Debunking Doug Wilson

[Edward]

Alexandria has a solid OPC church at least, and I'm guessing the Natchitoches OPC is good too since I think it was planted by the former.

Which contributes to them being unlikely candidates for a PCA plant. May the OPC prosper in Louisiana. The PCA generally made a mess of things there.

I lived in the greater NOLA area and there's not even much there.

If I was going to plant there, I'd probably look north of the Lake. Looks like they have one by Tulane and one up in Metarie (and one inner city). I can't think of anyplace else to put one. But I'm not that in tune with the post-Katrina demographics. I know the Lakefront used to be a nice area, but I understand it pretty much got wiped out, and I'm not sure how it is now.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Which contributes to them being unlikely candidates for a PCA plant. May the OPC prosper in Louisiana. The PCA generally made a mess of things there.



If I was going to plant there, I'd probably look north of the Lake. Looks like they have one by Tulane and one up in Metarie (and one inner city). I can't think of anyplace else to put one. But I'm not that in tune with the post-Katrina demographics. I know the Lakefront used to be a nice area, but I understand it pretty much got wiped out, and I'm not sure how it is now.

The Northshore could be a great place for it. A lot of middle and upper-middle class people are moving north of the lake these days and Mandeville, Covington, etc. seem to be growing fairly solidly. Lots of younger families who may not but quite as entrenched in Romanism.

The Metarie church is relatively conservative (culturally anyways, not super confessional), the other PCA churches are pretty liberal. I would think with the population there should be room for a more confessional church plant, but there would be a lot of work cut out for it. The Metarie church, like I said, was probably the most conservative so one would think that more confessionally minded folks would end up there (like we did for a time) and yet hardly anyone there was aware that you can get any more Reformed than John Piper. I heard that the Slidell PCA was pretty solid, however.

Lakeview is a bit of a mixed bag now. It's where most of the hipster population lives and it's gentrifying a bit but still definitely feels the effects of Katrina.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I got married in Pineville OPC. Good people.

The Nachitoches church is also good people.

Yeah we visited Pineville OPC while travelling. We really enjoyed our time with them. It seemed like an older congregation now so I hope they can grow and continue their ministry there for the long term. They are a beacon of light in a dark state.

 

[Krak3n]

I am curious as to why my fellow Baptists would be attracted to Doug Wilson? Is it because of his position on family and homeschooling? FV really shouldn't be a thing for Baptists as it's an offshoot of things Baptists don't believe.

You're correct, FV really isn't a thing to me, and I've not come across it in his work. If you'd like an answer from one Baptist on what's attractive, I think he approaches culture the way Christians should, and not the way I see most Baptists do it. I see Baptists taking a more "We just worry about us in the church, we don't talk about the insanity of society (if we do it's while we twiddle our thumbs and wait for the end) and we especially don't speak into politics. Oh and never ever influence the government." I think that's one of those things Baptists removed after "borrowing" the Westminster Confession. I think some of the Presbyterian denominations revised that chapter as well. Chapter 23?

Are you not bothered by their takes on the sacraments? Or that doctrine on which the church either stands or falls, justification?

No I'm not bothered by these things, though I can't speak of "their" plural, I haven't read anyone else associated with FV stuff. I don't feel any real pull to it, and I've not seen it come up in his books. If we're talking about paedo-communion then I can only shrug, he's being more consistent than the other Presbyterians regarding the sacraments.

Also, churches stand or fall by their obedience to Scripture. A church may claim it has the gospel, but if it goes against what Scripture clearly teaches they're just a club of religious people. There are a lot of churches with "the gospel" as understood in a truncated fashion, but if they're also antinomian how do they love Christ? John 14:15

As for the lack of his ordination, Jacob already demonstrated it. The denomination of which he is the pope rubber-stamping his position hardly qualifies as confirmation. I know that you are a Baptist and as such don't agree with Presbyterian polity, but Wilson does not claim to be a Congregationalist.

