Doug Wilson and Covenant Objectivity

[Rom]

An article from the Rev. Jeff Stivason (RPCNA) on Doug Wilson.

"Mr. Wilson, I have not read or listened to you much at all. However, I have heard that your specialty is marriage and family. I can’t comment on whether that is true or not. However, you are not a theologian. In fact, your theology is dangerous. Your rhetoric is divisive, which is ironic considering your view of covenantal objectivity. Therefore, it would be my hope that, for the welfare of the reformed churches, you would return to the drawing board, and come again, so that we may hear him further on these matters. Your current formulations are unacceptable."

Doug Wilson and Covenant Objectivity

The Federal Vision speaks a lot about the objectivity of the covenant. What does that mean? Doug Wilson puts it somewhat crassly when he says, “It can be photographed and fingerprinted.”[1] For Wilson, the fingerprint is baptism.[2] Baptism, though an external sign, is like that of circumcision...

www.placefortruth.org

 

[JH]

A question I have on the side that hopefully doesn't derail too much, but since this is the latest Wilson/CREC thread, does anyone happen to know the reason for the high praise Wilson and others give to authors like CS Lewis, and GK Chesterton?

Personally I haven't read either, and knowing there are many precious works I have yet to read, and that as far as fiction goes I'm content with Pilgrim's Progress, I have no future intentions on reading them.

 

[RamistThomist]

A question I have on the side that hopefully doesn't derail too much, but since this is the latest Wilson/CREC thread, does anyone happen to know the reason for the high praise Wilson and others give to authors like CS Lewis, and GK Chesterton?

Personally I haven't read either, and knowing there are many precious works I have yet to read, and that as far as fiction goes I'm content with Pilgrim's Progress, I have no future intentions on reading them.

I don't think there is anything unique to Wilson about his praise for Lewis and Chesterton. That is standard among all Evangelicals and many Reformed. Chesterton is overrated. He is a wordsmith with little substance. All fluff. Lewis is a genuinely good writer.

 

[Mikey]

An article from the Rev. Jeff Stivason (RPCNA) on Doug Wilson.

"Mr. Wilson, I have not read or listened to you much at all. However, I have heard that your specialty is marriage and family. I can’t comment on whether that is true or not. However, you are not a theologian. In fact, your theology is dangerous. Your rhetoric is divisive, which is ironic considering your view of covenantal objectivity. Therefore, it would be my hope that, for the welfare of the reformed churches, you would return to the drawing board, and come again, so that we may hear him further on these matters. Your current formulations are unacceptable."

Doug Wilson and Covenant Objectivity

The Federal Vision speaks a lot about the objectivity of the covenant. What does that mean? Doug Wilson puts it somewhat crassly when he says, “It can be photographed and fingerprinted.”[1] For Wilson, the fingerprint is baptism.[2] Baptism, though an external sign, is like that of circumcision...

www.placefortruth.org

Thanks for sharing!

To be honest, I didn't find the article very helpful or informative.

For starters, I'm not sure if I would be very open to criticism addressed to me if it admitted that, "I have not read or listened to you much at all" but had tenacity to publicly declare "you are not a theologian. In fact, your theology is dangerous." You haven't heard me out, but you know I'm "divisive"--and that its my fault? Further, does someone have to have good theology to be a theologian? Can't we all list bad theologians--even dangerous theologians?

The article also lacks depth. For an example, when the author claims "The implications of this view are obvious. It is clearly not Confessional," he doesn't explain how the view is unconfessional--it's just taken for granted to be obvious. Also, after explaining an "interesting implication" of the view in the same paragraph, the author just leaves it at that--he doesn't address the problem, but assumes you've picked up on the absurdity of the view.

Finally, the article lacks grace. What is the purpose of the article? Who are we trying to convince of what? The article adds no new knowledge, and it appears to have been written to the choir--not to the choir of Christ Church though.

To conclude, I think a more helpful critique would have been written by someone with a bit more awareness of Wilson's work. The critique would have more adequately explained the problematic view--with all the definitions and qualifications that would make Wilson proud--and then sought to show any error by Scripture and reason. Finally, the critique would have had a more meaningful purpose--to bring us all closer to the truth.

 

[Logan]

Chesterton is overrated. He is a wordsmith with little substance. All fluff.

He's pretty clever and immensely enjoyable. I've read quite a few of his books and essays.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A question I have on the side that hopefully doesn't derail too much, but since this is the latest Wilson/CREC thread, does anyone happen to know the reason for the high praise Wilson and others give to authors like CS Lewis, and GK Chesterton?

