Calvinist International, FV, and Doug Wilson

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Forgive me brother. I do not wish to cause offense. I understood you as at least implying (if not outright saying) that Wilson denied justification by faith alone. Is it your view that such a stance is not heretical?
 
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.
As I see it, the prejudice against him is so intense among so many of his old adversaries, that there is virtually nothing he could say to satisfy their definition of repentance. The statements he has made repudiating former errors are deemed by them as certainly not sufficient, disingenuous at best, or worse, deliberately deceptive.
 
Forgive me brother. I do not wish to cause offense. I understood you as at least implying (if not outright saying) that Wilson denied justification by faith alone. Is it your view that such a stance is not heretical?

I forgive you, brother, readily, and appreciate your words seeking such.

I was part of a process in the OPC that opined that the FV (and Wilson was a part of that; by no means the most egregious part) was confessionally out of bounds. We did not seek to determine the matter further than that as the FV partisans were not under our jurisdiction and not subject to our judicial process.

We called FV unconfessional. Aspects of it may be heretical, depending on how one defines that (no small or easy undertaking), but our denomination decided to go no further than calling it unconfessional. Someone may be unclear on justification in some respects and not be heretical.

In any case, I would not then exceed the judgment of my denomination and call him heretical on my own. Anyone who knows me know that's not the way I roll! I also, btw, would not call Wilson unconverted, though a ruling elder in my own denomination was recently surmised to be on this very Board. I find such judgments both uncharitable and misguided.

I will leave to the judicatories of jurisdiction the question of credible professions of faith, even if i am bringing charges against one of their members. And I'll also not go off on my own and call heretics those who the Reformed church collectively has not called such.

But, at least as I have known him in the past, Wilson has not been in conformity to the Westminster Standards in his teaching on justification. If he is now, I would think that he would be eager, even zealous, to notify all NAPARC churches (easily done these days) and let them know of his change of heart in the matter. I am not aware of any such thing. He just keeps going along, auto-accountable and seemingly impenitent. I'll be the first to rejoice if he's truly repented.

There does remain, though, as Tom Hart notes, the whole question of validity of ordination, not to mention the lack of any theological training in the first place (it shows in many places, though he is a smart and able fellow).

Peace,
Alan
 
Steven Wedgeworth at The Calvinist International has just completed a six-part in-depth historical study on the theological trajectories of FV and its various adherents, including and especially focusing upon Doug Wilson. It is well worth reading - I found his analysis of Doug Wilson to be helpful. Interestingly, Doug Wilson also spoke approvingly of Wedgeworth's work on Twitter. I would be curious to hear if anyone here at PB would disagree with Wedgeworth in terms of his findings or (more likely) analysis. Here are links:

1. https://calvinistinternational.com/...-of-the-federal-vision-after-all-these-years/
2. https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/11/18/a-federal-vision-history/
3. https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/12/19/beginning-to-explain-theology-federal-vision/
4. https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/01/03/douglas-wilson-and-justification/
5. https://calvinistinternational.com/...dings-of-salvation-held-together-by-one-name/
6. https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/01/13/the-federal-vision-a-systematic-critique/
FV heterodoxy discussion yet again, but just dead silence when it comes to sanctification. I would be scared to death if I were one of these teachers preaching antinomianism (the word that never is spoken, but is conveyed over and over again by omission).
 
FV heterodoxy discussion yet again, but just dead silence when it comes to sanctification. I would be scared to death if I were one of these teachers preaching antinomianism (the word that never is spoken, but is conveyed over and over again by omission).

No one is advocating antinomianism. We aren't talking about sanctification here because the focus of the conversation is on whether Wilson still teaches justification by faithfulness.
 
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.
Just out of clarification, Doug Wilson has explicitly stated that he no longer refers to himself as FV, as he thinks that name encompasses too many views, some of which he does not hold, but he has also said that he has not changed what he believes. if you don't believe me, just read his own words for yourself.

This statement represents a change in what I will call what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe.
The fuller explanation can be read on his blog.

Doug Wilson has not retracted any of his views on these matters as far as I am aware. Thus the reports by the OPC et al still stands.

This does not of course mean that we should assume Mr Wilson believes everything any other person who is FV holds to, but it does mean that he has not changed his mind about his confusion of faith and faithfulness.

Would you agree that if he has not, in fact, changed his views on these matters that would be rather problematic?
 
Just out of clarification, Doug Wilson has explicitly stated that he no longer refers to himself as FV, as he thinks that name encompasses too many views, some of which he does not hold, but he has also said that he has not changed what he believes. if you don't believe me, just read his own words for yourself.


The fuller explanation can be read on his blog.

Doug Wilson has not retracted any of his views on these matters as far as I am aware. Thus the reports by the OPC et al still stands.

This does not of course mean that we should assume Mr Wilson believes everything any other person who is FV holds to, but it does mean that he has not changed his mind about his confusion of faith and faithfulness.

Would you agree that if he has not, in fact, changed his views on these matters that would be rather problematic?

Most celebrity pastors know about good PR and branding.
 
What I find most troubling about the way Wilson gets treated is that many of those that believe him to be borderline heretical, are the very ones that have defended supposed "new converts" like Kanye. Wilson proved himself to be orthodox reformed until he endorsed FV, but he has stated what his beliefs are now. His current beliefs may be FV lite, but are still obviously within the orthodox faith and anyone that doubts his views on JBFA has simply ignored his most recent comments. This issue seems to go back to a previous debate https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/are-good-works-necessary-to-salvation.99267/
 
Moderating. Whole denominations have weighed in on FV as Alan Strange has said, and if Wilson cared to officially and unambiguously clear things up he could easily do so. Consider this closing a notice of a indefinite moratorium on all things Wilson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top