Douglas Wilson's teaching of Biblical Marriage (?)

[Dordts5]

Just as the title reads: has anyone listene to or read his sermons/lectures on Federal Husbandry?

If so, would anyone care to comment? I have listened through the entire series and find them quite good! It's been a while since I last listened to them, but would like to engage my mind again in the series.

I have read some particular articles that do not hold the federal husbandry position. Any thoughts pro/con on federal husbandry?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Douglas Wilson has alot of great things to say about marriage and family, however it is best to avoid him altogether because of his other heretical views. His books on family can act as a gateway drug of sorts, someone will read them and think they are good, and then pick something like "Reformed is Not Enough", and they will be negatively influenced.

 

[TylerRay]

Any of the good stuff that the Federal Vision folks have said can be gotten elsewhere from orthodox folks. Whether its on marriage, redemptive-historical studies, or whatever. Check out what's out there from the orthodox guys first.

Reformation Heritage Books - Search Results for "marriage"

 

[Dordts5]

Thank you both for your replies.

 

[Mushroom]

Douglas Wilson has alot of great things to say about marriage and family, however it is best to avoid him altogether because of his other heretical views. His books on family can act as a gateway drug of sorts, someone will read them and think they are good, and then pick something like "Reformed is Not Enough", and they will be negatively influenced.

I would second this comment.

 

[FenderPriest]

Douglas Wilson has alot of great things to say about marriage and family, however it is best to avoid him altogether because of his other heretical views. His books on family can act as a gateway drug of sorts, someone will read them and think they are good, and then pick something like "Reformed is Not Enough", and they will be negatively influenced.

This seems unreasonable to me, and a bit excessive. Wilson has many good, helpful, clear, and to my mind, biblical things to say about marriage and family. His book on raising sons is outstanding. To say that one should not read him at all because of questionable areas elsewhere in his theological writings is to say negate the use of spiritual discernment, and is uncharitable at best.

 

[Beoga]

Douglas Wilson has alot of great things to say about marriage and family, however it is best to avoid him altogether because of his other heretical views. His books on family can act as a gateway drug of sorts, someone will read them and think they are good, and then pick something like "Reformed is Not Enough", and they will be negatively influenced.

Could you please list the heretical views (with quotes), by way of reminder, so that we know what to look for and avoid?

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

Is this the Douglas Wilson who wrote "Evanjellyfish" and "To a thousand Generations: Infant Baptism.... ?"

I have the infant baptism book I was about to start reading, I had no idea he was a FV guy.

 

[TylerRay]

Is this the Douglas Wilson who wrote "Evanjellyfish" and "To a thousand Generations: Infant Baptism.... ?"

I have the infant baptism book I was about to start reading, I had no idea he was a FV guy.

That's the guy. He's been one of the leading teachers in Federal Vision circles from the beginning.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I guess I better pitch my infant baptism book by him, then.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Doug Wilson has a tendency to turn wisdom literature into didactic teaching. He'll start with a "...this seems wise..." and then it becomes an axiom that is used to build into a later "must". In other words, you have to really pay attention when he hasn't really exegeted something that is necessarily so but might be an inference. In many cases it's Doug's inference and then it becomes controlling so that if you're not applying a possible inference the way he would you're not simply disagreeing with Doug Wilson but the overall impression is that you're disagreeing with God's Word itself.

As an example, I'm no wimp. I'm a retired Marine and have shown I can hang. That said, in Future Men, Doug raises the idea that you might bring up a boy who throws like a girl to the level that you've failed as a father. It's these kind of imbalances that are dangerous. It short circuits how wisdom develops and actually instills in its readers sloppy habits on how Scripture is to be read. In a real sense, Doug has an allegorical method of teaching but he's generally well written and entertaining so the unsuspecting are swallowing his pronouncements as GNC.

Here's the thing, when we read Ephesians 5, there are a number of things that are plainly stated and must be deduced from the text and then there are things that people will insist must result:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

What are some things that might be inferred:

Well, if a husband is like Christ, and the Father sees Christ when he looks at me, he must see me when he looks at my wife!

Wrong!

But these are the subtle kind of "If Christ is like a husband then whatever is true about Christ must be true of the husband..." arguments that you have to watch out for.

Doug is famous for running with these and making (seemingly) convincing arguments for them but they are his inferences that are not sustained elsewhere but then are used to create whole doctrinal frameworks therefrom.

 

[Jack K]

I guess I better pitch my infant baptism book by him, then.

I found "To a Thousand Generations" helpful. I wouldn't agree with every word, but there's probably nothing quite like that particular book. And unless it turns you into a Wilson-head (and, yes, that does happen to some people—he's an excellent writer), that particular book is not going to lead you down the path of the most serious Federal Vision concerns, like the question of imputed righteousness. It gets into Federal Vision ecclesiology to some extent, but if you're discerning you may still find the book helpful. It's written so well that it's the only book I know that can get my Baptist friends to say, "Oh, now I understand covenant theology and how it leads to infant baptism." His chapter on how no one, even in Old Testament days, has ever been saved other than by faith in Christ is simply the most readable, winsome, easily convincing argument of that point I've ever read.

Wilson's place in the Federal Vision movement is an odd one in that he's the leader in many ways yet is probably closer to the historical Reformed positions on FV issues than are any of the other prominent FV writers. I guess there's guilt by association, but I've still (cautiously) learned some good stuff from him.

