with their unique experiences). When we discuss the bible text itself we should not use systematic theological language however when he discuss the biblical text and what it teaches that is the where systematic theology kicks in and helps us explain the entireity of the message.


----------



## JTDyck

Craig said:


> Speaking correctively is the role of a pastor if he is also an effective preacher. The Apostles didn't always speak "clearly" (you know, using precise theological terminology). As an example, consider the word "salvation" was used to convey a number of different things: justification, echatologically, sanctification, etc.



I have heard similar statements from Doug Wilson and that is where a great deal of my concern arises. Actually, the Word of God always speaks clearly. It is unequivocal. In each place where the Bible uses the word "salvation" God meant to say one thing about it. He never intended for us to express our personal opinions about it or to make it doubtful. 



Craig said:


> So I wonder if the role of a pastor is to speak the language of academic/systematic theology, or to address the idols of our day...which includes neat theological frameworks that have no room for the grace of law nor the real promises and threats to those unfaithful to the covenant that are part of the visible Church.



It is important for God's people to know the language of systematic theology. That is one of the great lessons of the Athanasian Creed where the use of a non-Biblical theological word, homoousios, was used to distinguish truth from error. Arians can not sign on to that creed and one of their arguments is that it uses a word that is not in the Bible. Theological words and definitions clarify. When the truth is clearly declared it cannot fail to address the idols of our day. A great deal of heresy can be spread by only using Bible verses, but ignoring their context.

So, for instance, just because the term "born again" has been abused by bad preaching and even popular preachers, it does not mean that we should no longer use it. But it may call for more frequent and precise definition.

All this must be done from the heart - not to raise eyebrows, but to convict the sinner of the truth of God's Word and his need for repentance.


----------



## Peairtach

Covenantal nomism should be renamed covenantal nose-ism, since it seems it was all about keeping your covenantal nose clean.  Meanwhile less obvious areas were less than clean , as Saul discovered   , thus precluding self justification.


----------



## Scott1

> *JTDyck*
> It is important for God's people to know the language of systematic theology. That is one of the great lessons of the Athanasian Creed where the use of a non-Biblical theological word, homoousios, was used to distinguish truth from error. Arians can not sign on to that creed and one of their arguments is that it uses a word that is not in the Bible. Theological words and definitions clarify. When the truth is clearly declared it cannot fail to address the idols of our day. A great deal of heresy can be spread by only using Bible verses, but ignoring their context.



Well said.

This is why in a confessional church, it is important to understand and obey one's confession and one's constitution. Whether it is the Westminster Standards or the Book of Church Order, terms are carefully chosen, and they have meaning- that's why there are vows to uphold them.


----------



## Craig

I never said systematic theology should be absent from the pulpit...I never even implied that. I could counter back:

"Do you *only* speak the language of systematic theology when you preach?"

Obviously that question is asinine, as was the implication that I meant systematics should be absent. It's not the *primary* goal of a pastor to preach systematics...and yes, a good preacher will say things in ways that will grate his congregation when it's necessary...though I could be wrong...Paul encouraging men to circumcise their whole manhood off may have not been grating at all...nothing inflammatory about that  So when people say:



JTDyck said:


> All this must be done from the heart - not to raise eyebrows, but to convict the sinner of the truth of God's Word and his need for repentance.



That doesn't seem to fit completely with Biblical precedence. Of course, you are correct in *one sense*, but Wilson is addressing errors within the Reformed world that we like to ignore...un-confessional innovations borne from an emphasis on TULIP to the exclusion of other Reformed particulars that make one Reformed.


----------



## greenbaggins

Craig, John never said that your position totally excluded ST from the pulpit. At the most what he said was that you are de-emphasizing it. You are reading into his statement. Furthermore, calling that implication asinine is more than a bit over the top rhetorically. Consider this a warning.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Craig said:


> JTDyck said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this must be done from the heart - not to raise eyebrows, but to convict the sinner of the truth of God's Word and his need for repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't seem to fit completely with Biblical precedence. Of course, you are correct in *one sense*, but Wilson is addressing errors within the Reformed world that we like to ignore...un-confessional innovations borne from an emphasis on TULIP to the exclusion of other Reformed particulars that make one Reformed.
Click to expand...


