An Interview w/ D. Wilson

[Scott Bushey]

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/the_white_horse_inn/

 

[blhowes]

I'm listening to the interview now. He seems on one hand to want to identify with those in the Federal Vision group while at the same time cautiously distancing himself from certain aspects. Are most of the people in the Federal Vision group like that, kind of one foot inside and one foot outside of the movement?

 

[Arch2k]

See this thread.

It was interesting.

 

[RamistThomist]

I listened to him discuss this with Mike Horton on St Anne's Pub. There the differences were minimal and were centered around various Law/Gospel hermeneutics.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by blhowes
I'm listening to the interview now. He seems on one hand to want to identify with those in the Federal Vision group while at the same time cautiously distancing himself from certain aspects. Are most of the people in the Federal Vision group like that, kind of one foot inside and one foot outside of the movement?

I have exchanged many emails with Doug Wilson's assistant, Mike Lawyer, as well as with Steve Wilkins.

Regarding your question, I would say "no". While Wilson, Wilkins, and others may "hang out" with one another, they definitely are not of the same ilk in this way.

In my email conversations with Wilson's personal assistant, he was very clear in his agreement with me that not all covenant members are in the same relation to God. As Matthew 7:23 states, there are some covenant members who Jesus will say that He "never knew". As opposed to some others on this board, I emphatically refuse to call Doug Wilson a "heretic" in any sense of the word. I do think he has unwisely mouthed off some things that ruffled many feathers, and the flak he has gotten from that is his fault. But I think he has clarified his position satisfactorily to show that his actual beliefs are not unorthodox.

Wilkins is a different story. It's not nearly so easy to get such "clear" statements out of him. It's almost as if he forgets who his audience is a lot of the time. I think a lot of what he says is meant to be *strictly* understood within a covenantal context, as opposed to a "top down" view of people's true invisible relationships to God (going back to Matthew 7:23 again here). But instead of being clear about this, Wilkins just *assumes* everybody knows what context he is talking about, and here he is gravely mistaken.

Make no mistake: I do not agree with Wilkins' theology. But I do believe he has been misunderstood to some extent. Nevertheless, I believe this huge "misunderstanding" is mostly HIS fault, and not as much the fault of his listeners. [Disclaimer: There is still a lot of Wilkins' stuff that I haven't read, so I reserve the right to change my mind about him for better or worse, based on additional information.]

I like the way Wilson puts it . . . he himself is just a "pale ale" Federal Vision guy, while some of the others are "amber ales" or "lagers", relatively speaking.

I would have to agree with him regarding that statement. I don't think Wilson is nearly as extreme in his views as some of the others in the FV movement.

 

[Myshkin]

I think the discussion by Horton et. al. after the interview pretty much sums up everything. Hesistation and lack of clarity in affirming a clear statement of faith on an issue as essential as justification is troublesome.

I also picked up that part of the problem is confusion over what the terms evangelical and reformed mean historically. Ligonier has a good lesson today on these terms...
http://ligonier.org/radio/index.php

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by RAS]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by RAS
I think the discussion by Horton et. al. after the interview pretty much sums up everything. Hesistation and lack of clarity in affirming a clear statement of faith on an issue as essential as justification is troublesome.

I also picked up that part of the problem is confusion over what the terms evangelical and reformed mean historically. Ligonier has a good lesson today on these terms...

I doubt that Ligonier has an accurate handle on the historic definition. Congregationalism is not a component of being reformed.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I've gotta talk to my pastor about this federalist vision stuff because I am not getting a very good grasp on it.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I doubt that Ligonier has an accurate handle on the historic definition. Congregationalism is not a component of being reformed.

The lesson is not meant to be exhaustive, but covers the core essential issues of the terms, which is precisely where the FV seems to be confused. Also, this lesson was given prior to any flirtation with congregationalism that the former president of Ligonier may be involved in. You have a valid point, but I think it is irrelevant to the discussion with the FV and there confusion over the historical definiton of justification by faith alone (a historical evangelical essential). Congregationalism may not be reformed, but that has nothing to do with a misunderstanding of sola fide.

 

[Arch2k]

What's the scoop on Ligonier and congregationalism?

 

[sastark]

A friend of mine posted this same link on her blog, and I just finished listening to the interview/commentary. Here is what I posted to her site:

I finished listening to the interview and then the commentary afterwards (coincidently, this is the first time I've ever listened to WHI). I really, really tried to understand what Wilson was saying sometimes. It was hard. Not because he was using Latin or Greek or Hebrew. It was all English. But, I came away thinking the same thing I did before listening: "I don't know much about the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Pastors' Conference Theology (FF/AAPC)." Umm...what is it that they believe? I got this much: It isn't the WCF or 3FU (that's Three Forms of Unity). Apparently Wilson subscribes to the "Reformed Evangelical Confession", which I understand to be a compilation of different creeds and statements of faith. I liked what one of the hosts said after the interview: "The Reformed confessions define what is Reformed. If you don't agree with the confessions, you are not reformed (emphasis added)." Wilson maybe "reforming" (Possibly. I grant him the title of "reforming" out of charity.), but he is not Reformed because he does not subscribe to a Reformed Confession. Wilson stressed the point that not all FF/AAPC folks believe the same things. Fair enough, but they all seem to have this in common: They all disagree with the WCF/3FU at some point. That, to me, is not a good sign.

Wilson also seems to have his definition of faith messed up. Or, if not messed up, he at least has trouble defining what faith is. I can understand having trouble with a difficult theological concept, but, I'm sorry, salvation by faith is not one of them. Again, as the hosts said after the interview, one of the glorious things about the reformation was the fact that even a child could understand the Bible (a reference was made to Luther's Catechism which could be read by children). The writings of the Reformation are abundant on the topic of faith, and they are easy to understand. Why then does Wilson have trouble with this concept?

That's my 2 cents.

 

[smallbeans]

To be fair, Wilson was being asked some questions that required a bit of contextualization, definition of terms, nuance, etc. That his answers weren't as clear as reformation slogans is probably to be expected - those reformation formulations were themselves hard won and though we hear them with clarity now, forging them was a difficult process as some of the speeches at the pre-GA conference on the Westminster Confession pointed out a few weeks ago.

 

[biblelighthouse]