Thread: Not Reformed At All

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.

This is a response to and refutation of Douglas Wilson's book, "Reformed" Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant. Wilson is a spokesman for both the Classical-Christian school movement and the Neolegalist movement, which makes one's salvation depend on one's performance. In his book, "Reformed" Is Not Enough, Wilson invents a new covenant, which he calls the "objective covenant", and denies the Covenant of Grace taught in Scripture.

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.

Good title.

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.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book as well!

It was a sad read in the fact that so many hold Doug Wilson to be somebody to go to for biblical understanding.

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

It was a sad read in the fact that so many hold Doug Wilson to be somebody to go to for biblical understanding.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

It was a sad read in the fact that so many hold Doug Wilson to be somebody to go to for biblical understanding.

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.

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.

This is sad....

Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith".

Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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.

This is sad....

Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith".

Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15

It is almost like he tries to confuse you

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

It was a sad read in the fact that so many hold Doug Wilson to be somebody to go to for biblical understanding.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen

It is almost like he tries to confuse you

Robbins seems to make the same accusation.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Stephen

It is almost like he tries to confuse you

Robbins seems to make the same accusation.

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.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Stephen

It is almost like he tries to confuse you

Robbins seems to make the same accusation.

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen

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 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.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Stephen

It is almost like he tries to confuse you

Robbins seems to make the same accusation.

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.

That's how the FV explains it. Well, except they don't actually explain, but by putting different statements together one can figure it out.

God elects some to the covenant - i.e. the Church - and a subset of those will be "elect unto eternal life". When someone who was elect to the covenant falls away, that's apostasy.

To be fair to them, it's certainly true that the LORD sovereignly chooses who will be in a position to hear the gospel, or be born into a Christian family, etc. so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say those who are placed thusly are "elect" to the external administration of the covenant.

Unfortunately, since the FV doesn't have any truck with the whole "external administration of the covenant" thing, instead insisting everyone "in the covenant" is by-jingo-and-by-golly IN the covenant as much as it's possible to be, it wrecks not only the traditional doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, but also plays wiley-beguiled with limited atonement and irresistible grace, and nibbles on the toes of total depravity.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

Unfortunately, since the FV doesn't have any truck with the whole "external administration of the covenant" thing, instead insisting everyone "in the covenant" is by-jingo-and-by-golly IN the covenant as much as it's possible to be, it wrecks not only the traditional doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, but also plays wiley-beguiled with limited atonement and irresistible grace, and nibbles on the toes of total depravity.

Excellent use of satire sister.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

He has made clarifying statements since then on his website; John Otis, however, believes that these are suspicious. I am scared to read such a book in case I am led astray by its error. Last semester at Uni I read about a young Irish Presbyterian minister in the 18th century called John Cameron; he started out as a probationer in the Covenanters, then moved to the Synod of Ulster. Initially he was regarded as one of the most excellent preachers of the gospel in Ulster, however, while dining at the house of a local dignitary, an Anglican minister leant him Jeremy Taylor's book on Original Sin (which Jonathan Edwards rebutted in his famous book on the subject). Cameron had too much confidence in his own ability, and was subsequently led astray by its errors. It is thought by some - and he was accused of this by another Synod of Ulster minister Benjamin McDowell - that he was guilty of being an Arian. While I enjoy Doug Wilson's practical stuff, I do not believe that I presently possess the discernment required to analyse his theological writings.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

He has made clarifying statements since then on his website; John Otis, however, believes that these are suspicious. I am scared to read such a book in case I am led astray by its error. Last semester at Uni I read about a young Irish Presbyterian minister in the 18th century called John Cameron; he started out as a probationer in the Covenanters, then moved to the Synod of Ulster. Initially he was regarded as one of the most excellent preachers of the gospel in Ulster, however, while dining at the house of a local dignitary, an Anglican minister leant him Jeremy Taylor's book on Original Sin (which Jonathan Edwards rebutted in his famous book on the subject). Cameron had too much confidence in his own ability, and was subsequently led astray by its errors. It is thought by some - and he was accused of this by another Synod of Ulster minister Benjamin McDowell - that he was guilty of being an Arian. While I enjoy Doug Wilson's practical stuff, I do not believe that I presently possess the discernment required to analyse his theological writings.

