Krak3n
Puritan Board Freshman
As long as you're convinced it justifies posting a blasphemous statement. That's a costly way to make a point.
Debunking Doug Wilson
- Thread starter bookslover
- Start date
- Status
As long as you're convinced it justifies posting a blasphemous statement. That's a costly way to make a point.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Um....okay.
Back to the point. So have you interacted with the links that Dr Clark posted?
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
If you don't believe that Reformed Churches conduct ordinations through the pattern prescribed by the Scripture (no man takes this honor on himself; do not lay hands on a man hastily; neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, etc.), and by Good and Necessary Consequence, then I don't know what to tell you but to study how these things are gleaned from the Scripture.
You may disagree, which is one thing, but to believe we make this stuff up and assert ourselves over the Scripture with our own tradition is not cautious in any sense.
Besides, "Exhibit A" as to why Scripture prescribes testing is because of men like Doug Wilson and the trauma others like him cause the Church. Just look at this thread. What a mess.
As to your claim this is the Reformed Talmud, you might as well yell "Pharisee!" at men but say you expect "cautious" speech from them in turn. What kind of wisdom compels you to do such a thing?
No one (I know of) is condemning Wilson (those words have strict meaning) for not having a proper ordination, rather it is an important piece of the puzzle.
Finally, if you don't believe paedocommunion is a danger, you need to re-read 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. Both Baptists and Presbyterians can agree it is a dangerous thing, spiritually speaking, given these grave and solemn warnings.
Why turn a blind eye to this man's dangers?
This is not a matter of a consistency of exegesis and interpretation given Paul's warning and should not be hand waved away as no big deal.
Kinghezy
Puritan Board Sophomore
This seems like an odd portion of the confession to take exception to:The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.
Is there any known reason why there is this exception?
That is original WCF, and not the text of most American denominations. There is curious history (and someplace a WTS master's thesis) as to how the phrase was dropped. But somewhere along the line, a man married his brother's widow, and was charged with sin. The short story is: the phrase was dropped.
A longer historical context is this: Henry VIII's first wife was previously married to his brother, Arthur; he died, and Catherine, eventually a close relative of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry took to wife. He received a papal dispensation to do so, since canon law (based on interpreting Lev.18:16) forbade it. (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon)
When Henry wished to divorce Catherine, part of his argument was that his marriage to Catherine was a sin, and unlawful. One might argue that in English terms, it was an important point (politically and religiously) to maintain that the Bible forbade such marriages; and the subsequent divorce and all that followed including the break with Rome and subsequent church reformation efforts was the good fruit of royal and national repentance.
When Henry wished to divorce Catherine, part of his argument was that his marriage to Catherine was a sin, and unlawful. One might argue that in English terms, it was an important point (politically and religiously) to maintain that the Bible forbade such marriages; and the subsequent divorce and all that followed including the break with Rome and subsequent church reformation efforts was the good fruit of royal and national repentance.
One is free, in WCF-American terms, to believe that the missing phrase is true and biblical, and be convicted by it (original WCF prooftext, Lev.20:19-21 https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html). But one is also free from being bound to confess it is biblical--no exception required. But, if one's subscription is to the unaltered WCF, and one does not believe this is a proper interpretation of the Bible, he should take exception.
Kinghezy
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks! I should have pulled the PCA version and I would have see it missing
Barry Waugh's dissertation was on the change and arguing for it (this is like a circa 1880s change I think; at least after 1850? but not as late as 1903 if I'm recalling rightly). When Samuel Miller was examined it was one scruple he was considering but after wrestling with it, resolved it in his mind, and affirmed the standards without exception (c. 1791).
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Stonewall Jackson was in love with his deceased wife's sister, and she loved him back. Yet they both knew the standards forbade it, so they didn't get married.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland also questions that part of the Westminster Confession in its Testimony. If I recall correctly, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland disagrees with the RPCI on this issue. I am not sure about the RPCNA's position on it.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
This observation from John Davenant is all too applicable to Doug Wilson:
Christians must not lend their ears to those who undertake the office of preaching when they have not a legitimate call to it. For the Apostle seems in this place to oppose his lawful ministry to that of those seducers who had crept into the church of the Colossians, relying upon their own temerity not upon the Divine appointment. No wonder, therefore, if those who possessed not lawful authority to teach at all, should teach falsehood.
John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; 2 vols, London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), i, 268.
Christians must not lend their ears to those who undertake the office of preaching when they have not a legitimate call to it. For the Apostle seems in this place to oppose his lawful ministry to that of those seducers who had crept into the church of the Colossians, relying upon their own temerity not upon the Divine appointment. No wonder, therefore, if those who possessed not lawful authority to teach at all, should teach falsehood.
John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; 2 vols, London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), i, 268.
Krak3n
Puritan Board Freshman
In the above quote Santos linked to Douglas Wilson's blog, where he has articles and documents addressing the many charges against him. Thank you Santos, I did not remember that such a compilation existed.
https://dougwils.com/controversy
Having read through the "elder's meetings minutes" concerning the Child Abuse cases at that church, and the way that sin destroys families and affects churches has given me no stomach to continue in this thread. Judge for yourselves.
It is just as easy for me to speak rashly and clumsily as anyone else. Multiple users have posted in that regard and so I will heed their warnings.
I have nothing else to say regarding this matter.
This is not because I now reject Wilson or find him unworthy of defense. I now feel more sympathy for them at that church. Understand that I do not mean this in a backhanded way. I pray that our churches do not have to deal with the sin that had occurred against some of their members and the consequences for that church.
LadyCalvinist
Puritan Board Junior
I first became born-again at a PCA church in 1994. I quickly discovered Doug Wilson and Credenda Agenda. The journal were instrumental in changing my thinking from secular to Christian. As I read the articles I found someone who could respond to, and even make fun of, modernity and postmodernism. I gobbled up every issue and read it cover to cover. Sometime in the early 2000's I began to realize that were was a problem with his teaching even if I did not exactly understand why. Since then, I read about his slut slamming a rape victim, the FV heresy, and my heart broke. I have since thrown out all the issues of Credenda, as well as several items of his. When I moved to St. Louis I was warned to be careful of PCA churches since a number of them are either flirting with, or fully embrace, FV. Really, Doug Wilson could have done so much good and instead, has done so much damage. So sad.
- Status
Similar threads
