Doug Wilson???

[ClementofRome]

And of course you can get your fill of DW here:

http://www.credenda.org/

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

And of course you can get your fill of DW here:

http://www.credenda.org/

I like the cheese issue.

 

[Beoga]

You can also read Wilson's Reformed is Not Enough here:
http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/ReformedIsNotEnough.pdf

 

[heymikey80]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Someone want to explain, please.

Hi, Maggie.

Now we've got into three different movements in the Reformed church, mostly in conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations.

The Auburn Avenue "controversy" occurred and spiralled along due to a yearly conference the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has. They also have or had a pastor who is very involved in some of the more interesting divergences from modern Presbyterian theology, breaking with Thornwell and striking out in the direction of the Federal Vision.

They invited a bunch of people to the conference -- pastors, theologians, popular writers -- who don't walk the Thornwell line of theology.

One of those pastors was Doug Wilson. Wilson is kind of a reactionary thinker, I'm not sure how else to put it. I don't particularly agree with his thinking, but some of which makes sense and could help inform Reformed thought.

Other people have been invited to the AA conference. Norm Shepard was invited to one conference; Schlissel (from NY's Messiah's Congregation) was invited; and NT Wright was invited.

I don't know much about the Federal Vision side, though I conclude Wilson is a part of it. Schlissel appears to be, too. And Shepard is kind of a concurring predecessor to it.

I don't think NT Wright has ever been clearly connected with these guys on any theological footing. NT Wright is one of the premier Pauline exegetes of the present day. He's an Anglican, the bishop of Durham.

As I've engaged other people lumped into the Federal Vision, I've found something interesting. They're misrepresented. Period. They don't advocate some kind of comprehensive, organized view of things. They have misgivings with others within this movement. They are, strictly speaking, a postmodern assembly of people with new ideas. Modernists who try to assemble their views into an organized whole will find the task frustratingly mercuric. It's not gonna happen. They're trying to figure out what isn't perfectly right with Reformed theology, and where to go next. They have different ideas of the basic problems.

Many are presently within the pale of Reformed thought. Only the RCUS has as yet accused any of heresy, and those they've accused directly -- as far as I can tell -- are people outside their denomination.

But people in the Federal Vision movement don't have major, consistent theological outlines in common. Sorry, they just don't. Nor do people within the New Perspective on Paul. In fact the NPP has been around for a quarter century, embracing ultra-liberal theologians as well as some more conservative thinkers. Among some theologians and pastors in the PCA, OPC, and RCUS they've all been lumped together, tagged with guilt by mutual association, and they've actually been accused of many positions that they deny outright, beforehand, and in writing.

I was in the PCA and OPC for a long time, and this was very frustrating to me. I saw quite good theologians and pastors saying and spreading false statements about NT Wright. I got tired of it. I responded to it in detail in a public forum on it years ago.

I like the theologians and teachers I know in the PCA. I think they have plenty to say to Wright, and Wright to them, once all the factual misstatements are removed. But they haven't stopped yet. The PCA and OPC both have study committees putting together reports about "NPP / Federal Vision". Frankly these guys don't know each other. The resulting reports so far (in the RCUS) read like, "I'm never going to a Denny's restaurant because a McDonalds got my order wrong."

 

[ClementofRome]

If this is all "hair-splitting" and "navel-gazing" then we need to back off of NT Wright. He is fighting the battle with the Jesus Seminar heretics in a major way! Just turn on ANY network production or cable event that has anything to do with the Bible.

It is always Borg/Crossan/Funk/etc v. Wright! He may not be thoroughly reformed, but he is within the pale! I do not agree with his every thought, but he never offends me.

good grief,
Clem

 

[heymikey80]

If this is all "hair-splitting" and "navel-gazing" then we need to back off of NT Wright. He is fighting the battle with the Jesus Seminar heretics in a major way! Just turn on ANY network production or cable event that has anything to do with the Bible.

It is always Borg/Crossan/Funk/etc v. Wright! He may not be thoroughly reformed, but he is within the pale! I do not agree with his every thought, but he never offends me.

good grief,
Clem

There are some real issues with Wright, don't get me ... um ... wrong. But I've found they are much more hair-splitting than first seems.

1. Paul's terms: Wright constantly reminds readers he's talking about how Paul uses words. The systematic theology of the 20th century can use words much differently and say the same things. Wright wants to use Paul "in his own words." That doesn't say theology is wrong; it says theology uses words differently. And so Wright tries to define words like Paul, running awry of theologians on some very sensitive words.