Personally I haven't read either, and knowing there are many precious works I have yet to read, and that as far as fiction goes I'm content with Pilgrim's Progress, I have no future intentions on reading them.

C. S. Lewis is good for apologetics and his political writings, often ignored by his evangelical fanboys, were prescient as he had a remarkable insight into human nature (see this post, for instance). I read/reread fourteen of his books at the beginning of 2021; on the whole, I view it as time well spent.

 

[RamistThomist]

He's pretty clever and immensely enjoyable. I've read quite a few of his books and essays.

Yes to both of those. Except for The Everlasting Man, he really wasn't that deep. I did enjoy him early on, though.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

@Semper Fidelis had this to say back in the day:

“I am not defending the FV approach to the problem but their form of Covenantalism is an over-reaction to a real problem that exists in many Reformed circles these days. As correctives go, men often go to the opposite extremes they come out of instead of settling into an Orthodox position.

There is a tendency to depreciate the importance of the Covenant among some Reformed to assume that nothing real is conferred in the Sacrament. There is also a bit of fatalism with respect to God electing children that doesn't deal with the real sin of neglect where parents fail to train their childrn in the way the Scriptures command.

Of course the Standards and Puritan causistry have practical theological wisdom to how the precepts (what we are commanded) work themselves together with the decree of God (what God only knows) but many Reformed get caught in the abstraction of the Invisible Kingdom forgetting that where we labor is in the Visible.

Thus, I find the FV complaints about the Reformed Confessions to be hollow because they're always aiming their criticisms at the wrong thing - some modern expressions of Reformed theology that are variously anti-nomian or forget the injunctions in the Confessions about "improving our baptisms" and the like. They act as if the only alternative to their mono-Covenantalism is anti-nomianism and a Zwinglian view of the Sacraments.

I've said this before but I believe one of the things that made many FV proponents so recalcitrant is that they couldn't stand the idea of being lectured about the Confession from people that had huge logs in their eyes concerning the Confession. In other words, if the Scriptures tell us to raise our kids in the fear and admonition of the Lord then its hard to receive criticism from a fellow who thinks that any third use of the Law violates his exclusive "BT-only" rule that you should never enjoin from the Word but only exhort about what Christ has done. The attitude might be: "Well, I might be doing too much but I'd rather err on the side of thinking too much about where my kids stand in the Covenant than not at all...." As with so many apparently "Either-Or" choices, the solution was not either or but the Confessional understanding all along, which neither group is faithful to.”

https://www.puritanboard.com/posts/641845/react?reaction_id=1

 

[retroGRAD3]

Lewis is a genuinely good writer.

I started reading the space trilogy on your recommendation. It is a fascinating book.

 

[RamistThomist]

I started reading the space trilogy on your recommendation. It is a fascinating book.

The first two are slow. The third one is a manual on how to fight the New World Order.

 

[retroGRAD3]

The first two are slow. The third one is a manual on how to fight the New World Order.

Looking forward to it. Still on the first one. Reading lots of books at once.

 

[RamistThomist]

Looking forward to it. Still on the first one. Reading lots of books at once.

In the third book he anticipates things like remote viewing and MK-ULTRA long before the CIA and Soviets were using them.

 

[Zach]

The first two are slow. The third one is a manual on how to fight the New World Order.

Perelandra is maybe a little slow, but I think it's the best, certainly the most beautiful, of the trilogy.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I read Perelandra in high school. The books as a remember it is that a man is walking through the English countryside, stops at an inn, gets sent to Mars by some men with bad intentions, and there he observes outer space giraffe-cows being milked by the locals, the strangest of all sights.
It was definitely slow. Maybe I should give the other two a go.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I read Perelandra in high school. The books as a remember it is that a man is walking through the English countryside, stops at an inn, gets sent to Mars by some men with bad intentions, and there he observes outer space giraffe-cows being milked by the locals, the strangest of all sights.
It was definitely slow. Maybe I should give the other two a go.

That's Out of the Silent Plant, not Perelandra.

Perelandra is where:

Spoiler

Mr. Ransom is sent to Venus (aka "Perelandra") and is there to basically thwart Satan's temptation of Venus's version of Eve.

 

[retroGRAD3]

That's Out of the Silent Plant, not Perelandra.

Perelandra is where Mr. Ransom is sent to Venus (aka "Perelandra") and is there to basically thwart Satan's temptation of Venus's version of Eve.

SPOILERS!!!

