Sons of Patriarchy

[Guido's Brother]

There's a new podcast series on Doug Wilson starting on October 28. Here's the trailer:

 

[davejonescue]

I have not seen one individual live rent-free in the heads of so many others to the degree Wilson has. I'll give him that.

 

[Ploutos]

I have not seen one individual live rent-free in the heads of so many others to the degree Wilson has. I'll give him that.

Trump.

 

[davejonescue]

Trump.

Touche.

 

[itsreed]

Some of us experience devastation of his errors among family/congregations.

Not rent free, at all.

 

[RamistThomist]

Some of us have had to clean up the broken families and spiritual wasteland he has left.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

@itsreed and @RamistThomist

Can you share about your experience with the fallout? Given his increasing popularity, I think that would be helpful information.

Thanks!

 

[RamistThomist]

@itsreed and @RamistThomist

Can you share about your experience with the fallout? Given his increasing popularity, I think that would be helpful information.

Thanks!

My story is standard. Women are birthing machines and discouraged from getting an education. When someone responds that they need something to fall back on in case the husband dies or starts abusing her and the kids, they are told that the church will take care of her. That ignores that the church is often the problem.

And of course, there are the Sitler and Wight cases.

 

[Ploutos]

My story is standard. Women are birthing machines and discouraged from getting an education. When someone responds that they need something to fall back on in case the husband dies or starts abusing her and the kids, they are told that the church will take care of her. That ignores that the church is often the problem.

And of course, there are the Sitler and Wight cases.

Have you had first hand experience with this?

 

[Theoretical]

It's probably a very similar fallout, but with a Reformed rather than Pelagian shade, as with Bill Gothard, which I've definitely personally experienced and seen in close relationships. They scratch the same itch.

 

[ZackF]

Women are birthing machines and discouraged from getting an education.

I’v wondered if he had rethought some of his positions as time matched on. If not, that makes his own daughters case studies in being exceptions. Grad school to boot! Not to mention all of the book writing and other content production.

As yet another Doug Wilson thread had been started, before it is closed, I would like some folks with knowledge of his trajectory to comment.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I do think sometimes there are things attributed to Doug Wilson that he doesn't actually believe in, but it is actually Doug Wilson adjacent individuals who are actually more zealous (maybe fanatical) in their views. Doug Wilson should absolutely be called out for his bad theology, especially the federal vision, but he shouldn't be blamed for everything his fan boys do (e.g. Joel Webbon and his dancing with Holocaust denial). I think Wilson's own daughters as mentioned above would serve as an example.

 

[RamistThomist]

Have you had first hand experience with this?

Yes. As an elder I can only say so much at the moment

 

[Theogenes]

Christian Taliban.

 

[MatthewBall]

I’v wondered if he had rethought some of his positions as time matched on. If not, that makes his own daughters case studies in being exceptions. Grad school to boot! Not to mention all of the book writing and other content production.

As yet another Doug Wilson thread had been started, before it is closed, I would like some folks with knowledge of his trajectory to comment.

Not a defense of Wilson as a whole here, but I must say I've heard him strongly encourage women being educated before on multiple occasions.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

If Wilson was against female education, NSA wouldn't be graduating women. I'm not fan of Wilson, but let's criticize him for the problems he does have, not for the ones he doesn't.

To the OP, who is Peter Bell? The trailer seemed a bit overblown. It gave me no confidence that the podcast won't swing to the opposite extreme of egalitarianism and evangelical feminism.

 

[RamistThomist]

I make a distinction between Wilson's actual teachings and the practical outworkings in CREC and CREC-adjacent churches. In any case, I was at ground zero at Auburn Avenue. I've seen it.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Tp the OP, who is Peter Bell?

I would like to know this as well. We know who Wilson is. What is this person's history and what are his theological positions? We would be wise not to go from one extreme to the other (if this is the case).

 

[MatthewBall]

Tp the OP, who is Peter Bell?

I know he used to co-host a relatively popular theology podcast called "Guilt Grace Gratitude". He left it maybe 6 months-a year ago, but I'm unsure of the reason why he left. They posted a short update when he left the podcast that seemed to imply him leaving due to some sort of indiscretion on his part but it was very vague. Personally, he always struck me as being soft/left-leaning regarding cultural issues. Of course that opinion is pretty subjective.

 

[Edward]

I always felt that Wilson is an excellent writer and his work very readable.

Which is a large part of the problem.

 

[ZackF]

I hope Mr. Bell goes on to define his terms such as “racism” and so on.

 

[alexanderjames]

Peter Bell is (or at least was) a member of the Puritan Board. I used to enjoy listening to the Guilt Grace Gratitude Podcast to find out about good books and authors. Peter graduated from WTS, but according to a very brief statement on the podcast, is no longer pursuing full time ministry. And he has taken a step back from the podcast, which is supposedly now in the hands of Daniel Hyde and Nick Fullwiler.

 

[PaulCLawton]

Christian Taliban.

This is an insane thing to say.

 

[PhilalethesIrenaeus]

Everyone worries about this Baxter Redivivus. I worry about the latent Baxterianism that gave him a foothold.

 

[davejonescue]

Everyone worries about this Baxter Redivivus. I worry about the latent Baxterianism that gave him a foothold.

I am somewhat torn on this, not being adequately studied in either Baxter or his contemporaries responses to his position. But the small part I can glean, or at least think I do, is, isnt Baxter responding to the blatant carnality of his day by professing Christians? If I am correct, he goes over the line by making works (or holiness) a mandatory part of justification; but it seems that many of the Puritans emphasized holiness as an inseparable part of genuine salvific conversion. i.e. without holiness no one shall see God. How are we to frame the proper form of justification, in which 1. credits it to Faith alone, but, 2. Doesnt allow the leeway to live a carnal or licentious life? Sorry if this doesnt make sense, but just trying to understand how we can coalesce 1. without saying 2. isnt mandatory?