All that has been demonstrated is that Wilson didn't start from the same place as other ordinations. He didn't follow the Reformed Talmud. His denomination has stated that he's official, I brought that in from their website earlier, not a blog.

As far as polity goes, I don't question the validity of Presbyterians elders apart from Scriptural reasons. So if there are irregularities of process, meh. You want to ordain women, then I'd say that's invalid. I can point to Scripture for that.

---

I'm really not sure what else to say, it's been decided that a man's denomination has nothing to say about his ordination. That this is actually for the other denominations to decide. There are many denominations and if ordinations were invalidated by the statements of others we'd all have a real problem. It's also been stated that not only is Wilson invalid but the other elders in CREC are inept. That's a heavy charge.

Please do try to apply some caution to your speech.

 

[Grant]

If we're talking about paedo-communion then I can only shrug, he's being more consistent than the other Presbyterians regarding the sacraments.

By other Presbyterians do you mean the Westminster Divines? If you feel paedo-communion is the “logically consistent” conclusion of Paedo-Baptism, then ones understanding of the the reformed position of infant baptism needs to be revisited.

It’s clear the Lord has used Wilson to help your walk. It may be best for this thread to closed before it gets anymore nasty.

P.S. I say Amen to your charge of using caution, but let’s makes sure we All apply that in this thread.

 

[Rom]

The standards and process of testing in Confessional Presbyterian Churches is the "Reformed Talmud". Shrugging off the dangers of paedocommunion with a backhanded insult to Presbyterians.

This is what passes as cautious speech, evidently.

 

[RamistThomist]

Please do try to apply some caution to your speech.

Like "Reformed talmud?" In Judaism the Talmud says Jesus is boiling in semen right now. I'm fairly sure that isn't a good comparison to the reformed divines

 

[Santos]

I've been a bit under the weather so I have been observing this thread from my sick bed. I wanted to comment but my brain power and attention span was operating at about 50%. I think I may finally be nearing my typical 51% so here is my .02.

For the past couple of years I have read several books and numerous blogs from Doug Wilson. I have yet to see anything from him that is legalistic or biblically unorthodox. I have however, seen much spoken about his being a legalist, denying sola fide, being an ecumenist, a racist, etc. But again, I have yet to see any of those things in his writing, blogging, sermons, or videos. As a matter of fact on his website he has a 'Controversy Library' where he addresses most if not all of the accusations leveled against him here on PB and elsewhere. I will provide the link below and you can see if his answers are satisfactory for you as I have found them to be for me.


https://dougwils.com/controversy

It would appear at the very least those who speak about his denying sola fide (which is why they unjustly accuse him of heresy), no matter what else they may have against him, are either mistaken (which means that they haven't done their due diligence) or they are guilty of breaking the 9th.

Which are you?

Grace and Peace,
Santos

 

[TheOldCourse]

I've been a bit under the weather so I have been observing this thread from my sick bed. I wanted to comment but my brain power and attention span was operating at about 50%. I think I may finally be nearing my typical 51% so here is my .02.

For the past couple of years I have read several books and numerous blogs from Doug Wilson. I have yet to see anything from him that is legalistic or biblically unorthodox. I have however, seen much spoken about his being a legalist, denying sola fide, being an ecumenist, a racist, etc. But again, I have yet to see any of those things in his writing, blogging, sermons, or videos. As a matter of fact on his website he has a 'Controversy Library' where he addresses most if not all of the accusations leveled against him here on PB and elsewhere. I will provide the link below and you can see if his answers are satisfactory for you as I have found them to be for me.


https://dougwils.com/controversy

It would appear at the very least those who speak about his denying sola fide (which is why they unjustly accuse him of heresy), no matter what else they may have against him, are either mistaken (which means that they haven't done their due diligence) or they are guilty of breaking the 9th.

Which are you?

