Doug Wilson on Worldview

[Semper Fidelis]

From what I understand, he's absolutely brilliant. The same with N.T. Wright. My brother in law is reading a book of his, not related to NPP or FV, and says the guy is heads and shoulders above most. He's a bona fide geemus.

I wouldn't call Doug Wilson a genius. He's not a dunce but his intellect does not dazzle.

I think his appeal is his folksiness as much as anything. I used to like reading him but I read another book recently and I just got tired of all the pithy "zingers". He tends to speak somewhat in aphorisms and that probably makes him seem profound to many people.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I figured as much. Will a comparison help?

Does:

Doug Wilson = Joel Osteen

Doug Wilson = Bishop Spong

Doug Wilson = Billy Graham

Basically, is he WAAAY out there or is he just a bit different?

I wasn't aware that those three represented the three "colors of theology" and that all others were simply variations of the three like RGB are with a CRT.

One way to characterize him would be like that Sesame Street skit "One of these kids is doing his own thing...."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

. It's more like this: his theology of the covenant strains some of his claims on calvinism. In other words, his covenant theology appears to be at odds with his calvinism.

Interesting. I've never thought of it in precisely this way before. Thanks for this perspective (no pun or joke of any sort intended).

I felt it important to mention the calvinism aspect because his blog has a whole section defending the high doctrines of TULIP. He also wrote a very fine conversational (e.g., dialogue) presentation of Calvinism. That is what makes the FV thing so peculiar: does he take away with one hand (FV) what he offers with the other (Calvinism)?

I think this is a much more mature way of dealing with the topic. Had we done it in this fashion, and not with H-bombs, the FV never would have gained the popularity (I am against it, For what it's worth). When you call someone a heretic and evil person, they tend to dig in the trenches.

You may notice that I'm not the kind of guy to throw around that term and many of the notables don't actually use those terms either. I do think, however, that, for all his complaining about tone, Wilson is chief among sinners with his so-called "serrated edge". If you want real vitriol then try visiting an FV-friendly joint for a period of time to see the kind of emotion that gets going when you start pointing out the obvious fact that FV is un-Confessional.

It would be interesting to me, though, if FV had been condemned in a more "civil" fashion what kind of proponents it would have. The fact is that, because it is such a pariah in the Reformed mainstream, that it tends to attract the militant. It actually speaks to the kind of people that flock to it when all the major NAPARC bodies are one-by-one condemning it. The folks left supporting it are all those that really know better - the truly converted that are smart enough to see that the rest of the Reformed Church has apostasized and only they are left to keep it together in their Confederation of micro-Churches.

I was thinking recently about how hard-core Doug Wilson is against public schools and had even read his book about how he thought Christian parents ought to create a school to insulate their kids from all the evil forces out there that would destroy the reformed worldview they were seeking to instill in their kids.

In the process, the advocate himself might have made sure his kids (and the kids in his Church) got a worldview but, in the end, it wasn't reformed. In the end, these kids are getting the Federal Vision as their inheritance.

I connect these things perhaps a bit differently than some but I actually think the basic issue that has always characterized DW's works and characterizes the FV movement is a "smarter than thou" undercurrent. There is a dangerous sanctimonious attitude that I think can cause any movement that starts out well to devolve because the attitude itself is the fruit of a heart that is not bent ulimately by the Gospel of grace but intellectual pride.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

He reminds me of an independent fundy who tried on the Presbyterian Doctor's gown. And now he thinks he is something he isn't. Reformed.

He has some weird views on the Covenant of Works and Grace. He believes in one main Covenant instead of the bi-covenantal view of Works and Grace.

Here is what Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.



Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15

Here is what Doctor R. Scott Clark wrote concerning this kind of thinking when I asked him about Wilkins view on this matter.

Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. (*He fell from grace)

He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.

* my clarification

 

[Zenas]

I figured as much. Will a comparison help?

Does:

Doug Wilson = Joel Osteen

Doug Wilson = Bishop Spong

Doug Wilson = Billy Graham

Basically, is he WAAAY out there or is he just a bit different?

I wasn't aware that those three represented the three "colors of theology" and that all others were simply variations of the three like RGB are with a CRT.

One way to characterize him would be like that Sesame Street skit "One of these kids is doing his own thing...."

I wasn't attempting to give all of the colors of theology. However, two are blatant heretics, and the other is an Arminian evangelical. Obviously, one is closer to orthodoxy than the others.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Zenas,

I wasn't trying to be overly critical. Just a note that it was an interesting way to characterize him among the variants that could characterize him.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

He reminds me of an independent fundy who tried on the Presbyterian Doctor's gown. And now he thinks he is something he isn't. Reformed.

That statement is spot on. Read John Otis' book Danger in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision for more. It is amazing that these men still claim to be Reformed; at best they are Arminian, at worst they are nearly Roman Catholics.

 

[Zenas]

When I first heard it described to me, I was wondering how Roman Catholic Sacramentalism had snuck into orthodox Protestantism.

 

[RamistThomist]

When I first heard it described to me, I was wondering how Roman Catholic Sacramentalism had snuck into orthodox Protestantism.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, read John Willamson Nevin on it. That is probably how Wilson would answer the question.

 

[Pilgrim]

He is out of accord with the Westminster Standards!

So were Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. So are D.A. Carson, Tom Nettles, Russell Moore, Al Mohler, James White and Gene Edward Veith to name a few. Surely you aren't saying that you won't go see anyone who can't subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

(Of course I understand the difference between those who don't try to say they are Reformed and the FV et. al. who do desire to be recognized as Reformed)

 

[Zenas]

Aren't Spurgeon, White, and Mohler within the Baptist Confession, as they are Reformed Baptists?