Not trying to pile on here, but Craig, how does what Pastor Dyck said NOT fit with biblical precedence?


----------



## Craig

greenbaggins said:


> Craig, John never said that your position totally excluded ST from the pulpit. At the most what he said was that you are de-emphasizing it. You are reading into his statement. Furthermore, calling that implication asinine is more than a bit over the top rhetorically. Consider this a warning.



You are correct, I used too strong of a word...I thought asinine was synonomous with "ridiculous", but it isn't. It was not my intention to say he was a fool, so John: I apologize if I offended you.

However, Pastor Keister...I say the following with seriousness and no intention of being a pest. I thank you for pointing out how I wasn't careful in what I said to John...may I make a humble request? After reading a number of comments across the PB saying Doug Wilson preaches another gospel...which is not true, and you agree that it isn't true...with keeping an eye toward the PB's emphasis on the 9th commandment, would the moderators make a public notice concerning Doug Wilson that if Christian men are going to be scrutinized, criticized, etc., that it be done without malice nor deceit? I am at a loss as to why what the Apostles would likely consider libel is tolerated among God's people (consider that Paul was accused of preaching an incorrect doctrine...he described such assertions as "slander"). I think this would be especially fitting as Pastor Wilson is not popular on the PB and has become a bit of a whipping-boy.

Back to the thread, now:
Even if John was trying to say I was "De-emphasizing" the role of ST...I have no CLUE what he could base this on as this is what I said:


> So I wonder if the role of a pastor is to speak the language of academic/systematic theology, or to address the idols of our day



I simply stated that isn't the goal of preaching. Truth be told, I wasn't even limiting the role of preaching to tearing down idols, rather, if one were to be weightier in preaching it is the latter rather than the former.

I stand by this assessment as well. Jesus could have clarified things if He hadn't been so "grating" as this:


> John 6:53-56
> 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.



So if a pastor follows the example of Christ, there is precedent for purposefully saying things in a way that grates against familiarity...essentially to be confusing. These are words Christ speaks to His covenant people. He didn't break down the analogy of his body to bread...he actually made it far more "disturbing" to Jewish ears.

So I think this answers your question, Mason, when you asked:


> how does what Pastor Dyck said NOT fit with biblical precedence?



It isn't that Pastor Dyck has zero precedence for the sort of preaching he laid down, it's that the rule he laid down doesn't have room for a fuller orbed preaching...essentially, I'm saying he's not systematic enough in his theology for preaching. Truth be told, perhaps he's not emphasizing ST as much as the principle I'm suggesting promotes


----------



## greenbaggins

Thanks, Craig, for your words. I do hope that dials down the rhetoric some. 

It is not nearly as simple, however, as making a declaration. There are many people (including mods and admins!) who *do* think that Douglas Wilson teaches another gospel, not least because of the law/gospel problems in his thinking. I do not think that they would be willing to allow the PB to take a stand one way or the other. Being very careful of Doug's reputation, however, is something salutary, as well as being very careful only to speak the truth about what Doug Wilson is actually saying. That being said, one cannot run roughshod over people's understandings, nor is it helpful to be impatient with such as are of a different understanding. The truth will come out in the end, I believe, if we are all patient enough to work towards it, and humble enough to admit that we could be wrong.


----------



## JTDyck

Craig,

I am grateful for your apology. I do try to read these discussions dispassionately, but do find at times that certain topics such as this arouse passions that can move me to say things that I regret or at least the way that I have said them. 

I don't think I "laid down a rule" about preaching. I simply stated the importance and significance of the role of ST in preaching. 

