Not Reformed At All

I love this book. I simply loved this book. He literally tears Doug Wilson's thought process up by quoting 'Reformed is not Enough' in light of Biblical Christianity. John Robbins also points out (quite pointedly) the differences between Wilson's view of Covenant Theology and Biblical Covenant Theology. I truly appreciated the way he showed that the bible talks about individual salvation as opposed to the idea of a salvation that has a "collective soul" emphasis with unregenerate and regenerate alike involved in it.

Sean Gerety had something to do with it but John told me by email he was the main author of it.

Here is the gist of the book.

It was a sad read in the fact that so many hold Doug Wilson to be somebody to go to for biblical understanding. But it was a joy to read in that the truth was proclaimed and and major counterfeit is exposed.

__________________
R. Martin Snyder (Moderator)

1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Good title.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I recommend readin John Otis' book Danger in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision. It shows how there doctrine of the objective covenant has become an obsession that has led many of them into gross error. The book gives lengthy (and I mean lengthy) quotations from leading FV proponents to substantiate what the author is alleging. So far, no FV proponent has even attemted to refute it; one FVer told me it was because it was not worth refuting - he evidently did not read it.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I thoroughly enjoyed the book as well!

__________________
Jim
Elder, Harvest Reformed Church (RCUS)
http://www.harvestreformedchurch.org/
http://tbftgoggi.wordpress.com/

Upon a life I did not live; upon a death I did not die, Another's death, Another's life, I'd rest my soul eternally
Omnia dicta fortiora,si dicta Latina
Si vis pacem, para bellum

On practical matters - and especially in his books on the family which were written pre-FV - Doug Wilson is someone who is thoroughly Biblical. However, John Grier the manager of the Evangelical Bookshop in Belfast (his father was WJ Grier author of The Momentous Event) often said that he tended to major on the minors; in one sense this was fine, as few other people have written anything on courtship, childrearing, marriage, education, masculinity which is worth reading, however, in another sense it seems Mr Grier is right as Doug Wilson has got the majors wrong.

Thanks, Randy. I have a copy of the book but have never read it. You have sparked my interest to pick it up and read it. I do not have a copy of Wison's book and have never read it, but the title leaves you with the impression that the Reformers and the confessions were not enough. How does he define the word "Reformed?" Wilson was hyper-covenantal long before the FV was an issue. I wonder how people did not suspect him before.

__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia

Great point, Daniel, but if you go back and read his book on Federal Husband he denies a covenant of works. It is amazing that he can claim to hold to the Federal representative view and yet deny a covenant of works. This was published in 1999 and he already had leanings toward Norman Shepherd's heresy. He has never been formally trained and has no seminary degree, so you have to wonder how much theological understanding he has.

I am not sure Wilson has a definition for Reformed. BTW, when you read the book the Wilson quotes have numbers next to them. I kept looking for the references and couldn't find them in the end notes. Then I realized he was critiquing one book and the numbers after the quotes were the pages the quotes were on in Reformed is not enough. DUH.

I take that back Stephen. Maybe Wilson does have a definition and it is wrapped up in the WCF because there are quotes in the book that reveal where Wilson thinks the Confession is lacking or just plain wrong. Robbins does a good job revealing this.

This is sad....

It is almost like he tries to confuse you

That maybe so, but did not John Murray and R.J. Rushdoony also hold this view (though they may not have gone as far as Doug Wilson)? I think it is erroneous and could, if taken to its logical conclusion, lead to serious aberrations - but I would stop short of calling a man a heretic just for that.

In Federal Husband he states that God made one basic covenant with fallen men throughout history, which we call the Covenant of Grace (page 13). I will not refer it to people anymore to read because his view of marriage is based on this false understanding of the covenant.

Robbins seems to make the same accusation.

Murray certainly did hold to a covenant of works/covenant of grace. He did have some differences with Meredith Kline on the covenant, but Palmer Robertson in his book on the covenants clearly shows Murray holding to cov. of works/cov. of grace. I must confess I have not read enough of Rushdoony to comment on his position, but he would certainly not have held to the FV nonsense. Perhaps heretic is a strong term, but if you follow him long enough you discover he has departed from the confession and I am not sure he is on safe ground.

I happen to agree with Robins on much of what he says. Some think he is too harsh, but he makes the case that much of this is really a denial of the gospel, and that is heretical.

IME of discussing matters with them FVers engage in so-much double-talk that the unsuspecting would be easily fooled. The most obvious example I can think of is their view of election. On the one hand they claim to believe in unconditional election, yet, on the other, they claim elect sinners - who received saving grace at baptism - can apostasize? If this is true then it means one's election is dependent upon one's "covenantal faithfulness", and thus cannot be unconditional.

I agree that there are important differences between John Murray, R.J. Rushdoony and the FVers on the covenant. I have an appendix in my next book called "Federal Vision Disclaimer" in which I prove that Rush would have considered the FV's view of justifcation to be damnable heresy. Doug Wilson claims to hold an orthodox view of JbFA, so I won't call him a damnable heretic, however, he does not seem to worry about having men like Rich Lusk come and speak for him.

Daniel, you are right because it is double-talk. I think what you find among FV people is that they all say different things, so it is hard to narrow them down to a few points. I think this is a classic case of why confessions and creeds are so important, because you can always appeal to them. I am using the term heretic in lower case to refer to anyone who departs from the essential elements of the WCoF. They cease to hold to the Westminster Standards and are therefore outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy.

__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Married to Don, mother of six, grandmother to an ever-increasing brood.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)