MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hay!
Not another DW thread
- Thread starter Ploutos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #dougwilson doug wilson
I think the problem is the same as it was during the FV controversy, where sweeping generalizations about errors are made, and they can be answered by sweeping, generalized answers.
The preference for "Covenant of Life" language is not, in itself, controversial. The issue is that the actual problem is not drilled in upon.
There is nothing wrong with saying it was good of God to condescend and establish a Covenant with Adam. He seems to be inferring this and it is clear that he sees the CoG as different from this.
What the Reformed insist upon, however, in the first Covenant is that Adam had the natural ability to obey. Wilson focuses upon Adam believing God. Well and good. This would be part of a natural ability to believe God *and* obey. The problem is that James doesn't know to drill in on this point as to Adam's natural ability even if one grants that the CoW is condescending for God.
The other thing that is noteworthy about Wilson's answers (that James doesn't catch) is that he makes much of the notion of infused vs imputed righteousness but departs from discussions of Covenant and the Mediator in this whole treatment. That all evangelical graces (regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, repentance unto life, good works, etc) flow by the Spirit from Christ as Mediator is central to pinning down where Wilson errs. It's not surprising James misses this as he, in spite of being careful in other places, is very sloppy when trying to understand and represent Westminsterian theology, preferring to just think of it as something that different people interpret differently. The issue of imputation vs infusion is not an antiseptic theological issue, but needs to take reference to what Christ has purchased and what He applies by the Spirit as Mediator. This is where a Baptist like James, who doesn't care to understand the theology of the Standards, can't understand that Wilson's sacramental errors are all part of a larger Covenant of Grace Mediator error. Wilson is a neonomian and one can diagnose this if one knows the questions to ask but, because Wite has no real respect for the Westminster Confession, he assumes that paedocommunion or neonomianism flow out of the Confession because he's never respected it enough to understand it does not.
VerticalLiftEnjoyer
Puritan Board Freshman
Forgive me if I speak words without knowledge, or if I am unreasonably accusatory, but why are FV-ites so willing to fight and be shunned over their views, while at the same time not being overt with their beliefs? Do they think it a small thing, their “living faith” and “squabbles” over regeneration? Is this all so they can get their names in a history book? Or a following? Or have they just not applied enough proper thought to realize they’ve built their house on the sand?
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Not to in any way discredit your translation (as it effectively corresponds with my own), but as a matter of a translational exercise for myself, here is how I would probably translate Beza's remarks:
This is how they conceal some of their own mysterious teachings: partly by using quite novel words and phrases, and also with a most abstruse and highly ambiguous manner of speaking. Even then, they are more concerned with refuting our ideas than with proving their own. And from these very facts it may be wholly attested whether they have persuaded themselves of such things by a spirit of light or of darkness.
Seems to fit FV to a T...
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I am most amateurishly piecing together what I get from the video, so yours is better. Yes, it's FV through-and-through.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
They will tell you (and have told me personally)
*They are just taking the bible seriously
*They are the only people resisting wokism.
* They are rebuilding Christendom.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
No, no and no.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
In the interview I posted, he unequivocally endorsed imputed righteousness. I don't know how long ago his CREC exams were, but this interview was much more recent.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And that imputed righteousness, as he has written elsewhere, is based upon man's infused righteousness.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm pretty sure he said it was based on the finished work of Christ. I honestly have no idea what this "infused righteousness" is.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
It’s usually like RCism’s infused grace.
That's the problem. That's why I posted the article.
The confusion he presents is that God infuses grace into a believer so that he can believe and that obedient faith is the grounds by which Christ's righteousness is imputed.
Faith is the instrument of justification but it is a condition to interest. The Reformed have never considered faith to be the contribution of the sinner to fulfill a condition by which he procures imputed righteousness. It is a condition fulfilled by the Spirit moving the sinner with an empty hand to grasp Christ. It is not, as Wilson says an "infusion of grace" so that the sinner's heart moves in obedience and God responds by giving Christ's imputed righteousness.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Edit: He affirms Christ's righteousness as the ground, but our infused faith as the instrument. That's the problem.
He identifie(s)d regeneration with an infusion of faith.To be sure, he could have changed his views. That happens a lot when people make stuff up as they go along.
To be sure, we do believe in an infusion of graces in sanctification, but not in justification. God infuses the virtues in us.
John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just going to be a little more on the nose here...
