A Few Reasons Why Doug Wilson Needs to be Avoided
- Thread starter JOwen
- Start date
- Status
, as Saul discovered 
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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:
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.
"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: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
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Puritan Board Senior
Not trying to pile on here, but Craig, how does what Pastor Dyck said NOT fit with biblical precedence?
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:
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:
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:
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
Last edited:
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
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
1. to draw out His elect, so that we will ask Him to explain
2. to keep out the reprobate, who do not care to have spiritual things clarified
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!
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
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
2. to keep out the reprobate, who do not care to have spiritual things clarified
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!
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.
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.
***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***
I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that Christ spoke in an enigmatic way, initially.
The Jews (at the time of Christ's earthly ministry) *were His covenant people*.
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.
I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that Christ spoke in an enigmatic way, initially.
The Jews (at the time of Christ's earthly ministry) *were His covenant people*.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
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.
- Status