Grace and Peace,
Santos

The allegations have been well substantiated. He wrote at least a significant portion of the Joint Federal Vision Statement, he signed his name to it, and he not only has not retracted said signature but as recently as 2017 said "I would still want affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement." That statement and the body of theology it describes have been condemned as heresy by virtually every confessionally Reformed church body. That's aside from his numerous quotes and statements supporting FV errors elsewhere which have been marshalled ad nauseum in books and reports already. Until he comes out and clearly repents of the heretical views FV represents and confesses an orthodox doctrine of justification (and not merely saying "I believe in sola fide"--of course he will claim that), there really isn't a debate. If you haven't found anything legalistic or unorthodox in his teaching in a few years of reading, it's because either you weren't looking for it or you aren't grounded in Reformed orthodoxy enough yourself to detect the deviations.

That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have yet to see anything from him that is legalistic or biblically unorthodox.

His signing numerous FV documents doesn't count?

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to.

Part of what gave him a shot in the arm was that so many big names were waffling on Wokism, and he knew that by opposing Wokism, he would look really good.

When I was a theonomist I ignored Wilson's compromises because he was "good on secularism." But you can't trade the gospel for the culture war.

 

[TheOldCourse]

But you can't trade the gospel for the culture war.

That's a great way to put it. Amen.

 

[Grant]

The allegations have been well substantiated. He wrote at least a significant portion of the Joint Federal Vision Statement, he signed his name to it, and he not only has not retracted said signature but as recently as 2017 ("I would still want affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement") and subsequent to has claimed he still believes it. That statement and the body of theology it describes have been condemned as heresy by virtually every confessionally Reformed church body. That's aside from his numerous quotes and statements supporting FV errors elsewhere which have been marshalled ad nauseum in books and reports already. Until he comes out and clearly repents of the heretical views FV represents and confesses an orthodox doctrine of justification (and not merely saying "I believe in sola fide"--of course he will claim that), there really isn't a debate. If you haven't found anything legalistic or unorthodox in his teaching in a few years of reading, it's because either you weren't looking for it or you aren't grounded in Reformed orthodoxy enough yourself to detect the deviations.

That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to.

Indeed. Well said.

For anyone needing a brief timeline of Federal Vision (Doug Wilson gets a shout out), the below is a great short read:

https://heidelblog.net/2013/11/for-those-just-tuning-in-what-is-the-federal-vision/

 

[Santos]

The allegations have been well substantiated. He wrote at least a significant portion of the Joint Federal Vision Statement, he signed his name to it, and he not only has not retracted said signature but as recently as 2017 said "I would still want affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement." That statement and the body of theology it describes have been condemned as heresy by virtually every confessionally Reformed church body. That's aside from his numerous quotes and statements supporting FV errors elsewhere which have been marshalled ad nauseum in books and reports already. Until he comes out and clearly repents of the heretical views FV represents and confesses an orthodox doctrine of justification (and not merely saying "I believe in sola fide"--of course he will claim that), there really isn't a debate. If you haven't found anything legalistic or unorthodox in his teaching in a few years of reading, it's because either you weren't looking for it or you aren't grounded in Reformed orthodoxy enough yourself to detect the deviations.

That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.

He does not merely state that he affirms but explains what that means in detail. Have you listened to any of that?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It would appear at the very least those who speak about his denying sola fide (which is why they unjustly accuse him of heresy), no matter what else they may have against him, are either mistaken (which means that they haven't done their due diligence) or they are guilty of breaking the 9th.

Which are you?

Neither. As someone who has followed the Federal Vision controversy since early 2006, I consider myself to be tolerably well-informed on the subject of Doug Wilson's slipperiness and sophistry. What you have to remember about Doug Wilson is that he subscribes to Paradox Theology (the notion that the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes). As a result, he will affirm something that sounds orthodox (we are justified by faith alone), while, at the same time, affirming the polar opposite viewpoint (we are justified by faith and covenantal faithfulness). For that reason, you cannot take anything he says at face value.