Wilson is claiming to be a Presbyterian. One big definitional thing with that is agreeing with the WCF.

 

[RamistThomist]

Aren't Spurgeon, White, and Mohler within the Baptist Confession, as they are Reformed Baptists?

Wilson is claiming to be a Presbyterian. One big definitional thing with that is agreeing with the WCF.

Only necessary if he were making the claim to be a confessional presbyterian. Now, you can critique on presbyterian lines (in Mother Kirk he came close to defending independent presbyterianism).

He can support his claim to basic presbyterianism by means of baptising babies, plurality of elders, etc.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

He is out of accord with the Westminster Standards!

So were Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. So are D.A. Carson, Tom Nettles, Russell Moore, Al Mohler, James White and Gene Edward Veith to name a few. Surely you aren't saying that you won't go see anyone who can't subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

(Of course I understand the difference between those who don't try to say they are Reformed and the FV et. al. who do desire to be recognized as Reformed)

Chris,

There is a big difference between those you mention and Wilson when it comes to sound theology and the efficacy of the ordinances and or sacraments. (i.e.)in relation to soteriology) The FV is out of bounds in a few areas that should concern many. But we shouldn't be scared to go listen to them.

 

[Pilgrim]

He is out of accord with the Westminster Standards!

So were Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. So are D.A. Carson, Tom Nettles, Russell Moore, Al Mohler, James White and Gene Edward Veith to name a few. Surely you aren't saying that you won't go see anyone who can't subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

(Of course I understand the difference between those who don't try to say they are Reformed and the FV et. al. who do desire to be recognized as Reformed)

Chris,

There is a big difference between those you mention and Wilson when it comes to sound theology and the efficacy of the ordinances and or sacraments. (i.e.)in relation to soteriology) The FV is out of bounds in a few areas that should concern many. But we shouldn't be scared to go listen to them.

One of them is a Lutheran and would have a different view on the sacraments, and of course Baptists generally have different views from the Reformed on the efficacy of the sacraments as well since most have essentially Zwinglian views. But that's beside the point. My point was simply that whether someone is "out of accord" with the Standards shouldn't determine whether we should go listen to them should the opportunity arise. My parenthetical remark should have been enough to make clear that I wasn't comparing Wilson and other FVers with Spurgeon and the others listed. (BTW I really doubt that Andrew refuses to go listen to anyone who is out of accord with the Westminster Standards.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Aren't Spurgeon, White, and Mohler within the Baptist Confession, as they are Reformed Baptists?

Wilson is claiming to be a Presbyterian. One big definitional thing with that is agreeing with the WCF.

Only necessary if he were making the claim to be a confessional presbyterian. Now, you can critique on presbyterian lines (in Mother Kirk he came close to defending independent presbyterianism).

He can support his claim to basic presbyterianism by means of baptising babies, plurality of elders, etc.

Actually, Wilson claims that his Church subscribes to the WCF. Since the WCF is somewhat agnostic with respect to the issue of congregationalism v. presbyterianism he doesn't have to be critiqued as a presbyterian but can be critiqued for his clear departure from the Confessions.

Incidentally, I would probably go listen to him too. I don't have a problem listening to folks like DW. Even before he got in trouble, he always had an edge to him that I was careful about and wouldn't repeat to novices.

 

[bradofshaw]

I was there Friday night. He said he subscribes to the WCF, that he is a puritan at heart, and he affirmed that salvation is by grace through faith alone. He also said a lot about the sacraments and liturgy in worship whenever he got the chance.

I didn't have any major problems with what he said. He made some statements about the trinity that I wasn't sure about. Some other stuff I'm still thinking about.

 

[RamistThomist]

I bet the lectures would have been interesting. I didn't go because I hate parts of Jackson, MS to begin with--and the 2 + hour drive wasn't appealing.

 

[Kevin]

He is out of accord with the Westminster Standards!

So were Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. So are D.A. Carson, Tom Nettles, Russell Moore, Al Mohler, James White and Gene Edward Veith to name a few. Surely you aren't saying that you won't go see anyone who can't subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

(Of course I understand the difference between those who don't try to say they are Reformed and the FV et. al. who do desire to be recognized as Reformed)

Chris makes a good point. If we were to adopt this view, that we may only listen to those who are "just like us", then we are probably no longer orthodox.

This is one of the distinctives of the Steelite heresy, and I pray that no member of this board has been seduced by it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Guys, go easy here. Andrew merely asked for an opinion. He wasn't being seduced to heresy by simply asking if it's worth his time to go listen to Doug Wilson. It's a legitimate question. Even if somebody else decided he had a problem with listening to a man lecture on a topic related to worldview on the basis of his heterodox positions elsewhere he certainly has the liberty of conscience to make that call without being told he's in danger of becoming a heretic.

Nobody's even made it a "rule of thumb" in this thread that only those "just like us" should be listened to. On the other hand, there is an admonition in the Scriptures that some are better able to withstand certain things than others. I wouldn't place my children unattended for any length of time listening to Doug Wilson simply so I prove to them that they don't have to fear listening to a man. I wouldn't do so because I'd be worried about how impressionable they are.

There is a both-and aspect here. Mature men shouldn't have to be told to avoid certain things because they're bad for them. Mature men also don't flaunt who they can listen to and receive some edification from and, after all, why isn't everyone else just as mature as me.