Doug Wilson and Covenant Objectivity

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand that. My problem is his problem with the internal/external distinction of the covenant, which is biblical (Rom. 9).
And 2:28-29

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
 
Where does "historical" and "eschatological" church leave room for the false professor? If I put pressure on the term "eschatological," this is a church that only exists at the end of the world. So are there no false professors in the historical church right here and now? That false professors are only a concept by the revelation of who perseveres into the eschatological church, but there is no concept of false professors in the here-and-now? That is what the words convey to my mind at the popular level.

The terms "visible" and "invisible" church capture this distinction much better, which makes sense since it arises from Scripture itself, and the terms have always been understood to consist of a part of the whole when speaking of the church at any particular moment of time, which since the church has an organic unity, is still properly a viewing of the church. You see a person's hand, you can speak of seeing their body. If you want to be more specific, you have seen part of their body, but you have seen their body. Or to use Samuel Rutherford's analogy (the ignorance of the literature of the Reformers on this is amazing, but 2007 was also a different year than 2022), if you see a part of the ocean, you have seen the ocean, though you have not seen the whole of it. How about we use terms the way they were intended to function?

On a practical level, not having a proper concept of false profession in the here-and-now will lead to self-righteousness, self-deception, formalism, and an interest in religious rituals over the Word and Spirit.
 
That probably explains his commitment to paedocommunion.
I don't think that is any truer than saying Covenantalism explains a commitment to paedocommunion. Does it? Hope this isn't rabbit trailing. But I do believe his roots of being Credo Reformed Baptist haven't moved and that would explain a lot. He isn't Reformed and He really isn't ordained.
 
I don't think that is any truer than saying Covenantalism explains a commitment to paedocommunion. Does it? Hope this isn't rabbit trailing. But I do believe his roots of being Credo Reformed Baptist haven't moved and that would explain a lot. He isn't Reformed and He really isn't ordained.

He and credobaptists use the same argument for paedocommunion: if you baptize babies, then you should feed them the Supper. But yes, in older threads on credobaptists, the internal/external distinction often came up.
 
He and credobaptists use the same argument for paedocommunion: if you baptize babies, then you should feed them the Supper.
I think you would be hard pressed to show that credos originated this line of thinking (historically). Rather, as one way to discredit infant baptism some credos have latched onto the rationale of certain peados' claims of that nature, based on the latter's strain of covenantalism.

I seem to recall Murray saying something along the lines that he would rather adopt paedocommunion before he would give up paedobaptism.
 
Last edited:
In my search to hammer out my understanding of how the covenant works I have personally found that the views of Vos, Berkhof, and Schilder to be helpful and in my opinion, accurate. They all make a distinction between those who are in the covenant in only a legal sense vs those who have the substance of the covenant promises. For example: Ishmael vs Isaac. Thus covenant is wider than election. Both were "in the covenant" so to speak and there were commanalities between them (i.e. both were holy from birth, both given the covenant sign, both given the covenant promises, both had covenant obligations), however only Isaac received the substance of the promises because he laid hold of God with a (Spirit-wrought) faith.
 
In my search to hammer out my understanding of how the covenant works I have personally found that the views of Vos, Berkhof, and Schilder to be helpful and in my opinion, accurate. They all make a distinction between those who are in the covenant in only a legal sense vs those who have the substance of the covenant promises. For example: Ishmael vs Isaac. Thus covenant is wider than election. Both were "in the covenant" so to speak and there were commanalities between them (i.e. both were holy from birth, both given the covenant sign, both given the covenant promises, both had covenant obligations), however only Isaac received the substance of the promises because he laid hold of God with a (Spirit-wrought) faith.
Amen. My only issue is I'm having trouble seeing how anything Wilson is saying is anything different than that.
 
Amen. My only issue is I'm having trouble seeing how anything Wilson is saying is anything different than that.
I love Schilder but he isn't always the clearest. I get what he means by the vital/legal distinction, but I am not sure how he can work in his "all or nothing" take on covenant membership. Nor is it clear how this is an improvement upon the actual biblical language of internal/external. And in those rare moments when Wilson is actually clear, it isn't obvious how he is affirming said distinction.
 