I agree that Jesus' words often appear enigmatic, even to His disciples, but that is because sin clouds our understanding. Notice the number of times the disciples come to Him and ask Him to clarify or explain. He does this for them, sometimes even with a rebuke as with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. But He is always patient to work knowledge and understanding in all those who ask. Admitting to Him that we are ignorant and asking for explanation and guidance is the beginning of wisdom. 

So, I strongly disagree that Christ appears to be 


> purposefully saying things in a way that grates against familiarity...essentially to be confusing


Yes, he often says things in a way that grates against familiarity. We need to be jarred out of our lethargy sometimes. However, when it comes to His own covenant people he never sets out to confuse us. He does it to

1. to draw out His elect, so that we will ask Him to explain


> And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matt 13:10-12



2. to keep out the reprobate, who do not care to have spiritual things clarified


> Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Matt 13:13-15)



It is a dangerous thing for a preacher to intentionally make confusing statements. For one thing, he places himself on a par with Christ. But he also wittingly or unwittingly creates a group of followers that glory in the enigmatic. They end up in a sort of gnosticism, having men's persons in admiration, saying "there sure are a lot of people who don't understand our pastor, but I'm glad that I don't have that problem. He and I understand each other; we are on the same wavelength."

So while even the writings of Paul can be described Scripturally as "hard to be understood", it is also true that Paul sees himself only as an ambassador. We can only deliver the message that our King has sent us with. We are not at liberty to add to, or take away from, that message. Nor can we express personal opinions about what that message is. 

Craig, I have perhaps wandered off the topic a bit here. I did not necessarily have Doug Wilson in mind in everything I have written. I am trying to deal in principles that emphasize clarity in the preaching of the Word. Francis Schaeffer once pointed out that you can read pages and pages of Karl Barth and have no idea about what he is saying, but you can pick up Calvin's _Institutes_ and read one paragraph anywhere and always know exactly what he is talking about. You may not agree with him, but you know what he said. This is the clarity that I am contending for. May the Lord make us Calvins in this respect when we preach the Word!


----------



## Craig

Pastor Dyck,
I am probably more in agreement with you than you may realize...I don't think being enigmatic for the sake of being enigmatic is good...there must be a reason for it, and it ought to be pastoral.

I believe Pastors (of which I am not) must be ready to speak this way. Last year, my pastor had lunch with me and we were discussing my work. We had chatted about something unrelated before we got into this, and he took what I said earlier and applied it against me...incredibly grating. I've never had a pastor speak to me like that. I needed that jarring.

That conversation is why I'm pursuing a different career. I had a sanctified sounding reason for staying in my current job...I had the right words...he showed me otherwise.

It's not a one for one, I know...but a good jarring forces you to think more deeply. I, for one, despise cryptic speech that has no use except glorying in pomo silliness...hopefully you have a better grasp of what I mean by purposefully grating people.


----------



## Craig

***the above post was written in haste as I was about to take my family to a church event...I wanted to say more, so here it is***



JTDyck said:


> I agree that Jesus' words often appear enigmatic, even to His disciples, but that is because sin clouds our understanding. Notice the number of times the disciples come to Him and ask Him to clarify or explain. He does this for them, sometimes even with a rebuke as with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. But He is always patient to work knowledge and understanding in all those who ask. Admitting to Him that we are ignorant and asking for explanation and guidance is the beginning of wisdom.



I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that Christ spoke in an enigmatic way, initially.



JTDyck said:


> However, when it comes to His own covenant people he never sets out to confuse us. He does it to



The Jews (at the time of Christ's earthly ministry) *were His covenant people*.



JTDyck said:


> This is the clarity that I am contending for. May the Lord make us Calvins in this respect when we preach the Word!



I'm also for that kind of clarity. When I go to hear God's Word preached, I expect to understand it better. I expect to be better equipped. I'm only saying that *correctives can be enigmatic*. Often we need correctives because the familiar has essentially lost it's meaning, or has been widdled down so that the familiar has merely an outward framework of orthodoxy...Bringing up Barth would be appropriate in this vein.