2. Gospel: Wright doesn't see "justification by faith" as identically "the Gospel" in Paul. He doesn't deny "justification by faith", it's part & parcel to our salvation. But when Paul says "the Gospel" Paul means the Crucifixion/Resurrection event which vindicated Jesus as Messiah.

Really, unless you mean Habakkuk to be preaching the Gospel by saying "The just shall live by faith", you'll get to the same conclusion. Paul is saying, applying the principle of justification by faith through the Resurrection event, people are being saved by believing Jesus rose from the dead.

Here I find Wright largely persuasive. Justification by faith is a theological principle, the Gospel is an event to be believed to our salvation.

3. Imputation: Wright winces at this word. He prefers to pour everything we'd put in "imputation" into his concept of "union with Christ". That way we can't see us as receiving Christ's righteousness, without receiving Christ Himself in covenant with us. Wright is also critical of imputation as a separate theological category. He points out Paul never (well, only once) calls it "imputed righteousness" explicitly.

Me, I find his argument strong, but his omission of "imputation" is unpersuasive. Paul does use a marketplace-exchange illustration for how the Gospel works. That's what "impute" means, at its core: a calculated exchange. So if Paul didn't mean the actual word, the concept of a marketplace exchange is indeed there. Tellingly, in Paul it's not our exchange for Christ's righteousness -- it's Christ buying us. In other words, I think Paul's marketplace illustration supports Wright's view of union (Christ buys us) better than the Reformed view taught to me (we exchange our sin for Christ's righteousness). I think it changes it to fold into Scripture. With Wright's union view you lose nothing you had with imputation -- but it's forcibly connected with everything else Christ gives you in union with Him.

4. Righteousness: Wright does reorganize "righteousness", including two different kinds of righteousness involved in the Gospel. One we receive much like Luther said, through our union with Christ according to Wright. The other refers to God's self-justification in bringing His promises to pass.

I find the argument significant, just not convincing. Some verses just don't make the kind of clear sense they should if Paul meant them to be God's self-justification. Other verses are very persuasive. I think Paul meant both. But I doubt he meant them with the force Wright has placed on God's self-justification.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

heymikey80,

That post #24) is the best description of this MESS that I have ever read.

I am a deacon in Louisiana Presbytery and this stuff has been swirling around for years here. I find the whole thing muddled. I know members of my church that are insane about this stuff. One guy swears that all involved are are going to hell for preaching another Gospel.

I have other frineds that think Wilson and Wilkins are working to Save Reformed Christianity from the slippery slop. They think many Reformed Christians have become little more than Calvinistic Baptists who still sprinkle babies. THey are VERY covenantal in their thinking. I do agree with them that Reformed (Presbyterian) thinking in America has been influenced by Baptistic (non-covenantal) thinking and is straying from its roots.

I do agree with them on that point. I think the recent discussion on OSAS vs. Perseverance showed that some Presbyterians can no longer see that the two are not the same. I think this is because if a slipping away from historic Reformed thinking on this point.

I have a couple of books on the FV sitting on the shelf waiting to be read. I've started them a few times and put them down again. Ihave read some stuff on the web and have found that the two sides are speaking past each other. I also think some anti-FV folks have become down right hysterical (not in a ha-ha way).

The FV stuff does tie into Norman Shepherd, but the two are not the same thing. It also has some links to N.T Wright (he spoke at the conference on year -- I need to get the recordings.) But again they are not the same.

ON N.T Wright, I agree with the above statement by my friend Clement. He is a Conservative theologian who is always battling the libs. The whole time he's battling liberalism (on the historic Jesus, etc...) there are reformed critics taking pot shots at him for not being "Reformed enough."

I don't know how Reformed he is, but he is not a liberal. I did read his book What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? I thought some of it was interesting. I disagreed with some sections, but mostly I said , (I guess I need to reread that too.) but I did not see a heretic or a liberal.

Anyway that is my current $.02 on this matter.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

heymikey80,

That post #24) is the best description of this MESS that I have ever read.

I am a deacon in Louisiana Presbytery and this stuff has been swirling around for years here. I find the whole thing muddled. I know members of my church that are insane about this stuff. One guy swears that all involved are are going to hell for preaching another Gospel.

