DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Regeneration brings about faith which brings about justification, right? "Infused righteousness" raises my eyebrow a lot more than this does.
Not another DW thread
- Thread starter Ploutos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #dougwilson doug wilson
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I'm not entirely sure why you brought up Thomas in the first place. Moreover, I made no claims about whether Thomas or Calvin was more exhaustive on the doctrine of God. My point was that the Reformers didn't read Thomas and then say, "Let's get rid of what he says on the doctrine of God."
In terms of infused righteousness, DW is much closer to Thomas than he is WCF.
John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
He speaks of regeneration as infused righteousness, which is instrumental in our justification.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Reformed theology says faith is the sole instrument, resting and receiving. DW says the faith that justifies includes an infused righteousness, which in total is an admixture of my righteousness and Christ's. He might not accept that last clause, but it is the conclusion of his view.
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually, even my pagan acquaintances refrain from using that particular word in my presence, for which I am grateful. To hear a Christian brother use it with such zeal, and then double down on it when challenged makes me put him in the category of “one to be avoided”.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm not sure if this is coming across clearly to you, but it seems clear that Doug Wilson departs in a pretty clear and substantial way from the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It's not a matter of mere samantics.
If righteousness is infused into us, then what need do we have of imputed righteousness? That's the question that Doug Wilson's proposition puts before us.
I cannot fathom how DW's "question for discussion" linked above does not render imputed righteousness unnecessary. If we are righteous, then what need have we of imputation? Righteousness as the ground of righteousness? What utter heretical absurdity.
I cannot fathom how DW's "question for discussion" linked above does not render imputed righteousness unnecessary. If we are righteous, then what need have we of imputation? Righteousness as the ground of righteousness? What utter heretical absurdity.
What would you have my friend? Is infused righteousness the ground of imputed? Is holding to DW worth this?
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
"Holding to DW?" I disagree with him on this issue (if that's what he really believes) along with many others. Yet it is very curious that I have read a few of his books and 100+ iterations of Blog and Mablog and have not heard him pushing this a single time.
This all sounds to me much less like a serious discussion of the nature of justification and much more like an attempt to personally discredit DW on one issue because people are uncomfortable with his boldness on other issues. If this is just saying the fact that DW nails some issues perfectly shouldn't lead us to uncritically accept everything he says, I agree with that. Same thing with men like Lewis and Chesterton. AND Piper AND Keller. Same thing with everything outside of Scripture really.
Otherwise, just say "Moscow Man Bad" and get it over with.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
"That one issue" is the gospel.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's demagoguery if I've ever heard it.
John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
With love and respect I say this:
Perhaps you have not heard him pushing it because you are unaware of the distinctions he is making. That’s our beef with him, he won’t come out and say what he means but instead word vomits to the point of nauseating his listeners/readers and then says ‘see, I’m Reformed.’ He is very clear on this issue, and it’s a major problem. It’s possible you have fallen for his charming ‘wordsmith’ character and don’t see his blatant obfuscation of justification.
And, your comment about his critics being ‘uncomfortable with his boldness on other issues’ merely deflects from whatever issue is being discussed. I think KDY made a great point about the aggressive nature of DW’s rhetoric appealing to what is worldly in us, except I wish he would have used the world ‘fleshly’ or ‘carnal.’ His approach appeals to what is carnal/sinful in us.
And yours/his ‘Moscow man bad’ trope does nobody any good. It shuts down discussion and labels anyone who critiques him as (if male) effeminate or (if female) any number of horrendous labels he clearly has no issue saying (one being the verbiage commented on above and called out in KDY article). What makes this trope any different than the liberals’ constant name calling (e.g. ‘you’re a homophone!’). Both serve to shut down the conversation.
To sum: FV/regeneration as the instrument of justification is a big deal. It’s clear what he believes and time after time he has refused to recant/revise his statements. He’s doubled down by saying he would change the name of what he believes while affirming everything on the FV statement. And he even had the gall to title that post ‘Federal Vision No Mas.’ More obfuscation.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Anyway, it's not just one issue. It is:
1) Condemned by NAPARC for teaching heterodoxy.