 

[Goodcheer68]

Moderators- Quick question...if the majority of Reformed churches have deemed FV heresy why are we allowing people on the PB to stick up for a person who affirms FV doctrine. It seems it should be an open and shut case. It’s one thing to inquire about it and another to defend one of the main proponents of FV

 

[Reformed Quest]

That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.

As a newly Reformed person, ~ 5 years or so, I appreciate the current discussion because I am facing a Federal Vision problem. I have been mining old PB forum posts and have found gold, but up-to-date information is a big help, as you never know what may have changed in the last decade.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

That's all I will add to this matter I think. It's been hashed out enough over the past 15 years. I'm a bit disturbed that among some of our (presumably) younger or more newly Reformed members there seems to be so little awareness of the FV controversy. I had kind of rolled my eyes at Scott Clark rehashing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of years, thinking it was a settled issue, but perhaps he's right to bring it all up again.

As I get older, I realise that some things need to be continually talked about for the sake of younger people who were not around at the time the controversy took place. Failure to do so renders them more susceptible to the error in question.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Moderators- Quick question...if the majority of Reformed churches have deemed FV heresy why are we allowing people on the PB to stick up for a person who affirms FV doctrine. It seems it should be an open and shut case. It’s one thing to inquire about it and another to defend one of the main proponents of FV

Right now, this is just a thread with information in it. I haven't seen advocacy of the FV heresy, or the substance proposed under different language. That should, and shall, stay elsewhere.

It would behoove anyone who wants to engage productively in the conversation to

1) Get acquainted with primary source documentation. Links have been provided.
2) Not toss around accusations of lies, slander, and libel (9C violations) unless you can substantiate it, i.e. refute the warnings by adducing contrary information to the documentation currently touted as reason for the warning.

If you once read a book or a blog by someone with a certain reputation and profited thereby, that doesn't make the author generally reliable. Supposing he were generally reliable notwithstanding, it doesn't make him worthy of your time, for a variety of reasons. For example, a man can be orthodox theologically, and an ecclesiastic cancer and the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you like a certain loudmouth on the radio, for example; his politics are right down your alley, and you enjoy his skewering of opponents--you still might have to concede to your friend (whose opinions you'd like to see improved) that your taste in shock jocks is not for everybody. Advertising his product might do more harm than good. You are pretty adept at screening your fave's bad side, in appreciation for that 20% high quality roast. But for too many others, the toxicity is too much. And its just a fact that half his fanboys are actually off to his left/right away from you.
​

There is no shortage of substantive criticism of FV available; along with critiques of particular proponents (and one in particular) on a wider range of topics than FV alone. If you don't understand what is the big deal, and why so strong a reaction from multiple ecclesiastical bodies and individual churchmen, it may be that you are smarter than all those analysts. Or, maybe you haven't been around the block as long.

Caveat emptor.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is an interesting experiment. Let's compare Wilson with another FV guy, John Barach. There is a difference in how they talk. While we would not agree with Barach, he comes off as more mature and straightfoward. Probably because he went to a real Reformed graduate school, studied under real professors (e.g., Nelson Kloosterman), and took real presbytery/synod/classis exams in a real denomination (prior to his entering the CREC).

So when Barach says something we might not agree with on the covenant, we know what he is saying. He isn't trying to be a chucklehead or hide behind some cute remark he stole from PG Wodehouse.

 

[RamistThomist]

And here is another angle: how many of these Young Turk FV guys have read the Reformed sources (outside of Calvin)? Answer: zero.

I disagree with the Reformed divines on a number of points. I am closer to Klaas Schilder. Yet, pace Wilson and his disciples, I have read Turretin, Witsius, volumes of Owen, Buchanan, Bavinck's four volumes (volume 2 at least three times).

Only now do I feel comfortable suggesting areas where I disagree with how some formulations are worded. That is a far cry from what Wilson is doing.

 

[Santos]

And here is another angle: how many of these Young Turk FV guys have read the Reformed sources (outside of Calvin)? Answer: zero.