* * *

Anyway that is my current $.02 on this matter.

In Christ,
Kenith

Thanks for your kindness, Kenith. It's good to know level heads remain on this matter, and I was very interested in hearing your experiences. They line up closely with mine.

New pastors are first boggled to find me in a Presbyterian church. Then they start to tackle this Wright's book or two, and seem to accept much more of me. So there's grace in the church, still.

I also read WSPRS, but I was already immersed in this idea that Judaism wasn't the "poster-board works-religion" that we all thought it was. It's still a mix of works & grace & faith. But it was much more varied than just a barrel o' happy legalists. That's why John & Jesus had such massive followings. The Dead Sea Scrolls also put that poster-board to bed. Judaism was all kinds of things.

So Paul addressed a varied Judaism, showing how none other "worked" but Christ.

If this is all "hair-splitting" and "navel-gazing" then we need to back off of NT Wright. He is fighting the battle with the Jesus Seminar heretics in a major way! Just turn on ANY network production or cable event that has anything to do with the Bible.

And yes, I do agree with you Clement. I think we need to be more supportive, engaging this great thinker and confronting him with some of what we're seeing. Preferably without a charge of heresy, but with the care for reality -- his quest and ours.

 

[ClementofRome]

Thanks heymikey...

I appreciate your erudition in the matter on the "new perspective." I am sensitive to defend Wright in his orthodoxy as I must battle the most obvious attacks on him by the liberal set in my daily work (I am a college religion prof). I do understand that he has some intersting views concerning Paul and the law...but as I see this as an inside argument, I pick my battles.

(maybe it is not an inside argument, but at present, I have bigger fish to fry!)

Blessings to you friend.
Clem

 

[Beoga]

If this is all "hair-splitting" and "navel-gazing" then we need to back off of NT Wright. He is fighting the battle with the Jesus Seminar heretics in a major way! Just turn on ANY network production or cable event that has anything to do with the Bible.

It is always Borg/Crossan/Funk/etc v. Wright! He may not be thoroughly reformed, but he is within the pale! I do not agree with his every thought, but he never offends me.

good grief,
Clem

Good ole Marcus Borg, he is so reverred here at my school (Oregon State), especially by one of my friends, who is a philosophy major and is taking his class this quarter. Oh well . I am kinda hoping Wright will come to Oregon State to speak some time since he and Borg are apparently friends.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I am fairly new to Reform Theology so I don't know who is Doug Wilson but I am sure I will know the guy soon since I read alot of theology books.

 

[Jon_]

You can also read Wilson's Reformed is Not Enough here:
http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/ReformedIsNotEnough.pdf

This is great. I think I am going to read this book next and post a review in the Review forum. That way, I'm getting it straight from the horse's mouth. I do have some materials that I was going to post, but I think I will hold off until I have had a chance to read everything in context. So, let's say I'm suspending judgment on Wilson's teaching until I'm done with the book.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Beoga]

This is great. I think I am going to read this book next and post a review in the Review forum. That way, I'm getting it straight from the horse's mouth. I do have some materials that I was going to post, but I think I will hold off until I have had a chance to read everything in context. So, let's say I'm suspending judgment on Wilson's teaching until I'm done with the book.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Yeah, I plan to read Wilson's book pretty soon. I have had it saved for a while, but have never gotten around to reading it. I also recently ordered Robbin's book Not Reformed At All, and I would like to read Wilson's book before reading Robbin's book.

 

[Jon_]

Yeah, I plan to read Wilson's book pretty soon. I have had it saved for a while, but have never gotten around to reading it. I also recently ordered Robbin's book Not Reformed At All, and I would like to read Wilson's book before reading Robbin's book.

I have already read that book, which is where I got most of my materials and formed most of my opinions regarding Wilson. Now, with that said, I must add a big disclaimer because I know a lot of people find Robbins to be extremely abrasive and biased (for the record, I do too). Nevertheless, he does make some valid points. I think it is a mistake to dismiss someone simply because you do not like the way they write. So, keeping that in mind, I read the book very critically. I found that some of Robbins' and Gerety's objections were spurious and quite weak, mostly stemming from a hyper-critical reading of Wilson's words. I wanted to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt. Robbins and Gerety do comment Wilson frequently, which is what I liked about the book. I mostly formed my opinion from Wilson's words, and not necessarily from Robbins and Gerety commenting on Wilson. Still, the quotations are selected from a broader context, and I would like to get the whole story from Wilson. There are many instances where Wilson says something that I find pretty outrageous, so instead of making an invalid inference, I would rather read the context to see if there isn't clarification or qualification somewhere else.