Prolegomena, Reformed Dogmatics
Bavinck
pg. 423
Discuss Among Yourselves | Blog & Mablog
Sharing Options “What is regeneration? That is an existential and experimental reality. God takes away a heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. Now, when does regeneration occur? According to the traditional ordo . . . regeneration is first, then repentance, then faith, then...
dougwils.com
He's still posting this kind of nonsense. It ain't old.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is where I think KDY's article, for the possibly valid criticisms levied against it and him and people he has not sufficiently denounced, has some use.
There are multiple facets to a personality as big as Doug Wilson and multiple facets in which he is demonstrably problematic.
His theology is demonstrably problematic in so many ways - his distortion of standard Reformed terminology, his love of equivocation and obfuscation, his hyper-covenantalism manifesting in weird practices such as paedocommunion.
His conduct is demonstrably problematic in so many ways and while one can argue individual instances, the accumulation of matters is itself a problem. His responses to accusations of conduct show more of the same equivocation. When criticized about calling x person a y, he responds with "well x was manifestly behaving like a y". Is this grade school? To label such behaviour as puerile is an insult to young boys.
But, as with so many other errant teachers, he appeals for a reason. Why do people develop an interest in church history and drift to Canterbury, Rome, or the East? Why do people develop an interest in living out the gospel and drift into pietism or legalism? Often the accusations are legitimate, and the perceived void is not just perceived by real. But it's always the wrong solution peddled to people who haven't taken Ephesians 4:14 to heart, aren't grounded in the truth, and see something of a salvation figure in whatever they drift to. I've seen this in myself many times over the years but by the grace of God when I've diligently searched out the Scriptures I've discovered time after time again that the solution is already there and that generally Reformed theology has given us tools, authors, and books to address this.
Is the church guilty of ignoring the church fathers, tradition, context, of pretending the church de facto didn't exist between 430 and 1517? Sure. Maybe. A little. A lot. It doesn't matter - Rome isn't and never will be the right answer. Is the church guilty of rationalism? Sure. Maybe. A little. A lot. It doesn't matter - Eastern apophaticism isn't and never will be the right answer. Is the church guilty of pandering to CRT, to COVID fear-mongering, to scientists who can't conceive of any intelligent person rejecting evolution, to child psychology imported into adulthood about self-esteem and hurting people's feelings? Sure. Maybe. A little. A lot. It doesn't matter - Doug Wilson isn't and never will be the right answer, because it's not right to fudge on the doctrine of justification or to platform obscene behavior or whatever other problematic things he's done. It doesn't matter if he's taking a stand no one else is taking. I highly doubt that no one else is taking a stand anyway - it's just that many of us are doing it with less publicity and pomp.
And it doesn't matter that KDY hasn't sufficiently criticized others who are equally guilty. He has made a valuable contribution - if a bit overly conciliatory, because that seems to be his way across the board - to explaining why people like Doug Wilson so much, and suggesting that maybe they shouldn't.
There are multiple facets to a personality as big as Doug Wilson and multiple facets in which he is demonstrably problematic.
His theology is demonstrably problematic in so many ways - his distortion of standard Reformed terminology, his love of equivocation and obfuscation, his hyper-covenantalism manifesting in weird practices such as paedocommunion.
His conduct is demonstrably problematic in so many ways and while one can argue individual instances, the accumulation of matters is itself a problem. His responses to accusations of conduct show more of the same equivocation. When criticized about calling x person a y, he responds with "well x was manifestly behaving like a y". Is this grade school? To label such behaviour as puerile is an insult to young boys.
But, as with so many other errant teachers, he appeals for a reason. Why do people develop an interest in church history and drift to Canterbury, Rome, or the East? Why do people develop an interest in living out the gospel and drift into pietism or legalism? Often the accusations are legitimate, and the perceived void is not just perceived by real. But it's always the wrong solution peddled to people who haven't taken Ephesians 4:14 to heart, aren't grounded in the truth, and see something of a salvation figure in whatever they drift to. I've seen this in myself many times over the years but by the grace of God when I've diligently searched out the Scriptures I've discovered time after time again that the solution is already there and that generally Reformed theology has given us tools, authors, and books to address this.
Is the church guilty of ignoring the church fathers, tradition, context, of pretending the church de facto didn't exist between 430 and 1517? Sure. Maybe. A little. A lot. It doesn't matter - Rome isn't and never will be the right answer. Is the church guilty of rationalism? Sure. Maybe. A little. A lot. It doesn't matter - Eastern apophaticism isn't and never will be the right answer. Is the church guilty of pandering to CRT, to COVID fear-mongering, to scientists who can't conceive of any intelligent person rejecting evolution, to child psychology imported into adulthood about self-esteem and hurting people's feelings? Sure. Maybe. A little. A lot. It doesn't matter - Doug Wilson isn't and never will be the right answer, because it's not right to fudge on the doctrine of justification or to platform obscene behavior or whatever other problematic things he's done. It doesn't matter if he's taking a stand no one else is taking. I highly doubt that no one else is taking a stand anyway - it's just that many of us are doing it with less publicity and pomp.