****Directed generally, not to John specifically****
I'm genuinely surprised that I'm alone on this thread. It is disheartening that men will put libel onto a board dedicated to Christian discussion without batting an eye and no one will call them out on it. 

Pastor Keister, I would hope your much fairer opinion of Doug Wilson would be considered by the moderators who disagree. I would hope that concern for Christian charity and guarding our strokes on the keypad will be taken more seriously.

If the Mods are okay with members declaring that Doug Wilson preaches a false gospel (contrary to obvious statements from Wilson himself affirming the true gospel), then please make my membership an "inactive" one. I can't participate on this board in good conscience if this will be tolerated.


----------



## py3ak

Perhaps the thread has gone too far for such small amounts of oil to calm the troubled waters, but a helpful read for clarifying the way different styles of discourse can function is James Ault's _Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church_. Of course, I think a similar point could be derived from a due consideration of anthropomorphic language in Scripture.
The upshot is, that there are different, non-contradictory but complementary ways to speak, and knowing how to adapt your speech to your audience's condition is something highly commended in Proverbs.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Craig,

Perhaps you could heed you own advice about Charity and allow for a dissenting opinion on the matter.

I would note that the one place where Christ answered the question about why He spoke in Parables was to confuse hypocrites and leave them condemned *but* He likewise noted that He explained the meaning for His disciples and did not leave them guessing.

One of the fundamental objections to Continuationism, in fact, is the clarity of inspired Revelation in the fullness of Redemptive History in contrast to its lack of clarity that some Charismatic practioners insist upon with their "Words" from the Lord.

We infract here for egregious 9th Commandment violations. We simply cannot infract for all excesses in rhetoric or even other minor violations of the 9th Commandment (which, in the eyes of God, are not minor at all). In my estimation, for instance, you are demonstrating a "party spirit" in this thread or you would not have immediately assumed that a Pastor noting the need for ST to inform pastoral teaching as arguing for a strictly systematic presentation. It was not advocacy for catechetical preaching or anything of the sort but a note that if our ST does not inform our exhortation then it can cause problems elsewhere.

On the issue of whether or not Wilson teaches a false Gospel - I believe he leaves himself open to the charge either way. I respect those who believe he does not and my own earlier post was intended to tamp down some of the party spirit that doesn't see what the FV arose out of. In other words, a few of us have given minor moderating correctives or posts to keep the rhetoric in check because nobody had violated the 9th Commandment in an egregious manner.

As I noted in another thread, I think it is dangerous to take a minimalistic approch to whether a man teaches a false Gospel. The Sacraments are not called Gospel ordinances for no reason and there are significant questions raised when a person starts equating baptism of every person a type of union with Christ (even for the unregenerate) or that a person has some kind of forgiveness of sins even though they are not Elect. There is a narrow and a broad understanding of the Gospel. Paul even includes a person's understanding of Sanctification under the header of what he condemns as a false Gospel in Galatians 3:

[bible]Galatians 3:3[/bible]

Folks here think we're committing libel when we allow for people to accuse Arminians of preaching a false Gospel because, in some folks' estimation, Arminians hold to salvation by faith. Others note that what they pour into that makes it problematic and open to the charge that faith itself is viewed as a meritorious work and is no Gospel at all in the final analysis.

Thus, I will not be able to satisfy your request that everybody here who calls Wilson a proponent of a false Gospel to be guilty of an egregious 9th Commandment violation. Does excessive rhetoric exist on this thread? Yes (yours included). When a person makes such an accusation they need to clarify where there concern lies and it is wise to ask for clarifying remarks to ascertain whether they are speaking of the Gospel in a narrow or broad sense.


----------



## timmopussycat

Craig said:


> I'm genuinely surprised that I'm alone on this thread. It is disheartening that men will put libel onto a board dedicated to Christian discussion without batting an eye and no one will call them out on it.
> 
> Pastor Keister, I would hope your much fairer opinion of Doug Wilson would be considered by the moderators who disagree. I would hope that concern for Christian charity and guarding our strokes on the keypad will be taken more seriously.
> 
> If the Mods are okay with members declaring that Doug Wilson preaches a false gospel (contrary to obvious statements from Wilson himself affirming the true gospel), then please make my membership an "inactive" one. I can't participate on this board in good conscience if this will be tolerated.