I disagree with the Reformed divines on a number of points. I am closer to Klaas Schilder. Yet, pace Wilson and his disciples, I have read Turretin, Witsius, volumes of Owen, Buchanan, Bavinck's four volumes (volume 2 at least three times).

Only now do I feel comfortable suggesting areas where I disagree with how some formulations are worded. That is a far cry from what Wilson is doing.

Well thank goodness you have read more Reformed sources than they....What does that even mean? .....And how can you prove your statement?.....And what do the "other" proponents of FV have to do with the price of tea in China?
I am speaking of Doug Wilson's clear articulation and teaching on Sola Fide. So he denies your assertion and you say uh huh and I am obligated to side with your assertion despite what the man says/teaches himself. Have you listened to his examination by his own presbytery?

 

[Santos]

Right now, this is just a thread with information in it. I haven't seen advocacy of the FV heresy, or the substance proposed under different language. That should, and shall, stay elsewhere.

It would behoove anyone who wants to engage productively in the conversation to

1) Get acquainted with primary source documentation. Links have been provided.
2) Not toss around accusations of lies, slander, and libel (9C violations) unless you can substantiate it, i.e. refute the warnings by adducing contrary information to the documentation currently touted as reason for the warning.

If you once read a book or a blog by someone with a certain reputation and profited thereby, that doesn't make the author generally reliable. Supposing he were generally reliable notwithstanding, it doesn't make him worthy of your time, for a variety of reasons. For example, a man can be orthodox theologically, and an ecclesiastic cancer and the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you like a certain loudmouth on the radio, for example; his politics are right down your alley, and you enjoy his skewering of opponents--you still might have to concede to your friend (whose opinions you'd like to see improved) that your taste in shock jocks is not for everybody. Advertising his product might do more harm than good. You are pretty adept at screening your fave's bad side, in appreciation for that 20% high quality roast. But for too many others, the toxicity is too much. And its just a fact that half his fanboys are actually off to his left/right away from you.
​

There is no shortage of substantive criticism of FV available; along with critiques of particular proponents (and one in particular) on a wider range of topics than FV alone. If you don't understand what is the big deal, and why so strong a reaction from multiple ecclesiastical bodies and individual churchmen, it may be that you are smarter than all those analysts. Or, maybe you haven't been around the block as long.

Caveat emptor.

Point taken.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well thank goodness you have read more Reformed sources than they....What does that even mean?

For starters, that I know what the Reformed have historically taught.

.And how can you prove your statement?

I used to be FV and ran in the FV crowds. And even former FV guys like Steven Wedgeworth have documented where FVers almost never interacted with the Reformed texts. I would pull up his site, but I can't access blogspot at work.

I am speaking of Doug Wilson's clear articulation and teaching on Sola Fide.

Which means absolutely nothing since he still upholds what he wrote in the FV statement.

So he denies your assertion and you say uh huh

No, we have all pointed to facts and links.

I am obligated to side with your assertion despite what the man says/teaches himself.

You are obligated to side with the facts.
Fact 1: He says he teaches sola fide
Fact 2: He still upholds the FV statement.

Have you listened to his examination by his own presbytery?

Over a decade ago. This isn't new stuff to us. Until he formally rejects and retracts the FV stuff, he is still liable to the charges.

 

[RamistThomist]

.And how can you prove your statement?

I've been thinking about this. How can I prove it? Let's look at the fruits. How many books about the munus triplex has Canon Press or Athanasius Press published? How many books about paedocommunion or presumptive regeneration have they published?

 

[Santos]

I've been thinking about this. How can I prove it? Let's look at the fruits. How many books about the munus triplex has Canon Press or Athanasius Press published? How many books about paedocommunion or presumptive regeneration have they published?

Really? Lol....how does that prove that you've read more than they have? How many books on presumptive revelation have you published.
I'm pretty sure Canon Press writes more on family and current events? Does everyone who calls themselves a reformed teacher necessarily need to write on nuance of this or that doctrine? Or can some write on things that are immediately profitable to the laymen?

