Doug Wilson's book

[jwright82]

I read one of Wilson's book. It was horrible! It was "Reformed Isn't Enough" , has anyone else read this book and what do you think?

 

[SolaScriptura]

That book is so 15 years ago. It isn't a classic, it was a flash in the pan, an early work of a now discredited movement.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Terrible book. My short critique of it is here.

 

[greenbaggins]

I went through the whole book debating Wilson himself, if you want to slog through it all here (RINE is "'Reformed' Is Not Enough").

 

[TylerRay]

I went through the whole book debating Wilson himself, if you want to slog through it all here (RINE is "'Reformed' Is Not Enough").

You swam the full length of the RINE, huh?

(that was pretty bad)

 

[SolaScriptura]

You swam the full length of the RINE, huh?

(that was pretty bad)

So bad it was funny!!!

 

[greenbaggins]

No one had better accuse me of being a RINE-maiden, that's all I can say.

 

[TaylorWest]

I read one of Wilson's book. It was horrible! It was "Reformed Isn't Enough" , has anyone else read this book and what do you think?

I've read many many many of Doug's books. Most of them are top notch. He should be embarrassed by this one. My guess is that it will show up under one of his 'recant' posts in the years to come.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

Glad to see the universal opinion is the sensible one!

 

[jwright82]

You know, his argument is just flawed. He tries to wave the biblical flag and turn around and and write things that are unreformed and say, or imply, "im just reading the bible and believing it". So when the bible says "to the elect at such and such a church" it means that the whole church is elected in some sense. Its the whole "objectivity" thing thats the problem. Also they eschew theology at the beginning, with the distinctions and such, only to turn around and make massive distinctions at the end. It's hypocrisy. I don't know that's just my rant. I hate underhanded scholarship.

 

[RamistThomist]

It's hypocrisy. I don't know that's just my rant. I hate underhanded scholarship.

It goes further than that. One could say "Well, he wrote it 15 years ago and he's changed online." True, he did recant the name Federal Vision, but he didn't follow that with doctrinal repentance and apologies for all of the churches his teaching has split.

 

[zsmcd]

Terrible book. My short critique of it is here.

"Short."

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"Short."

Tongue in cheek, short.

 

[jwright82]

"Short."

Right! It only has to be "short" because that's how bad the book is. Now that's funny I don't care you are that's funny (borrowed capital, yes that' a Van Til joke).

 

[zsmcd]

Tongue in cheek, short.

Subjective short, not objective short.