 

[Zach]

SPOILERS!!!

But will he succeed? Find out when you get through Out of the Silent Planet...

 

[Taylor]

Is this the first time on Puritan Board an FV thread has turned into a C. S. Lewis literature review?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Is this the first time on Puritan Board an FV thread has turned into a C. S. Lewis literature review?

Great observation! Maybe someone start a CS Lewis dedicated thread as we return to the topic raised by the OP.

 

[Zach]

Great observation! Maybe someone start a CS Lewis dedicated thread as we return to the topic raised by the OP.

Mea culpa!

 

[RamistThomist]

Back to the OP: there is nothing wrong with the idea of objectivity in itself. The problem is that Wilson promoted objectivity while rejecting the internal/external distinction of the covenant. That's why his view of election, for all practical purposes, was historic Arminianism.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As I do not like fiction, I cannot recommend reading C. S. Lewis's science-fiction novels ... sorry, Doug Wilson's Southern Slavery: As it Was.

 

[Semper Reformada]

Thanks for sharing!

To be honest, I didn't find the article very helpful or informative.

For starters, I'm not sure if I would be very open to criticism addressed to me if it admitted that, "I have not read or listened to you much at all" but had tenacity to publicly declare "you are not a theologian. In fact, your theology is dangerous." You haven't heard me out, but you know I'm "divisive"--and that its my fault? Further, does someone have to have good theology to be a theologian? Can't we all list bad theologians--even dangerous theologians?

The article also lacks depth. For an example, when the author claims "The implications of this view are obvious. It is clearly not Confessional," he doesn't explain how the view is unconfessional--it's just taken for granted to be obvious. Also, after explaining an "interesting implication" of the view in the same paragraph, the author just leaves it at that--he doesn't address the problem, but assumes you've picked up on the absurdity of the view.

Finally, the article lacks grace. What is the purpose of the article? Who are we trying to convince of what? The article adds no new knowledge, and it appears to have been written to the choir--not to the choir of Christ Church though.

To conclude, I think a more helpful critique would have been written by someone with a bit more awareness of Wilson's work. The critique would have more adequately explained the problematic view--with all the definitions and qualifications that would make Wilson proud--and then sought to show any error by Scripture and reason. Finally, the critique would have had a more meaningful purpose--to bring us all closer to the truth.

Mikey, despite the unfortunate fact that others completely hijacked this thread to run down a completely unrelated rabbit hole (are there moderators here?), I found your comments extremely helpful. Thanks

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Mikey, despite the unfortunate fact that others completely hijacked this thread to run down a completely unrelated rabbit hole (are there moderators here?), I found your comments extremely helpful. Thanks

There are but we miss things. But I did not miss that you don't have a signature with a name so folks know how to address you. Please fix one per the rules. See the link at the bottom of the page for how-to.

 

[Taylor]

Mikey, despite the unfortunate fact that others completely hijacked this thread to run down a completely unrelated rabbit hole (are there moderators here?), I found your comments extremely helpful. Thanks

Wow, first post since you became a member nearly 13 years ago.

 

[RamistThomist]

Not so much that we failed to address the issue. We did. Wilson ties his view of objectivity with his denial of the internal/external distinction. That means we are temporally united to Christ by baptism.

 

[Semper Reformada]

Not so much that we failed to address the issue. We did. Wilson ties his view of objectivity with his denial of the internal/external distinction. That means we are temporally united to Christ by baptism.

I found this helpful. Wilson says he is describing the same people, but in more helpful terms. https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/the-visible-part-of-the-invisible-visible-church.html

 

[RamistThomist]

I found this helpful. Wilson says he is describing the same people, but in more helpful terms. https://dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/the-visible-part-of-the-invisible-visible-church.html

What is the tl;dr version? I really don't know what he is trying to say besides yes and no at the same time.

 

[Semper Reformada]

What is the tl;dr version? I really don't know what he is trying to say besides yes and no at the same time.

He is just saying that he prefers the terms "historic" church and "eschatological" church. He finds the term "visible" church troubling because the entire visible church throughout history is actually invisible to man - it is only visible to God. If we use the term historic church, we don't have to modify it.

 

[RamistThomist]

He is just saying that he prefers the terms "historic" church and "eschatological" church. He finds the term "visible" church troubling because the entire visible church throughout history is actually invisible to man - it is only visible to God. If we use the term historic church, we don't have to modify it.

I understand that. My problem is his problem with the internal/external distinction of the covenant, which is biblical (Rom. 9).