In any case, Not Reformed At All does bring to light many problems with Wilson's "objective covenant" position. I will wait to see if these pan out in the broader context, though.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Nse007]

heymikey80,

That post #24) is the best description of this MESS that I have ever read.

I am a deacon in Louisiana Presbytery and this stuff has been swirling around for years here. I find the whole thing muddled. I know members of my church that are insane about this stuff. One guy swears that all involved are are going to hell for preaching another Gospel.

I have other frineds that think Wilson and Wilkins are working to Save Reformed Christianity from the slippery slop. They think many Reformed Christians have become little more than Calvinistic Baptists who still sprinkle babies. THey are VERY covenantal in their thinking. I do agree with them that Reformed (Presbyterian) thinking in America has been influenced by Baptistic (non-covenantal) thinking and is straying from its roots.

I do agree with them on that point. I think the recent discussion on OSAS vs. Perseverance showed that some Presbyterians can no longer see that the two are not the same. I think this is because if a slipping away from historic Reformed thinking on this point.

I have a couple of books on the FV sitting on the shelf waiting to be read. I've started them a few times and put them down again. Ihave read some stuff on the web and have found that the two sides are speaking past each other. I also think some anti-FV folks have become down right hysterical (not in a ha-ha way).

The FV stuff does tie into Norman Shepherd, but the two are not the same thing. It also has some links to N.T Wright (he spoke at the conference on year -- I need to get the recordings.) But again they are not the same.

ON N.T Wright, I agree with the above statement by my friend Clement. He is a Conservative theologian who is always battling the libs. The whole time he's battling liberalism (on the historic Jesus, etc...) there are reformed critics taking pot shots at him for not being "Reformed enough."

I don't know how Reformed he is, but he is not a liberal. I did read his book What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? I thought some of it was interesting. I disagreed with some sections, but mostly I said , (I guess I need to reread that too.) but I did not see a heretic or a liberal.

Anyway that is my current $.02 on this matter.

In Christ,
Kenith

Define your meaning of covenantal. There are reformed baptist who are covenantal, such as I. We just see the covenant as "not according to the flesh" It seems as if you describe RBs in a derogatory sense.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Define your meaning of covenantal. There are reformed baptist who are covenantal, such as I. We just see the covenant as "not according to the flesh" It seems as if you describe RBs in a derogatory sense.

First, If I came across in a way that seemed disrespectful to my Reformed Brethren, it was not intended, and I apologise for coming across that way.

Next, I will refer to my theologically near Baptist Brethren as "Reformed," in deference to them, even though I believe the term is misused when used that way.

I love and respect many Baptist Calvinists, and I do know that they come in several stripes, I do not believe they rightly fit the term “Reformed” because, (IMHO) even those Baptist who do hold to some aspects of Covenant, obviously miss the heart of the matter because they deny paedobaptism.

God’s covenant is ALWAYS in both Old and New Covenants “to you and to your children.”


At this moment I am supposed to be working outside, but I have commented on this many times in the past. You can find some of them at the following links if you would like to see what I mean by covenant.


Federal /Covenant Headship?
Some thoughts on baptism and covenant
Covenant Privilege
Circumcision and Baptism compared.
Some Reformed Statements on Baptism:
Some of John Calvin's statements on baptism
Baptism and the Early Church

I hope these things prove useful to you. Be warned I could seriously use a good editor/proof reader, but while my writing ability is lacking, I think the information is right on target. Both in a Reformed and (We Covenantal types would add) Biblical way.


I was baptist for many years, My mom and dad are still Baptists (my dad is a deacon) and I love my Baptist brethren very much, but I think they have missed something very important when it come to God's covenant dealings with His people.


Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Nse007]

First, If I came across in a way that seemed disrespectful to my Reformed Brethren, it was not intended, and I apologise for coming across that way.

Next, I will refer to my theologically near Baptist Brethren as "Reformed," in deference to them, even though I believe the term is misused when used that way.

I love and respect many Baptist Calvinists, and I do know that they come in several stripes, I do not believe they rightly fit the term “Reformed” because, (IMHO) even those Baptist who do hold to some aspects of Covenant, obviously miss the heart of the matter because they deny paedobaptism.

