C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
That is, in fact, the point of disagreement here. Making bare assertions without offering an explanation or defense amounts to little more than shouting "Moscow man bad!"
Calvinist International, FV, and Doug Wilson
- Thread starter Delahunt
- Start date
- Status
What if Moscow Man IS bad, though? Lots of folks say so.
I mean, he lights fields on fire with gasoline, right?
This is very helpful in clarifying my confusion that I indicated in my previous post. Thank you!
As an aside, I just found on Sermon Audio a little series you did critiquing the Federal Vision. (It is, incidentally, your most popular sermon on Sermon Audio.) I plan on giving that a listen.
For anyone who is interested, the aforementioned series can be found here.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
It doesn't sound like you are being serious here. But suffice to say, I was asking you to explain explain how the quote from Wilson (post #27) differed with the teaching of our own confession in chapter 11, paragraph 2. I contend it does not.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That is correct. The instrument of justification simply rests and receives, it doesn't work, pace Wilson.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Careful attention to the language of the Confession seems to suggest it does...
Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it (i.e. faith) is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.—Confession of Faith, XI. 2.
In the second half of this statement, the same faith which is said to "receive and rest" as "the alone instrument of justification" is then further said to "work by love." There are three things faith is said to do here, 1) Rest, 2) Receive, 3) and Work by love. Have I misread it?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Instrumental causation is not the same as final causation. Works are the final cause. Faith alone is the instrumental cause. Wilson confuses this.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Agreed.
I do not believe that is the case. I believe you have to unjustly assume such a meaning lies behind Wilson's words to justify your conclusion. Otherwise, what he says is perfectly in line with the Confession.
Last edited:
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Pastor Sheffield (and everyone else):
Pastor Wilson is not saying the same things as all our Confessions. Let's recall the first part of your Wilson quote:
Jacob's technical language is correct (and good!), but let me put it this way: Notice what Wilson does in the second sentence relative to the first. In the first sentence, he adduces justifying faith. And then he calls it, "this faithful instrument," conflating faith and its evidence.
Here's the problem: Faith, as I noted above, is extraspective. It's all about Christ and His righteousness, looking to, resting in, that and that alone. So faith is not about me looking to anything that I do (as a result of justifying faith), but "faithful" is. Faith is about what Christ is and does and my trusting in Him alone. Faithful is about all that I do looking to Christ and Him alone. Faith is about His person and work. Faithful is about what I am rendered as a result of trusting in His person and work.
This is the heart of the Protestant Reformation. The proper distinction between faith and its accompanying graces and fruits/evidence must be maintained. This is what Rome was failing to do then and still fails to do until this day. It's what we must never fail to do.
When I say "faith," I'm saying something about my Savior and trusting Him; when I say "faithful," I am saying something about myself, the works that I do as one who has faith.
And if something about my works is introduced into what it means to be JBFA, I am lost, now and evermore. Everything is at stake here. This is why all the NAPARC denominations (and perhaps others) have acted as they have with respect to these matters.
Peace,
Alan
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
If the good works that are a result of my justification are actually part of the instrumentality of faith, then Wilson has justification by faith + works. This is the verdict of almost every NAPARC body.
That’s very helpful. In my previous post containing quotes from the WCF and Berkhof, I seemed to have confused what Wilson was saying with the common Reformed understanding of the necessity of good works.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
@Alan D. Strange, you say faith
And of course I don't disagree. But as I've already pointed out, our Confession asserts that the same faith which justifies, also "worketh by love." That is course Paul's point in Galatians 5:6.
Paul here asserts that that same faith which is the alone instrument of justification also "worketh by love." Which is reflected in our Confession.
You seem to be saying this faith only "rests and receives" and that it doesn't "work by love." I am sure that is not your view, but perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining yourself further.
And of course I don't disagree. But as I've already pointed out, our Confession asserts that the same faith which justifies, also "worketh by love." That is course Paul's point in Galatians 5:6.
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Paul here asserts that that same faith which is the alone instrument of justification also "worketh by love." Which is reflected in our Confession.
Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it (i.e. faith) is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.—Confession of Faith, XI. 2.
You seem to be saying this faith only "rests and receives" and that it doesn't "work by love." I am sure that is not your view, but perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining yourself further.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
@C. M. Sheffield
Pastor:
Justifying faith indeed rests upon and receives Christ alone. Does this faith also "work by love?" Indeed, as I've made clear here all along.