I'm also leery of reading material by those known to possess significant doctrinal errors, for the very reason you give....the fear I won't be able to properly sift the wheat from the chaff.

OTOH we - as in The Church - definitely need people who can safely and prudently delve into suspect material and properly evaluate it, but OTOH we should not automatically assume ourselves to be so equipped.

For instance, I've read "Federal Husband" in the past and completely missed where he denied the CoW. And I read Warren's "The Purpose-Driven Life" (well, my church was doing the FortyDays thing years ago) and while I spotted a few of the problems with it, the fact he never once mentioned the resurrection got right past me.

Truth be told, doubtless many of us would be better off to be far more discriminating about which books we read than we tend to be.

Good post!

In some sense it's all nonsense. Sorry... ***retreating back to the corner***

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Yes doesn't he try and claim the whole FV is a Van Til conspiracy?

I find anyone who believes that hard to take seriously.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Yes doesn't he try and claim the whole FV is a Van Til conspiracy?

I find anyone who believes that hard to take seriously.

Exactly. He also called reconstructionists "Zionists" which I thought was really funny since recons usually get accused of being anti-semitic.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Yes doesn't he try and claim the whole FV is a Van Til conspiracy?

I find anyone who believes that hard to take seriously.

Exactly. He also called reconstructionists "Zionists" which I thought was really funny since recons usually get accused of being anti-semitic.

When you are attacked by all sides that usually means you are right.

Anne, it is hard to spot his denial of a covenant of works because most of us reading it were not expecting it. It is so subtle that you do not see it at first. It is almost like he purposely tries to gloss over it. I think because of his lack of training he is ignorant of theology. Unfortunetly he is the Pope of his denomination and has influened Wilkins, Leithert, Meyers, Horne, and all these others in the PCA.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Read Reformed Not At All and you will see he does deny Justification By Faith Alone from his own book.

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Do you have a reference to his accusation that VanTil denied the Trinity because I have been on his mailing list and have never heard this before? I agree with you that he is not VanTillian but he is presuppositional. Robbins holds to the teachings of Gordon's Clark and certainly would oppose VanTil.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Anne, it is hard to spot his denial of a covenant of works because most of us reading it were not expecting it. It is so subtle that you do not see it at first. It is almost like he purposely tries to gloss over it. I think because of his lack of training he is ignorant of theology. Unfortunetly he is the Pope of his denomination and has influened Wilkins, Leithert, Meyers, Horne, and all these others in the PCA.

Stephen, I have a little conceptual problem with this particular critique. Wilson is ignorant of theology because of his lack of training. Nonetheless, he has influences people who have Ph.Ds from Cambridge (Leithart). How can we attribute Wilson's ignorance to his lack of training when his ignorance is evidently contagious to some of the highly-trained?

(And for the record, I did not say that Wilson is a walking encyclopaedia of theology.)

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by Stephen

Anne, it is hard to spot his denial of a covenant of works because most of us reading it were not expecting it. It is so subtle that you do not see it at first. It is almost like he purposely tries to gloss over it. I think because of his lack of training he is ignorant of theology. Unfortunetly he is the Pope of his denomination and has influened Wilkins, Leithert, Meyers, Horne, and all these others in the PCA.

Stephen, I have a little conceptual problem with this particular critique. Wilson is ignorant of theology because of his lack of training. Nonetheless, he has influences people who have Ph.Ds from Cambridge (Leithart). How can we attribute Wilson's ignorance to his lack of training when his ignorance is evidently contagious to some of the highly-trained?

(And for the record, I did not say that Wilson is a walking encyclopaedia of theology.)

That might sound simplistic but I really believe it's the truth. His ability to turn a phrase and express his thoughts in a sharp, often amusing manner tends to encourage his readers to assume what he wrote is accurate.

