Isn't Doug Wilson a Baptist theologically?I understand that. My problem is his problem with the internal/external distinction of the covenant, which is biblical (Rom. 9).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Isn't Doug Wilson a Baptist theologically?I understand that. My problem is his problem with the internal/external distinction of the covenant, which is biblical (Rom. 9).
And 2:28-29I understand that. My problem is his problem with the internal/external distinction of the covenant, which is biblical (Rom. 9).
In terms of deep down assumptions, yes. That probably explains his commitment to paedocommunion.Isn't Doug Wilson a Baptist theologically?
I don't think that is any truer than saying Covenantalism explains a commitment to paedocommunion. Does it? Hope this isn't rabbit trailing. But I do believe his roots of being Credo Reformed Baptist haven't moved and that would explain a lot. He isn't Reformed and He really isn't ordained.That probably explains his commitment to paedocommunion.
I don't think that is any truer than saying Covenantalism explains a commitment to paedocommunion. Does it? Hope this isn't rabbit trailing. But I do believe his roots of being Credo Reformed Baptist haven't moved and that would explain a lot. He isn't Reformed and He really isn't ordained.
I think you would be hard pressed to show that credos originated this line of thinking (historically). Rather, as one way to discredit infant baptism some credos have latched onto the rationale of certain peados' claims of that nature, based on the latter's strain of covenantalism.He and credobaptists use the same argument for paedocommunion: if you baptize babies, then you should feed them the Supper.
Amen. My only issue is I'm having trouble seeing how anything Wilson is saying is anything different than that.In my search to hammer out my understanding of how the covenant works I have personally found that the views of Vos, Berkhof, and Schilder to be helpful and in my opinion, accurate. They all make a distinction between those who are in the covenant in only a legal sense vs those who have the substance of the covenant promises. For example: Ishmael vs Isaac. Thus covenant is wider than election. Both were "in the covenant" so to speak and there were commanalities between them (i.e. both were holy from birth, both given the covenant sign, both given the covenant promises, both had covenant obligations), however only Isaac received the substance of the promises because he laid hold of God with a (Spirit-wrought) faith.
I love Schilder but he isn't always the clearest. I get what he means by the vital/legal distinction, but I am not sure how he can work in his "all or nothing" take on covenant membership. Nor is it clear how this is an improvement upon the actual biblical language of internal/external. And in those rare moments when Wilson is actually clear, it isn't obvious how he is affirming said distinction.Amen. My only issue is I'm having trouble seeing how anything Wilson is saying is anything different than that.
He makes this switch because it enables him to avoid the both the biblical teaching on the IC/VC and its necessary entailments. He is not saying, "we also need to look at the church from the historical vs. eschotalogical perspective. Instead he is saying, "we need to ignore (functionally deny) the IC/VC distinction and use ONLY the HC/EC distinction." He does so in order to sneak in the FV's unbiblical true-but-temporary faith position.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 think what is presented by Berkhof in his S.T., where if I recall correctly he essentially endorses the position of Vos, and what I've read about Schilder (not directly from him, but in a pamphlet on FV by Rev. Bredenhof (@Guido's Brother) who is a member of this forum) indicate to me that they all essentially believed the same thing - they call it vital/legal, which really is the same kind of distinction as visible/invisible. I think it is helpful to keep both terminologies in mind and I believe they complement each other. I think what the Dutch formulations are trying to establish is that all those in the visible church or "covenant community" or whatever you want to call it really do have a relation to God, and really are "in covenant" with him. Whereas some formulations treat it as though the only people who really have any covenant relationship to God are the elect, and the others (including children) are in essence covenant appendages (or worse yet, have no relationship to God whatsoever) until proven otherwise.I love Schilder but he isn't always the clearest. I get what he means by the vital/legal distinction, but I am not sure how he can work in his "all or nothing" take on covenant membership. Nor is it clear how this is an improvement upon the actual biblical language of internal/external. And in those rare moments when Wilson is actually clear, it isn't obvious how he is affirming said distinction.
I think what is presented by Berkhof in his S.T., where if I recall correctly he essentially endorses the position of Vos, and what I've read about Schilder (not directly from him, but in a pamphlet on FV by Rev. Bredenhof (@Guido's Brother) who is a member of this forum) indicate to me that they all essentially believed the same thing - they call it vital/legal, which really is the same kind of distinction as visible/invisible. I think it is helpful to keep both terminologies in mind and I believe they complement each other. I think what the Dutch formulations are trying to establish is that all those in the visible church or "covenant community" or whatever you want to call it really do have a relation to God, and really are "in covenant" with him. Whereas some formulations treat it as though the only people who really have any covenant relationship to God are the elect, and the others (including children) are in essence covenant appendages (or worse yet, have no relationship to God whatsoever) until proven otherwise.
Some baptist polemicists going back maybe at least to the 19th Century have made the argument and thus charged Presbyterians and others with inconsistency.I think you would be hard pressed to show that credos originated this line of thinking (historically). Rather, as one way to discredit infant baptism some credos have latched onto the rationale of certain peados' claims of that nature, based on the latter's strain of covenantalism.
I seem to recall Murray saying something along the lines that he would rather adopt paedocommunion before he would give up paedobaptism.
Disagree. Chesterton is immensely (pun unintended) fun as an essayist. He uses the mundane to invite the reader to a different point of view on various matters, which is what every literary essayist should do. "What I found in my pocket," for example, was highly entertaining.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.
Disagree. Chesterton is immensely (pun unintended) fun as an essayist. He uses the mundane to invite the reader to a different point of view on various matters, which is what every literary essayist should do. "What I found in my pocket," for example, was highly entertaining.