Is that working by love at all in view, however, in my justification? No. Not at all. That working by love is the evidence of my justifying faith, not the same thing as my justifying faith, by which alone I am justified.
It's the difference between root and fruit. You don't have justifying faith without good works (nor truly good works without justifying faith). But they are not the same thing. When my justification is at issue, what's in view is justifying faith, not its accompanying graces or its fruits (good works). If good works are in view in justification, then it is co-instrumental with faith in my justification. But it is not!
I've been stepping back from my commenting on the PB because I frankly found myself saying too much! But I've done a good deal of work in this area, not only in books, articles, conferences (and preaching!), but for my denomination (on the NPP/FV Committee). This is vital and I believe that I must maintain this truth at all costs.
Peace,
Alan
Pastor:
Justifying faith indeed rests upon and receives Christ alone. Does this faith also "work by love?" Indeed, as I've made clear here all along.
Is that working by love at all in view, however, in my justification? No. Not at all. That working by love is the evidence of my justifying faith, not the same thing as my justifying faith, by which alone I am justified.
It's the difference between root and fruit. You don't have justifying faith without good works (nor truly good works without justifying faith). But they are not the same thing. When my justification is at issue, what's in view is justifying faith, not its accompanying graces or its fruits (good works). If good works are in view in justification, then it is co-instrumental with faith in my justification. But it is not!
I've been stepping back from my commenting on the PB because I frankly found myself saying too much! But I've done a good deal of work in this area, not only in books, articles, conferences (and preaching!), but for my denomination (on the NPP/FV Committee). This is vital and I believe that I must maintain this truth at all costs.
Peace,
Alan
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
As I suspected, we are in complete agreement on the relationship of faith and works to justification. The only thing I fail to understand is how what Wilson has said contradicts it. Perhaps you know of other things he has written that make it clear that he believes works are co-instrumental in our justification. Everything I have read and heard him say rejects that. But if you know of some place in his writing that would shed more light on the discussion, I would be interested in reading it.
I'm glad you stepped in, if only so that you are now a "Puritan Board Senior."
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
From your post 27.
page 48 of Reformed Is Not Enough. Wilson states...
“Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification. But when God has done this wonderful work, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die. It continues to love God and obey Him.
He is still speaking of instrumental faith.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Throughout this thread, Pastor Sheffield, we've seen Wilson doing just that: making works co-instrumental in our justification. One is doing that when one equates "faith" and "faithful". Faith has in view Jesus' work; faithful has in view our work. Love has that in view as well.
The Reformers said, with respect to the medievalists (and some Fathers): where they say "caritas" (love) is the completing element of "unformed faith" (which was faith as merely assent), we say "fiducia" (trust). The reason the Reformers defined the completing element of faith as trust and not love was because love entails works (love is keeping the commandments).
Faith is not in its essence keeping His commandments. It is believing in Him. Believing always results in obeying. But they are not the same thing and must be distinguished. Insofar as Wilson continues to equate "faith" and "faithful," he injects works into faith and necessarily makes it co-instrumental with faith in justification.
Peace,
Alan
Last edited:
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I think the problem in this whole conversation is an indiscriminate use of Paul's figurative language "faith working by love." Wilson speaks of "faithful faith."
Technically, faith cannot work (who is Faith?). People work, or are faithful, not faith. A person who has faith will work, but faith cannot work. To put it another way, faith doesn't have a will.
When Paul says that faith works, he means that a person with faith works. That's the Confessional meaning as well. But what does Wilson mean? Does he mean that faith includes works/faithfulness? Does he mean that an element of faith, as an instrument of our justification, is a faithful disposition?
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Perhaps. His language there is certainly not helpful. But I am not certain he really equates faith and faithfulness given other clearer explanations of his view. Take this answer, for example. Here he unequivocally rejects any co-instrumentality in justification.
At the 43 second mark, Wilson says,
"So, when a guy gets converted on Wednesday, that justification, that forensic imputation of the righteousness of Christ is given to him, imputed to him completely independent of any works he has done. The only thing that he contributes is faith, and faith alone, and even that faith was a gift, lest he be tempted to brag about that. So that's the role works has in justification in that way. Which is to say, none, zip, zilch. No, it has nothing whatever to do with justification."
Last edited:
RJ Spencer
Puritan Board Freshman
I take Wilson at his own words, to me his interview with James White put to rest any doubts about his affiliation with FV. That does not mean that all of his views are in alignment with the reformed faith, but they do stand within orthodoxy.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Sorry, brothers, but I don't think that you should have to go searching through a man's body of work to find a place or places where he may better, or rightly, define justification, while continuing elsewhere to define it confusingly and to insinuate faithfulness into the act of justifying faith itself.