And it doesn't matter that KDY hasn't sufficiently criticized others who are equally guilty. He has made a valuable contribution - if a bit overly conciliatory, because that seems to be his way across the board - to explaining why people like Doug Wilson so much, and suggesting that maybe they shouldn't.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
Without opining on DW and etc., I would like to say that I believe good teachers make the difficult understandable by breaking it down into digestible pieces as required. Poor teachers contrariwise, make things more obscure and complex.
John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
From the article @Semper Fidelis posted, concerning Andrew Fuller:
“To demonstrate his innocence, he took up the ‘irksome task’ of reading all the works of Baxter he could before concluding that Baxter’s writing was ‘so circuitous, and full of artificial distinctions, and obscure terms, that I could not in many cases come at his meaning, nor could I have read them through without making myself ill.’”
Emphasis mine. Hicks makes a great comparison here.
“To demonstrate his innocence, he took up the ‘irksome task’ of reading all the works of Baxter he could before concluding that Baxter’s writing was ‘so circuitous, and full of artificial distinctions, and obscure terms, that I could not in many cases come at his meaning, nor could I have read them through without making myself ill.’”
Emphasis mine. Hicks makes a great comparison here.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
Wilson's Warrior Children
A slightly more theological take which goes beyond addressing the "Moscow Mood" to addressing the dominionist/transformationist eschatology underpinning support for DW.
A slightly more theological take which goes beyond addressing the "Moscow Mood" to addressing the dominionist/transformationist eschatology underpinning support for DW.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Good point, but I find it very curious that when DW attempts to dig deeper into the nature and method of justification and sanctification everyone freaks out, but when other reformed scholars speculate on the Trinity's relationship ad intra, no one bats an eye.
1. This is just deflection, nothing more. "But what about" does not magically make Wilson less problematic.
2. Your gloss is...interesting. Doug isn't just "attempting to dig deeper". He's using language he knows is problematic because of Rome. He's getting as close to the line as he can at best.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Seriously? In 2016 we went scorched earth on the semi-Arians (which, incidentally, DW Is one).
On Authority, Order, and Equality within the Godhead | Blog & Mablog
Sharing Options Bumped to the top so that people can follow the comments/answers. I had made a comment on Twitter that no one had registered their concerns here. The problem with that comment is that I had forgotten to turn the comments on. The fault was entirely mine, but there was no guile in...
dougwils.com
John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
This comment does not accord with reality. Plenty more than “eye bating” has been done with regards to the ‘neo-Arianism’ of our day. And DW has consistently and and intentionally muddied the waters around justification, regeneration, and imputed/‘infused’ righteousness in order to deflect and defend his dangerous/heretical beliefs on such matters.
“Is faith the sole instrumental cause of justification, yes or no?”
That easy to avoid all this mess if he actually believes it. Stop bringing regeneration into the justification of sinners. Yet he will not.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Is Thomas Aquinas “close to Rome”?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The problem is that Thomas's view of God is more or less in line with the Patristic view, and the Reformed, minus some details on the divine names, is in line with Thomas's. If we reject Thomas on God, we would have to take exception to the WCF on God. If we reject Thomas on the sacraments and faith, then we don't have to take exception to the WCF. Wilson, by contrast, by bringing infusion into the discussion of justifying faith, has walked right into Rome's theology.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Seriously? In 2016 we went scorched earth on the semi-Arians (which, incidentally, DW Is one).
On Authority, Order, and Equality within the Godhead | Blog & Mablog
Sharing Options Bumped to the top so that people can follow the comments/answers. I had made a comment on Twitter that no one had registered their concerns here. The problem with that comment is that I had forgotten to turn the comments on. The fault was entirely mine, but there was no guile in...
Does infused righteousness play a role in justification?
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
No.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Are you arguing that Thomas' view of God is no more exhaustive than that affirmed in the WCF? It's been a long time since I've read Aquinas, but I thought he was quite prolific on the topic.
Also, a distinction needs to be made between what Thomas said that is clearly in Scripture, that which is clearly in the WCF, and that which goes beyond both because, even if the latter may appear consistent with them on first glance, I strongly caution against a dogmatism. And Reformed Baptists like myself have been some of the worst offenders in this regard.