We have a lamentable tendency (and believe me, I do it too!) to allow ourselves to be persuaded more by the delivery of the message rather than the content of the message, as the former smooths the path for the latter.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by Stephen

Anne, it is hard to spot his denial of a covenant of works because most of us reading it were not expecting it. It is so subtle that you do not see it at first. It is almost like he purposely tries to gloss over it. I think because of his lack of training he is ignorant of theology. Unfortunetly he is the Pope of his denomination and has influened Wilkins, Leithert, Meyers, Horne, and all these others in the PCA.

Stephen, I have a little conceptual problem with this particular critique. Wilson is ignorant of theology because of his lack of training. Nonetheless, he has influences people who have Ph.Ds from Cambridge (Leithart). How can we attribute Wilson's ignorance to his lack of training when his ignorance is evidently contagious to some of the highly-trained?

(And for the record, I did not say that Wilson is a walking encyclopaedia of theology.)

That might sound simplistic but I really believe it's the truth. His ability to turn a phrase and express his thoughts in a sharp, often amusing manner tends to encourage his readers to assume what he wrote is accurate.

We have a lamentable tendency (and believe me, I do it too!) to allow ourselves to be persuaded more by the delivery of the message rather than the content of the message, as the former smooths the path for the latter.

I think if Doug Wilson knew his limitations he would not have made some of his mistakes; he is great at practical theology, poor at Systematic theology. I wish he had stuck to the former. That said, I thought his Easy Chairs, Hard Words was a great explanation of Calvinism. Pity he does not believe it.

Anne and Daniel, points taken, but it doesn't address the substance of my remark. If training teaches a man to respect his limitations, would Peter Leithart try to do literary criticism? If pungent delivery can deceive the trained then how can we attribute Wilson's problems to his lack of training? If friends of his with Ph.Ds have similar or worse problems how can a lack of traning be the real root of the problem?

Originally Posted by py3ak

Anne and Daniel, points taken, but it doesn't address the substance of my remark. If training teaches a man to respect his limitations, would Peter Leithart try to do literary criticism? If pungent delivery can deceive the trained then how can we attribute Wilson's problems to his lack of training? If friends of his with Ph.Ds have similar or worse problems how can a lack of traning be the real root of the problem?

Perhaps it is really Norman Shepherd and NT Wright who have deceived the trained rather than Doug Wilson?

Maybe so; and of course, Norm Shepherd, at least should have been well-trained.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Well then he is a heretic and this was Robin's point that FVers are neo-galatians. He used another term that he coined and I cannot think of it off the top of my head. This is why FV becomes so dangerous because it is a denial of the gospel.

While I firmly disagree with FV, I have trouble reading Robbins' stuff since the same man said Van Til denied the Trinity. So if we are calling someone a damnable heretic, and it comes from Robbins, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.


And yes, I do listen to John Robbins' lectures for profit on other topics.

Do you have a reference to his accusation that VanTil denied the Trinity because I have been on his mailing list and have never heard this before? I agree with you that he is not VanTillian but he is presuppositional. Robbins holds to the teachings of Gordon's Clark and certainly would oppose VanTil.

Read his booklet Van Til: The Man and the Myth

Originally Posted by py3ak

Anne and Daniel, points taken, but it doesn't address the substance of my remark. If training teaches a man to respect his limitations, would Peter Leithart try to do literary criticism? If pungent delivery can deceive the trained then how can we attribute Wilson's problems to his lack of training? If friends of his with Ph.Ds have similar or worse problems how can a lack of traning be the real root of the problem?

Perhaps those theologians who have fallen in with DW's doctrinal theories in fact didn't have a firm grasp of what they were taught in seminary; IOW they were capable of regurgitating it upon demand but did not really understand it.

Or if they understood it, they weren't satisfied by it, so when another theory came along which scratched that itch, they easily transferred their doctrinal allegiance to the new theory.

You make a very good point, though. It is a matter of concern that some of our seminary-trained theologians don't demonstrate any greater degree of discernment than many of the people in the pew. If the STT are capable of being taken in, the PiP's are in real trouble.