If I am not clear about JBFA every time that I talk about it, shame on me. That's a failure as a gospel minister.
Peace,
Alan
If I am not clear about JBFA every time that I talk about it, shame on me. That's a failure as a gospel minister.
Peace,
Alan
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
No, I quite agree. But I do think you do have to go searching through a man's body of work before you condemn him as a heretic.
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I find when discussing Wilson, it is difficult to get some to say so much as one thing about any "exculpatory evidence" when it's presented, though they are willing to make much of even one turn of phrase if it confirms their bias.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The OPC did in their report. And I don't call him a heretic. I've read tens of thousands of pages of patristics and I know that word should never be used lightly. But when you have to read the entire body of a man's work to find where he is okay on JBFA, that's a problem. He should be clear on it. We shouldn't have to search on a key doctrine like this.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Well, perhaps you do not. But I would say a denial of justification by faith alone is a damnable heresy (Gal. 1:8, 9).
And in Wilson's case you don't. The video I linked to above was the first result when I searched "Douglas Wilson justification by faith alone." I'd say that's pretty good. What I think you have to go searching for is anything that is less than precise to argue he holds to positions he has explicitly and repeatedly denied.
RJ Spencer
Puritan Board Freshman
Many ministers have changed their views on numerous different positions. What we need to do in order to know where a preacher stands is to look at his most recent comments. If we look at Wilson's most recent comments it is clear that he currently believes in Justification by Faith alone. We do not have to read his entire body of work, he admits himself that he once held to FV, but he no longer does.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
My dear brother,
I've called no one a heretic. I challenge you to demonstrate that. We in the OPC, and I was a key author of that report, did say that FV's deficient definition of justification, inter alia, marked it as outside the Reformed confessions.
And that is what I have been saying here: Wilson's equating of faith and faithfulness is contrary to what the Westminster Standards (especially WLC 72 and 73) sets forth concerning justifying faith. The OPC's report affirmed such, together with reports from the rest of NAPARC and other denominations.
I am simply seeking to uphold and maintain our unified Reformed and Presbyterian witness on the matter. I am the one seeking to maintain orthodoxy. But under your criticism, I am the one in the wrong (you accuse me of peremptorily accusing a man of heresy) and the man outside of Reformed orthodoxy, as determined by overwhelming witness, is in the clear.
I challenge you, dear brother, to rethink and retract what you wrote.
Peace,
Alan
Last edited:
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
And to answer additional statements, a man who once held to the FV view on justification and then repudiated it, needs to do so in a way that makes such clear. If you are saying, gentlemen, that Wilson has repented of his error, I've not seen him make that known in a way that I am aware of it.
In fact, I've been interacting with what you yourself wrote, Pastor Sheffield, in this very thread, that reveals Wilson still equating faith and faithfulness. You can't both claim that he's repudiated FV and cite statements from his work that are perpetuations of the error. If he continues to equate the two, which your own quotes do, then you cannot, at the same time, say that he's repudiated such by other citations. If he has repudiated his error, he should make it known in a way that all of us who called him on it in earlier years are clear.
Peace,
Alan
P.S. I did just watch the very first part of the video that Br. Sheffield posted. I agree that in the first minute or so (which is all that I listened to), Wilson gives a confessional definition of justifying faith. I don't know how to square this with other things cited in this very post, but I do know that it's Wilson's responsibility to make clear any repentance and change of position in an unambiguous way in this matter.
In fact, I've been interacting with what you yourself wrote, Pastor Sheffield, in this very thread, that reveals Wilson still equating faith and faithfulness. You can't both claim that he's repudiated FV and cite statements from his work that are perpetuations of the error. If he continues to equate the two, which your own quotes do, then you cannot, at the same time, say that he's repudiated such by other citations. If he has repudiated his error, he should make it known in a way that all of us who called him on it in earlier years are clear.
Peace,
Alan
P.S. I did just watch the very first part of the video that Br. Sheffield posted. I agree that in the first minute or so (which is all that I listened to), Wilson gives a confessional definition of justifying faith. I don't know how to square this with other things cited in this very post, but I do know that it's Wilson's responsibility to make clear any repentance and change of position in an unambiguous way in this matter.
Last edited:
Let us not forget that Wilson, even if he has changed his view of justification, is not a legitimately ordained minister of the word.
- Status