Does it just boil down to the proper definition of genuine faith? Like Sprouls "we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." And if so, could it be Baxter was trying to say something that the orthodox also hold to, but described it improperly?

 

[MarrowMan]

I am somewhat torn on this, not being adequately studied in either Baxter or his contemporaries responses to his position. But the small part I can glean, or at least think I do, is, isnt Baxter responding to the blatant carnality of his day by professing Christians? If I am correct, he goes over the line by making works (or holiness) a mandatory part of salvation; but it seems that many of the Puritans emphasized holiness as an inseparable part of genuine conversion. How are we to frame a proper form of justification, in which 1. credits it to Faith alone, but, 2. Doesnt allow the leeway to live a carnal or licentious life? Sorry if this doesnt make sense, but just trying to understand how we can coalesce 1. without saying 2. isnt mandatory?

Does it just boil down to the proper definition of genuine faith? And if so, could it be Baxter was trying to say something that the orthodox also hold to, but describe in more proper terminology?

Baxter et. al. swing the pendulum against antinomianism too far the other way. We need to be comfortable with the fact that there will always be antinomians (though I would say legalists are far more common). The solution isn’t to gut justification of what requires Paul to pen Romans 6. God’s grace and mercy in free justification will always have those who misunderstand it to mean they “may sin that grace may abound.” It is not a complicated question. What makes us right with God? What puts us in right standing with him? Grace accessed by faith and faith alone. But the same regenerative power of the Spirit that enables us to exercise the instrument that results in justification declaratively is the same regenerative power that remains operative in sanctification. It is not that we MUST produce fruit to maintain our standing, but that we WILL produce fruit BECAUSE of our standing. It doesn’t boil down to a proper understanding of “genuine faith” but a proper understanding of God’s redemptive work from beginning to end.

 

[davejonescue]

Baxter et. al. swing the pendulum against antinomianism too far the other way. We need to be comfortable with the fact that there will always be antinomians (though I would say legalists are far more common). The solution isn’t to gut justification of what requires Paul to pen Romans 6. God’s grace and mercy in free justification will always have those who misunderstand it to mean they “may sin that grace may abound.” It is not a complicated question. What makes us right with God? What puts us in right standing with him? Grace accessed by faith and faith alone. But the same regenerative power of the Spirit that enables us to exercise the instrument that results in justification declaratively is the same regenerative power that remains operative in sanctification. It is not that we MUST produce fruit to maintain our standing, but that we WILL produce fruit BECAUSE of our standing. It doesn’t boil down to a proper understanding of “genuine faith” but a proper understanding of God’s redemptive work from beginning to end.

See, I have never really seen legalism as the main issue. I have witnessed though tons of people in my life who say they believe in God and do drugs, get drunk all the time, fornicate, commit crimes, whole denominations giving way to SSA, etc. Most rappers, actors, and gangsters wear crosses. Why do you think legalism is greater issue in our society than people that profess, living in unrepentant carnality?

 

[retroGRAD3]

See, I have never really seen legalism as the main issue. I have witnessed though tons of people in my life who say they believe in God and do drugs, get drunk all the time, fornicate, commit crimes, whole denominations giving way to SSA, etc. Most rappers, actors, and gangsters wear crosses. Why do you think legalism is greater issue in our society than people that profess, living in unrepentant carnality?

I agree with this. Legalism seems much more rare. Did you have a specific circle you would thinking of when you say legalism is more common @MarrowMan ?

 

[MarrowMan]

See, I have never really seen legalism as the main issue. I have witnessed though tons of people in my life who say they believe in God and do drugs, get drunk all the time, fornicate, commit crimes, whole denominations giving way to SSA, etc. Most rappers, actors, and gangsters wear crosses. Why do you think legalism is greater issue in our society than people that profess, living in unrepentant carnality?

Because as many people as there are who are “carnal” there are just as many who think their status before God is based upon their doing. That maintaining their status before God is done by doing. This reality is what produced The Marrow Controversy.

I agree with this. Legalism seems much more rare. Did you have a specific circle you would thinking of when you say legalism is more common @MarrowMan ?

I’m not going to spend much time going down this road, because it detracts from the overarching point I made, but I will answer that the specific circle I have in mind is the circle of those who take Christianity “seriously”. The nomistas of the world.

ETA: Following Machen I do not view liberal Christianity as Christianity at all, so that colors our conversation a bit, I think.

 

[davejonescue]

Because as many people as there are who are “carnal” there are just as many who think their status before God is based upon their doing. That maintaining their status before God is done by doing. This reality is what produced The Marrow Controversy.


I’m not going to spend much time going down this road, because it detracts from the overarching point I made, but I will answer that the specific circle I have in mind is the circle of those who take Christianity “seriously”. The nomistas of the world.

We probably just hang around different circles. I have witnessed far more people in my life, (including myself for almost all my early life,) go on with life and indulge in anything they like without a care to its witness or offense to God; as almost they were oblivious to what the Bible says. But find peace in the belief that that nightly prayer will save us from judgment. I have rarely, if ever, ran across someone who is stressed out about not doing enough to earn their salvation. I know there are some religions that this is their pattern, but I am mainly talking within the American Protestant arena. The popular mantra seems to be "once you believe you are in, and once you are in you are never out." This seems to give so many people false-security. Am I wrong here?

Now I know my active belief (or the full-awareness that life is about Christ) is not from myself, but of grace, so I am not pointing fingers. But I am saying that for some reason for a large segment of my early life, I thought I could live as a heathen but consider myself a Christian?