He is just saying that he prefers the terms "historic" church and "eschatological" church. He finds the term "visible" church troubling because the entire visible church throughout history is actually invisible to man - it is only visible to God. If we use the term historic church, we don't have to modify it.
He makes this switch because it enables him to avoid the both the biblical teaching on the IC/VC and its necessary entailments. He is not saying, "we also need to look at the church from the historical vs. eschotalogical perspective. Instead he is saying, "we need to ignore (functionally deny) the IC/VC distinction and use ONLY the HC/EC distinction." He does so in order to sneak in the FV's unbiblical true-but-temporary faith position.

In other words,, this is a standard example of equivocation.
 
I love Schilder but he isn't always the clearest. I get what he means by the vital/legal distinction, but I am not sure how he can work in his "all or nothing" take on covenant membership. Nor is it clear how this is an improvement upon the actual biblical language of internal/external. And in those rare moments when Wilson is actually clear, it isn't obvious how he is affirming said distinction.
I think what is presented by Berkhof in his S.T., where if I recall correctly he essentially endorses the position of Vos, and what I've read about Schilder (not directly from him, but in a pamphlet on FV by Rev. Bredenhof (@Guido's Brother) who is a member of this forum) indicate to me that they all essentially believed the same thing - they call it vital/legal, which really is the same kind of distinction as visible/invisible. I think it is helpful to keep both terminologies in mind and I believe they complement each other. I think what the Dutch formulations are trying to establish is that all those in the visible church or "covenant community" or whatever you want to call it really do have a relation to God, and really are "in covenant" with him. Whereas some formulations treat it as though the only people who really have any covenant relationship to God are the elect, and the others (including children) are in essence covenant appendages (or worse yet, have no relationship to God whatsoever) until proven otherwise.
 
I think what is presented by Berkhof in his S.T., where if I recall correctly he essentially endorses the position of Vos, and what I've read about Schilder (not directly from him, but in a pamphlet on FV by Rev. Bredenhof (@Guido's Brother) who is a member of this forum) indicate to me that they all essentially believed the same thing - they call it vital/legal, which really is the same kind of distinction as visible/invisible. I think it is helpful to keep both terminologies in mind and I believe they complement each other. I think what the Dutch formulations are trying to establish is that all those in the visible church or "covenant community" or whatever you want to call it really do have a relation to God, and really are "in covenant" with him. Whereas some formulations treat it as though the only people who really have any covenant relationship to God are the elect, and the others (including children) are in essence covenant appendages (or worse yet, have no relationship to God whatsoever) until proven otherwise.

I've read everything of Schilder's in English, except for two of his Trilogy. Wilson isn't simply saying that those unbelievers in the covenant don't have a real relationship with God. He is saying they have real faith but fall away.
 
I think you would be hard pressed to show that credos originated this line of thinking (historically). Rather, as one way to discredit infant baptism some credos have latched onto the rationale of certain peados' claims of that nature, based on the latter's strain of covenantalism.

I seem to recall Murray saying something along the lines that he would rather adopt paedocommunion before he would give up paedobaptism.
Some baptist polemicists going back maybe at least to the 19th Century have made the argument and thus charged Presbyterians and others with inconsistency.
 
I don't think there is anything unique to Wilson about his praise for Lewis and Chesterton. That is standard among all Evangelicals and many Reformed. Chesterton is overrated. He is a wordsmith with little substance. All fluff. Lewis is a genuinely good writer.
Disagree. Chesterton is immensely (pun unintended) fun as an essayist. He uses the mundane to invite the reader to a different point of view on various matters, which is what every literary essayist should do. "What I found in my pocket," for example, was highly entertaining.
 
Disagree. Chesterton is immensely (pun unintended) fun as an essayist. He uses the mundane to invite the reader to a different point of view on various matters, which is what every literary essayist should do. "What I found in my pocket," for example, was highly entertaining.

I don't disagree with that. He is a fun wordsmith. That's not the same thing as being deep. His biography of Thomas Aquinas is a delight. You just don't learn that much about Thomas, though.
 
Chesterton was a journalist and a good one. I respect him in *that* role. I'll even tip my hat to him when he explores literary criticism, as in his works on Stevenson and Carlyle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top