There are some things no one says quite like Luther. So I find Luther to be of value even though he's not Reformed. There are things no one says quite like C.S. Lewis, so I also find Lewis to be of value even though he's not Reformed. Wilson, too, says certain things very well. Though I understand why some people would automatically pitch his books, I don't do that.

 

[Jack K]

Doug Wilson has a tendency to turn wisdom literature into didactic teaching. He'll start with a "...this seems wise..." and then it becomes an axiom that is used to build into a later "must". In other words, you have to really pay attention when he hasn't really exegeted something that is necessarily so but might be an inference. In many cases it's Doug's inference and then it becomes controlling so that if you're not applying a possible inference the way he would you're not simply disagreeing with Doug Wilson but the overall impression is that you're disagreeing with God's Word itself.

Indeed. This is a big problem with many of his books.

 

[Dordts5]

Doug Wilson has a tendency to turn wisdom literature into didactic teaching. He'll start with a "...this seems wise..." and then it becomes an axiom that is used to build into a later "must". In other words, you have to really pay attention when he hasn't really exegeted something that is necessarily so but might be an inference. In many cases it's Doug's inference and then it becomes controlling so that if you're not applying a possible inference the way he would you're not simply disagreeing with Doug Wilson but the overall impression is that you're disagreeing with God's Word itself.

As an example, I'm no wimp. I'm a retired Marine and have shown I can hang. That said, in Future Men, Doug raises the idea that you might bring up a boy who throws like a girl to the level that you've failed as a father. It's these kind of imbalances that are dangerous. It short circuits how wisdom develops and actually instills in its readers sloppy habits on how Scripture is to be read. In a real sense, Doug has an allegorical method of teaching but he's generally well written and entertaining so the unsuspecting are swallowing his pronouncements as GNC.

Here's the thing, when we read Ephesians 5, there are a number of things that are plainly stated and must be deduced from the text and then there are things that people will insist must result:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

What are some things that might be inferred:

Well, if a husband is like Christ, and the Father sees Christ when he looks at me, he must see me when he looks at my wife!

Wrong!

But these are the subtle kind of "If Christ is like a husband then whatever is true about Christ must be true of the husband..." arguments that you have to watch out for.

Doug is famous for running with these and making (seemingly) convincing arguments for them but they are his inferences that are not sustained elsewhere but then are used to create whole doctrinal frameworks therefrom.

This is very insiteful and is something that I recognized about him as a speaker. It is quite cunning the shape of his language, in essence, can deceive the unsuspecting listener. I do agree with his position, for most parts, on the teaching of federal husband. The husband most certainly has a position of headship, federally, in the marriage. Where I may part ways with him is the husband's responsibility of his wife's sin. I believe in a "partial" responsibility, though a full responsibility his a hard pill to swallow. Perhaps I need more teaching in these regards, bu that is where I sit today.

Thank you all for the comments.

 

[Dordts5]

To be honest, I've only heard him speak in this series of sermons/lectures and have only read one piece of his in a refutation. in my opinion he speaks better than he writes. His writing in this particular book was nothing, but drivel and refuted nothing.

 

[Scott1]

Douglas Wilson has alot of great things to say about marriage and family, however it is best to avoid him altogether because of his other heretical views. His books on family can act as a gateway drug of sorts, someone will read them and think they are good, and then pick something like "Reformed is Not Enough", and they will be negatively influenced.

This seems unreasonable to me, and a bit excessive. Wilson has many good, helpful, clear, and to my mind, biblical things to say about marriage and family. His book on raising sons is outstanding. To say that one should not read him at all because of questionable areas elsewhere in his theological writings is to say negate the use of spiritual discernment, and is uncharitable at best.

This thinking is understandable given the charitable view the ninth commandment, among others, would have us have toward the professed brethren.

There is more to consider, however.

Leaders, those who would presume to lead God's people are held to a higher standard. Those who lead more broadly, more visibly have responsibility all the more.

The difficulty is with a brother who has become identified as a leader of serious error, and self identifies that way. It has the danger of causing many to stumble, both those who know of the serious error, and those who do not.

There is also the aspect of having been warned by biblical authority, not once, but repeatedly, and persisting without repentance. Without even a willingness to reconsider.

Titus 3

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

At some point, we need to be distant from the apparent authority of one who spreads and comforts serious error and rejects engagement for it, even if parts of what they say and do, in isolation, seem correct.

 

[Mushroom]

Having been heavily influenced by Wilson some 10-12 years ago, I would agree that his writings are winsome and convincing - and thus dangerous. I left his teaching behind before he went full-bore FV, but wrestled with paedo-communion for some time. There is a consistency to his arguments that connect even the seemingly innocuous portions to the heretical ones, and I think therein lies the danger. I am grateful to God to have had godly and gentle brothers in my Church, and even here on PB, to direct me through the power of the Holy Spirit out of the woods on that one.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Douglas Wilson has alot of great things to say about marriage and family, however it is best to avoid him altogether because of his other heretical views. His books on family can act as a gateway drug of sorts, someone will read them and think they are good, and then pick something like "Reformed is Not Enough", and they will be negatively influenced.

Could you please list the heretical views (with quotes), by way of reminder, so that we know what to look for and avoid?

Well, we could start here http://www.federal-vision.com/resources/joint_FV_Statement.pdf

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Time for a pause on this one.