God’s covenant is ALWAYS in both Old and New Covenants “to you and to your children.”


At this moment I am supposed to be working outside, but I have commented on this many times in the past. You can find some of them at the following links if you would like to see what I mean by covenant.


Federal /Covenant Headship?
Some thoughts on baptism and covenant
Covenant Privilege
Circumcision and Baptism compared.
Some Reformed Statements on Baptism:
Some of John Calvin's statements on baptism
Baptism and the Early Church

I hope these things prove useful to you. Be warned I could seriously use a good editor/proof reader, but while my writing ability is lacking, I think the information is right on target. Both in a Reformed and (We Covenantal types would add) Biblical way.


I was baptist for many years, My mom and dad are still Baptists (my dad is a deacon) and I love my Baptist brethren very much, but I think they have missed something very important when it come to God's covenant dealings with His people.


Coram Deo,
Kenith

"to you and your children" does not equal baptising them...it just doesn't. The emphasis of the New Testament is baptising and making disciples [teaching and instructing] of men. Are there benefits to families of believers, surely. But were the error lies is in presuming saving graces..."not by the will of men". The new covenant is in Christ's blood, not mans.
The question must be asked, what is the tenor of the new testament? The paedo view is out of balance with the testimony of Scripture. Again, it is a new covenant. One needs to ask themselves prayerfully, how it is different? It's not just it's recipients (Jews and Gentiles) but in it's administration (through Christ's blood), and it's signs. Spirtual Sign, baptism, follows spiritual birth, conversion. One must be careful not to eisigete (force meanings based on a pre-established construct) the text.
It's wonderful to be Covenantal in the correct sense. It's good to believe in the Promise properly understood, it's another thing to Presume upon God. Promise or Presumption?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

"to you and your children" does not equal baptising them...it just doesn't. The emphasis of the New Testament is baptising and making disciples [teaching and instructing] of men. Are there benefits to families of believers, surely. But were the error lies is in presuming saving graces..."not by the will of men". The new covenant is in Christ's blood, not mans.
The question must be asked, what is the tenor of the new testament? The paedo view is out of balance with the testimony of Scripture. Again, it is a new covenant. One needs to ask themselves prayerfully, how it is different? It's not just it's recipients (Jews and Gentiles) but in it's administration (through Christ's blood), and it's signs. Spirtual Sign, baptism, follows spiritual birth, conversion. One must be careful not to eisigete (force meanings based on a pre-established construct) the text.
It's wonderful to be Covenantal in the correct sense. It's good to believe in the Promise properly understood, it's another thing to Presume upon God. Promise or Presumption?

Hello JSE,

Brother, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I think you are in error on this matter, as you believe I am. I gave plenty of reasons, in the links above, on why I believe as I do, and based them on Scripture. Please show me where I go wrong. You can say I'm wrong but that is just opinion. I don't think I will take your word on it just because you assert it.

We all assert what we believe to be true, but nothing is true simply because any of us believe it to be so. I am sure we both believe that God's Word is true. You will need to show me how I am wrong in my understanding of Covenant and Scripture. Asserting that I am wrong is not nearly enough.

You may be a fast learner, but that never makes anyone correct.
I will wait for you to show me how I err in my use of Scripture. I was Baptist once, so I think I know where your coming from, but please show me.

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[reformedfan]

I have read some really awful things written by Dougles Wilson. Not only does he deride the rationality of man, but he appears to uphold a Romish form of justification by works. I recommend you keep clear.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

y'know what, he sure do attract the legalists, from what i've seen. bends a lil that way himself, has been my impression.

( i am thinking of an actual real live dude who likes him & is legalistic, no one on here, that honestly wasn't a dig at ch'all that like 'im.)

 

[AndOne]

I just have to interject some thoughts on this whole Reformed Baptist Issue. Quite frankly - I think it is unfair to insinuate that a person is NOT Reformed on the basis of their stand on padeobaptism or credo-baptism. In light of the doctrines of Grace (what really matters) the issue of padeobaptism pales in comparison. Now I may not be the resident expert on the reformation - but from my understanding and studies it is apparant to me that the crux of the movement centered on Justification and Grace - not padeobaptism. In fact, the one thing the Reformers could agree on was Justification and Grace. So as long as we are all on the same page in that regard - I think its safe to say that we are of the Reformed Faith!