2) Using language unbecoming of a minister, such as calling women [WORD REDACTED], small-[WORD REDACTED] biddies, day old doughnuts, and other words.
3) Numerous sex-abuse related scandals.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I can prove that deep down inside, even his defenders know that his language is wrong. If you think he is right in his language, then do the following:
Go to some random secular lady on the street and call her a [WORD REDACTED], small-[WORD REDACTED] biddies, day old doughnuts, and other words.
You aren't going to do that. Why not? Because you are probably a decent human being.
Go to some random secular lady on the street and call her a [WORD REDACTED], small-[WORD REDACTED] biddies, day old doughnuts, and other words.
You aren't going to do that. Why not? Because you are probably a decent human being.
shunoshimobe
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't even want to know what he meant by those words "in context". It's very sad that this is the state of discourse around Christian ministers.
I don't read Wilson's cultural stuff. I've never found him all that compelling, certainly not enough to occupy my time.
I have, on the other hand, read plenty of his FV stuff. He's never retracted it, he just rebranded. Still, to this day, he throws out things here and there like the link I posted above that demonstrate he hasn't changed at all. Indeed, the ongoing practice of paedocommunion itself is recurring evidence of where he stands if you know anything about FV at all.
Yet, it is like pulling teeth to get people who follow Wilson to admit his theology is aberrant in significant ways and any admission dies the death of a thousand qualifications and deflections.
I chuckled at the "Moscow Man Bad" comment. I'm rubber, you're glue.
shunoshimobe
Puritan Board Freshman
Glad this was mentioned again, as I had a question I couldn't find the answer to. How does Christ Church and DW defend themselves from this?
I see this accused on Twitter all the time, and the people affiliated with DW never have an answer for this, and I don't want to be uncharitable, but it seems everytime they do respond it's just a brushing off of the issue, usually saying something about the one who asked the question.
The church website even has a section with "controversies" but it's in PDF format so I wasn't able to read it at the time.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
1) Regarding Nance's grooming one of his students, they point out that the sexual act happened after she was 18. DW did email him regarding future action and employment, but make of that what you will.
2) Regarding Jamin Wight's statutory rape at one of DW's boarding houses--that's a messed up situation. He, a seminary student, groomed a minor and performed numerous sex acts on her. Moscow shifted the blame to the father, that he failed to guard his daughter. True, but that misses the point.
3) Regarding p3dophile Steve Sitler, they will say that the woman knowingly married him, over which DW presided). Technically true, but I surmise that women in the Moscow aren't really encouraged to disobey and contradict the men-folk.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
I can’t speak for anyone else but it is certainly not Wilson’s boldness that is the issue for me and I suspect it not is for most here on the PB. Boldness in and of itself is neither commendable nor discreditable. Joe Biden is bold, Vladimir Putin is bold, Donald Trump is bold - none of them are godly.
The problem is Wilson‘s boldness is accompanied by both ungodly behavior and false doctrine, both of which tarnish the glory of God and harm the work of the kingdom in the world. This is often the problem with culture warriors - they seem to think attacking the culture is their highest mission and they forget, or intentionally ignore, priorities for godly conduct in the world which is an important means God uses to glorify Himself in the world. At its worst, you get trainwrecks like JD Hall.
LanceJ
Puritan Board Freshman
Most churches don't suffer from any sexual abuse issues/scandals. Some may have a major one in the lifetime of the church.
How interesting that DW and Christ's Church has had 3 (that we know of).
Semper Reformada
Puritan Board Freshman
I haven’t posted here in a while, but man have you guys formed a tight echo chamber. Doug Wilson’s attraction HAS to be his rough, crass demeanor. It can’t possibly be that the current reformed world is dying off because of pietism and it’s utter failure to address any of the evils of our day? Honestly, engage with some people that think differently than you. What do you gain by surrounding yourselves with people who just echo back what you already believe?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Specific questions were asked. We gave specific answers, which include (but not limited to)
1) Official denominational rulings condemning his teachings.
2) Civil court documents regarding inept handling of sexual abuse
3) Actual language a pastor used regarding women (okay, those words were redacted for decency's sake).