I am no authority on this board, but two comments need to be made.
1) As I understand the matter, not being fully up to speed on either FV nor Wilson's relation to it, what we are seeing is a contemporary recurrence of an old problem: people say they agree with postulate A but then make statements that make it look like they disagree with that postulate. For example, Roman Catholics say they believe in justification by faith, but they have made other statements which fairly raise the question of whether or not believe in JbF in the way the bible teaches it. In the same way, it seems that Doug Wilson has not only made obvious statements affirming the true gospel, but has also made statements that apparently contradict it. You seem to be aware of the former group of Wilson's statements: are you aware of Wilson's other statements (which are the ones that have created the controversy) and do you understand why people have so strongly reacted to them?

2) I suggest that part of the reason for frustration is that charges were publically made without adequate support. When we must speak disparagingly about another person in any way, it is incumbent on us to provide the grounds for doing so. If, in a context ruled by the Westminster Standards, person X wants to make the claim that " minister Y preaches a false gospel" it is incumbent on X to show the differences between Y's gospel and Scripture. The quotes provided in the OP, while enough to show that Wilson would have serious differences with much of the Reformed church, do not, in themselves, get to the heart of whether he is or is not on the biblical side of those differences. 

And since Wilson's stance is already a matter of controversy in the churches, it is required by the Standards that he be proven in error by Scripture or by GNC therefrom. Now if someone has already done that work by fairly representing the totality of Wilson's teaching, showing it to be in contradiction to Scripture by exegesis and GNC, then to avoid the charge of libel in subsequent discussions, including on this board, all one needs to do is to point to the document where Wilson's position is shown to be unbiblical.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tim,

Excellent post. For the record, I have never accused specific men of teaching a false Gospel.

One of the things I've appreciated about the Confessions as I've studied them is how they are full orbed in tying together the preaching and reading of the Word as converting ordinances with how one would view Sanctification and the Sacraments. On the latter issue, I believe a case can be made by looking at a corruption of the Sacraments and raising significant concerns about how a Sacramental practice takes away with one hand what is given in another area of theology.

One of the more helpful articles I've read on the issue of faith vs. faithfulness that I've read was John Brown of Wamphray, Richard Baxter and the Justification
Controversy By Bruce R. Backensto in the 2007 edition of The Confessional Presbyterian Journal.

I find this to be an example of how much labor it takes to make the case that a minister's presentation of the nature of faith ends up doing severe damage to the nature of the Gospel in a way that many would never notice.

In the Piper thread, one of the problems I have with Piper's analysis that Wilson's examination was a slam dunk is that he doesn't seem to take the time to analyze the answers and make the kind of distinguishing analysis that separates one paedobaptism view from another.

This gets to be a pretty complicated procedure because it is possible to find all sorts of quotes from Reformed forebears. In some cases the quotes are taken out of context where they are qualified later or the quotes might be from Puritan luminaries that the Reformed themselves critiqued in their own times. Add to that my previous note about how some are coming at the problem from their own un-Confessional postures and critiques along those veins.

The bottom line is that I believe this thread had its share of excesses but was not unique in that regard given the excesses that occur all over this board that we cannot always control and infracting people left and right for those excesses proves to have its own problems. I think the specific charge of supporting libel is hard to sustain. The thread was started given a pretty good list of quotes that can be checked against our Confessional standards and shown to openly contradict core theological principles within the Westminster standards. It is certainly not impossible from those quotes to draw some conclusions about their relative dangers to the Gospel in its broadest sense. Convicting a man in an examination or study is one thing while opining about the dangers is another. I think Lane noted it the best when he stated that he would never vote to ordain a person that held to such views whether such a person stands under the condemnation of the Word for spreading a false Gospel.


----------