 

[RamistThomist]

How many books on presumptive revelation have you published.

Thankfully, none.

I'm pretty sure Canon Press writes more on family and current events?

I'm good friends with several of the distributors of Canon Press literature. I used to get first selection on anything Canon Press released. In any case, you can't really separate their theology from their family lit. In fact, they would argue against doing that.

Here is a former FVer on how the FV doesn't interact with Reformed texts.
https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/the-federal-vision-and-reformed-theology/

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi All,

Long time, no see.

I saw some traffic from the PB to the Heidelblog and noticed the topic.

The place to start your understanding of Wilson is here:

https://moscowid.net

This is a invaluable treasure trove of primary source documents and analysis. One might dispute the analysis but one cannot gainsay the documents (e.g., court documents, a video of W officiating a marriage etc).

The site documents his plagiarism, his long-time (and continuing) support of the Federal Vision theology, which has been roundly condemned by the confessional Reformed churches, and his abuse of the sheep. This last has been recognized by his own federation of churches (CREC). Their report analyzing it and rebuking him for it is posted there. The video shows him officiating at the wedding of pedophile to a daughter of the church. See sittler.moscowid.net. See also wight.moscowid.net for documentation of that case.

This is a great intro to the problems issues generally:

https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/a-question-for-wilson-fans/

As to the FV itself, here is extensive documentation of and response to W on the FV.

The heart of the FV doctrine is this: In (i.e., elect, justified, adopted etc) by baptism, stay in by cooperation with grace (works). It is essentially the very thing rejected by the Reformation. It teaches two kinds of election, temporal (“covenantal”) and “decretal.” It does so in their own “Joint Federal Vision Profession” (2007), which they recently deleted from the FV site but which I’ve preserved on rscottclark.org. Look at the section on Apostasy. There the whole error is quite clear. As with the Remonstrants, as someone has already noted, what they give with one hand (a formal affirmation of justification sola fide) they take away with the other.

Finally, Hohn Cho, at Pyromaniacs, wrote a brilliant response to W re Rachael Denhollender.

 

[Krak3n]

The standards and process of testing in Confessional Presbyterian Churches is the "Reformed Talmud". Shrugging off the dangers of paedocommunion with a backhanded insult to Presbyterians.

This is what passes as cautious speech, evidently.

Regarding the "dangers of paedocommunion", I was responding to a direct question to me about Wilson's handling of the sacraments (Was I bothered by it.). I answered according to what I believe about it. I don't agree with him or you. My current understanding it that you're both wrongheaded but he's more consistent. I'm not going to argue about it, there are other threads and sub-forums for that. I was asked here, so I answered here.

A "backhanded insult"? Should I be offended whenever a Presbyterian talks about baptism? No, I just shrug and move on. Half the members here disagree with the other half on the issue of sacraments. (Ok, it may not be half, I don't know how the population of alignments exist on the PB.)

"Cautious speech" doesn't mean I need to mince words. It means we should be slow to the damning of a man and saying his denomination's elders are inept.

I get it, you wouldn't call it the "Reformed Talmud".
It's not Scripture but we condemn people by it.
If that is the proper use then it is the "Reformed Tradition of the Elders".

Like "Reformed talmud?"
...
I'm fairly sure that isn't a good comparison to the reformed divines

The implication was for the way it's used, not it's contents. I added "Reformed" to the title to convey a difference. You can quote all the blasphemous trivia you want, but were you really so offended that you'd post such a stupid thing?

---

I posted this earlier, but I'll post it again.
https://www.crechurches.org/documents/minutes/2004crec.pdf

Appendix E on page 63: Written Examination Questions for Pastor Douglas Wilson

Appendix F on page 86: Report of the Special Committee to Examine Pastor Douglas Wilson

 

[RamistThomist]

. You can quote all the blasphemous trivia you want, but were you really so offended that you'd post such a stupid thing?

No. I wasn't offended but simply showed why it might be disingenuous for you to compare us to the Talmud while saying we should all chill out.