PB might be an echo chamber, but the facts are facts.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
This one alone is huge. I can't imagine another situation where someone could have his teachings so clearly condemned by so many sound denominations and yet still have so many reformed people fighting to defend him.
It is true that DW is a response to real issues in the world and in the modern church-- that doesn't mean he is a good solution.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Ben Shapiro is good against wokism. So is Jordan Peterson. Neither one is someone I would go to for help on the gospel.
As to being an echo chamber, I was reading DW since 2004. I had first-hand access to Canon Press books.
As to being an echo chamber, I was reading DW since 2004. I had first-hand access to Canon Press books.
Sigh. While there may be those here who focus upon Moscow's "mood" and agree largely with DeYoung's article, I am not one of them and none of my comments or issues that I have expressed in this thread focus upon that particular concern. For me it is a secondary, though not unimportant concern. The primary issue is with Douglas' understanding of justification, the heart of the Gospel. He is Baxter revidivus.
While I do not oppose standing up against the culture and battling the idol of "wokeism", I also understand that the only way this culture will be transformed and "woke theology" exposed as the false god that it is, is through the proclamation and living out of the Gospel. Wilson doesn't understand the Gospel. He misunderstands its center. What this means, is that Wilson is effectively the other side of the woke coin. A reactionary using the same methods and means as his opponent as though that will somehow effect the change he ostensibly desires to see. And so "Wokey McWokeFace" will inveigh and Moscow will inveigh in turn and never the Gospel shall intrude.
Wokey McWokeFace
For those like me who don't get it, this apparently can be blamed on British humor.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface
which spawned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mcface_spoofs
For those like me who don't get it, this apparently can be blamed on British humor.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface
which spawned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mcface_spoofs
Just to be crystal clear, the confession of and agreement with the Westminister Standards or the Three Forms of Unity is not an "echo chamber". It is a well understood and practiced branch of the Christian communion for centuries. There is not a single, visible Reformed communion that has failed to condemn Federal Vision theology.
If anything, the CREC is an idiosyncratic group, as are FV adherents in general. They have no historical roots, and the heyday of their theology is past.
We hardly even talk about it anymore because FV theology is generally irrelevant in the Church as a whole. It doesn't make the error any less erroneous, but Reformed communions excise Elders who teach it and they exist for their idiosyncratic communions and do little for the Church catholic.
If anything, the CREC is an idiosyncratic group, as are FV adherents in general. They have no historical roots, and the heyday of their theology is past.
We hardly even talk about it anymore because FV theology is generally irrelevant in the Church as a whole. It doesn't make the error any less erroneous, but Reformed communions excise Elders who teach it and they exist for their idiosyncratic communions and do little for the Church catholic.
proregno
Puritan Board Freshman
Just a interesting observation from a non-American, on the 'reactions' after KDJ's article: why is it that he himself and so many, if not all against the Moscow mood club always say or write things like ... (in my own words):
"I write this strong message ... but I don't want to start a debate or discuss it with Moscow...
Here is this or that writer defending DW/Moscow.... but it is not worth to even read it or take it serious...
I want to share my concerns about those mean people, but no way do I want to debate them or accept a call to go and visit and talk and have face to face discussions... like brothers in the faith do, or invite them for discussions and debate to our churches or seminary or to TGC conference as a speaker or at WTS or ...."
What all these kinds of .... reactionary 'moods' are saying = it proves that Moscow mood are correct about their critics own bad moods that says we do not want to debate and discuss the important issues as brothers, don't want to visit them, come near them, the critics just want to tell them how 'mean' they are, and then make as if they said nothing on the market place of theological ideas all over social media, contra Prov. 26:7 warning?
Sorry, but that sounds like a pharisee attitude of Luke 18:9-14, we just want to 'quickly' tell Moscow how bad their mood is and then run away as if we said nothing, we don't want to pray, discuss, seek the peace and brotherhood, for the Kingdom's sake, etc?
Who is then the afraid ones in the debate, and what are they afraid of? Should those concerned about DW's influence (good or bad, his theology and mood), not take up the invitation with a few 'reformed heavyweights' to go to Moscow or invite him to a forum, and thereby save the visible church and Christianity from his bad influence?
