Not Reformed At All

[Stephen]

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Do you have a reference to his accusation that VanTil denied the Trinity because I have been on his mailing list and have never heard this before? I agree with you that he is not VanTillian but he is presuppositional. Robbins holds to the teachings of Gordon's Clark and certainly would oppose VanTil.

 

[py3ak]

Anne, it is hard to spot his denial of a covenant of works because most of us reading it were not expecting it. It is so subtle that you do not see it at first. It is almost like he purposely tries to gloss over it. I think because of his lack of training he is ignorant of theology. Unfortunetly he is the Pope of his denomination and has influened Wilkins, Leithert, Meyers, Horne, and all these others in the PCA.

Stephen, I have a little conceptual problem with this particular critique. Wilson is ignorant of theology because of his lack of training. Nonetheless, he has influences people who have Ph.Ds from Cambridge (Leithart). How can we attribute Wilson's ignorance to his lack of training when his ignorance is evidently contagious to some of the highly-trained?

(And for the record, I did not say that Wilson is a walking encyclopaedia of theology.)

 

[Gryphonette]

He's a talented writer.

Anne, it is hard to spot his denial of a covenant of works because most of us reading it were not expecting it. It is so subtle that you do not see it at first. It is almost like he purposely tries to gloss over it. I think because of his lack of training he is ignorant of theology. Unfortunetly he is the Pope of his denomination and has influened Wilkins, Leithert, Meyers, Horne, and all these others in the PCA.

Stephen, I have a little conceptual problem with this particular critique. Wilson is ignorant of theology because of his lack of training. Nonetheless, he has influences people who have Ph.Ds from Cambridge (Leithart). How can we attribute Wilson's ignorance to his lack of training when his ignorance is evidently contagious to some of the highly-trained?

(And for the record, I did not say that Wilson is a walking encyclopaedia of theology.)

That might sound simplistic but I really believe it's the truth. His ability to turn a phrase and express his thoughts in a sharp, often amusing manner tends to encourage his readers to assume what he wrote is accurate.

We have a lamentable tendency (and believe me, I do it too!) to allow ourselves to be persuaded more by the delivery of the message rather than the content of the message, as the former smooths the path for the latter.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Anne, it is hard to spot his denial of a covenant of works because most of us reading it were not expecting it. It is so subtle that you do not see it at first. It is almost like he purposely tries to gloss over it. I think because of his lack of training he is ignorant of theology. Unfortunetly he is the Pope of his denomination and has influened Wilkins, Leithert, Meyers, Horne, and all these others in the PCA.

Stephen, I have a little conceptual problem with this particular critique. Wilson is ignorant of theology because of his lack of training. Nonetheless, he has influences people who have Ph.Ds from Cambridge (Leithart). How can we attribute Wilson's ignorance to his lack of training when his ignorance is evidently contagious to some of the highly-trained?

(And for the record, I did not say that Wilson is a walking encyclopaedia of theology.)

That might sound simplistic but I really believe it's the truth. His ability to turn a phrase and express his thoughts in a sharp, often amusing manner tends to encourage his readers to assume what he wrote is accurate.

We have a lamentable tendency (and believe me, I do it too!) to allow ourselves to be persuaded more by the delivery of the message rather than the content of the message, as the former smooths the path for the latter.

I think if Doug Wilson knew his limitations he would not have made some of his mistakes; he is great at practical theology, poor at Systematic theology. I wish he had stuck to the former. That said, I thought his Easy Chairs, Hard Words was a great explanation of Calvinism. Pity he does not believe it.

 

[py3ak]

Anne and Daniel, points taken, but it doesn't address the substance of my remark. If training teaches a man to respect his limitations, would Peter Leithart try to do literary criticism? If pungent delivery can deceive the trained then how can we attribute Wilson's problems to his lack of training? If friends of his with Ph.Ds have similar or worse problems how can a lack of traning be the real root of the problem?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Anne and Daniel, points taken, but it doesn't address the substance of my remark. If training teaches a man to respect his limitations, would Peter Leithart try to do literary criticism? If pungent delivery can deceive the trained then how can we attribute Wilson's problems to his lack of training? If friends of his with Ph.Ds have similar or worse problems how can a lack of traning be the real root of the problem?

Perhaps it is really Norman Shepherd and NT Wright who have deceived the trained rather than Doug Wilson?

 

[py3ak]

Maybe so; and of course, Norm Shepherd, at least should have been well-trained.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Do you have a reference to his accusation that VanTil denied the Trinity because I have been on his mailing list and have never heard this before? I agree with you that he is not VanTillian but he is presuppositional. Robbins holds to the teachings of Gordon's Clark and certainly would oppose VanTil.

Read his booklet Van Til: The Man and the Myth

 

[Gryphonette]

Define "trained", maybe?

Anne and Daniel, points taken, but it doesn't address the substance of my remark. If training teaches a man to respect his limitations, would Peter Leithart try to do literary criticism? If pungent delivery can deceive the trained then how can we attribute Wilson's problems to his lack of training? If friends of his with Ph.Ds have similar or worse problems how can a lack of traning be the real root of the problem?

Perhaps those theologians who have fallen in with DW's doctrinal theories in fact didn't have a firm grasp of what they were taught in seminary; In other words, they were capable of regurgitating it upon demand but did not really understand it.

Or if they understood it, they weren't satisfied by it, so when another theory came along which scratched that itch, they easily transferred their doctrinal allegiance to the new theory.

You make a very good point, though. It is a matter of concern that some of our seminary-trained theologians don't demonstrate any greater degree of discernment than many of the people in the pew. If the STT are capable of being taken in, the PiP's are in real trouble.

 

[py3ak]

Anne, what you say is true. And I think that confirms my original thesis. If seminary training doesn't guarantee competence it is absurd to point to Wilson's lack of it as an explanation for his incompetence. It's easy to shoot Wilson down on that score; but that technique fails when you come over to Leithart or Meyers or Jordan or Norm Shepherd. Not only that, but it's not too hard to make it backfire with a rhetorical appeal to the fact that it was the seminary trained theologians who opposed the apostolic preaching of Christ.

And that is why I think that heresy (and often error) is a moral, not an intellectual problem. Servetus seems to have been recognized as quite brilliant, after all.

 

[Davidius]

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Do you have a reference to his accusation that VanTil denied the Trinity because I have been on his mailing list and have never heard this before? I agree with you that he is not VanTillian but he is presuppositional. Robbins holds to the teachings of Gordon's Clark and certainly would oppose VanTil.

Read his booklet Van Til: The Man and the Myth

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And that is why I think that heresy (and often error) is a moral, not an intellectual problem. Servetus seems to have been recognized as quite brilliant, after all.

Heretics are usually those too smart for most of us. I ain't clever enough for their sophistries.

 

[Beoga]

While I am under the impression FV theology is heretical (I have neither the time nor the brain power to really comprehend this mess), I was actually unimpressed by "Not Reformed At All." I may have to reread it again, but from what I remember though, it seemed like more than have the time was spent attacking the person of Doug Wilson. I walked away still not really understanding what Wilson actually believed and the solid critiques of those beliefs.
Of course, I walked away from skimming through most of Reformed is Not Enough thinking that was silly. Though I did think that Her Hand in Marriage was quite intriquing.