No matter the theology or mood swings, or what side one is on in this debate started by KDJ, the fact is, for outsiders this looks like DW and his crowd are at least out in the open about who they are and what they teach and their biblical vision (right or wrong), what they stand and fight for, but the 'other side' seem too afraid to openly visit them or invite them for some serious 'theology mud wrestling', discuss important doctrine and moods with them, and who knows... and maybe here is what many are afraid of it seems... maybe even get some misunderstandings solved, while still disagreeing where it is needed, maybe make some friends, enjoy a laugh, pray together?
I said it on other forums also: behind KDJ-TGC mood, is also much more than just a concern about DW-Moscow mood, there is more than meets the eye, but I will leave that to the Lord and hopefully some good will come from all this.
May the Lord have mercy on the 'second generation'? Machen's Warrior Children ... all of them, to His glory and for the love of His Church.
"I write this strong message ... but I don't want to start a debate or discuss it with Moscow...
Here is this or that writer defending DW/Moscow.... but it is not worth to even read it or take it serious...
I want to share my concerns about those mean people, but no way do I want to debate them or accept a call to go and visit and talk and have face to face discussions... like brothers in the faith do, or invite them for discussions and debate to our churches or seminary or to TGC conference as a speaker or at WTS or ...."
What all these kinds of .... reactionary 'moods' are saying = it proves that Moscow mood are correct about their critics own bad moods that says we do not want to debate and discuss the important issues as brothers, don't want to visit them, come near them, the critics just want to tell them how 'mean' they are, and then make as if they said nothing on the market place of theological ideas all over social media, contra Prov. 26:7 warning?
Sorry, but that sounds like a pharisee attitude of Luke 18:9-14, we just want to 'quickly' tell Moscow how bad their mood is and then run away as if we said nothing, we don't want to pray, discuss, seek the peace and brotherhood, for the Kingdom's sake, etc?
Who is then the afraid ones in the debate, and what are they afraid of? Should those concerned about DW's influence (good or bad, his theology and mood), not take up the invitation with a few 'reformed heavyweights' to go to Moscow or invite him to a forum, and thereby save the visible church and Christianity from his bad influence?
No matter the theology or mood swings, or what side one is on in this debate started by KDJ, the fact is, for outsiders this looks like DW and his crowd are at least out in the open about who they are and what they teach and their biblical vision (right or wrong), what they stand and fight for, but the 'other side' seem too afraid to openly visit them or invite them for some serious 'theology mud wrestling', discuss important doctrine and moods with them, and who knows... and maybe here is what many are afraid of it seems... maybe even get some misunderstandings solved, while still disagreeing where it is needed, maybe make some friends, enjoy a laugh, pray together?
I said it on other forums also: behind KDJ-TGC mood, is also much more than just a concern about DW-Moscow mood, there is more than meets the eye, but I will leave that to the Lord and hopefully some good will come from all this.
May the Lord have mercy on the 'second generation'? Machen's Warrior Children ... all of them, to His glory and for the love of His Church.
Last edited:
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Who declared him anathema?
I'm not sure whether to call this response a cavil or simply an ignorant young man who hasn't taken the time to read the copious theological articles and Church declarations that occurred about 15 years ago.
Responding to your posts one at a time reminds me of trying to convince my young son that he hasn't really spent the time to come to an informed opinion before he labels something as "stupid".
The problem I find myself with is a perennial one, whether I'm dealing with a culturalist who hasn't taken the time to understand the Reformed system of doctrine or a self-assured person who thinks he has but then indicates he doesn't understand it. In both cases, the system of doctrine is not understood and it is assumed that important theological concepts about how faith serves as a condition to interest are seen as fluff even as the person takes no time to understand why an abandonment of this principle is hostile to the system of doctrine.
In either case, an Elder like me who confesses the Westminster Standards battles both kinds of culturalists. I battle the culturalists who think that we need to care less about Reformed ideas because we can't reach the culture with an outdated theology, and I battle the culturalists who think the culture is going off a cliff and we need to stop haggling about theology because the woke are winning. Both ends are idiosyncratic. and both ends ignore the fruit that is occurring in vanilla means-of-grace communions that are thriving not only in America but around the world.