This is where I tend to be, as well, for the most part. That and I think he says a whole lot without saying anything, succours the worst of FV, and makes so many inconsistent and erroneous statements that he loses quite a bit of value and is no one I would point people towards for pretty much anything.
Not Click Bait: I Like Doug Wilson
- Thread starter the_earnest_inquirer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- doug wilson woug dilson
- Status
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
I agree, you shouldn't have to explain it.
pianoviolin
Puritan Board Freshman
Wilson is especially dangerous to many Baptists who assume that he's Presbyterian and that the "Presbyterians" will take care of his issues re. FV, justification, etc. I'd rather be (low to mid-church) Reformed Anglican, high-church confessional Lutheran, or attend a conservative(ish) PCUSA church than attend a FV/Wilsonite church. He has caused immense damage to the traditional Reformed understanding of the sacraments (as effectual means of grace/salvation - not in of themselves but through the work of the Spirit as He seems fit, at the time of His choosing) by inserting his strange FV theology into them.
C.S. Lewis had some issues with inerrancy/inspiration, hell, etc., but I'd take him any day over Barth or modernists. He was an excellent writer and man of God despite his flaws in theology. Whatever our faults with Doug Wilson are, he is no Chesterton or Tolkien, nor a C.S. Lewis or even Tim Keller-type figure.
Alex Moore
Puritan Board Freshman
And I answered that very straightforwardly, sir, hence why I broke up the response in the same manner as you asked the question.
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
For those who like/follow DW, what would it take for you to not like him?
Also @DanSSwing I made the point about DW not being like Lewis or Chesterton on the last DW thread and you did not respond. I would love it if you would tell me your thoughts about that. I can snag the quote if I need to.
Thanks
Also @DanSSwing I made the point about DW not being like Lewis or Chesterton on the last DW thread and you did not respond. I would love it if you would tell me your thoughts about that. I can snag the quote if I need to.
Thanks
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
if a Wilsonite were to preach a sermon titled "Jezebel's Ji*glies," would that be crossing the line or would this be another example of owning the libs?
Last edited:
That is the fundamental point at stake.
The idea of "kingdom work" has a quaint neo-Calvinist ring to it that is somewhat meaningless in confessional terms. According to the Confession the church is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Calling ourselves "Reformed" is not a badge of honour in an exclusive club but a lifelong responsibility to live for Christ our King according the principles of His Word. The Confession is important because it maintains those principles as they have been attained in history. We are not at liberty to fall back from reformation attainments whenever it suits our agenda or enables us to engage in a broader sphere of society.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
You think we assume he’s Presbyterian? CREC is the same thing as CRC, right?
No. CREC allows for both paedo and credo churches.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
I think he's being satirical...
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
Post automatically merged:
the_earnest_inquirer
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, it seems this thread is coming to a close. It's been a journey, eh? What better way to top it off than a tasty selection of LOTR memes?
1. I still like Doug.
2. Some concerns about him are legitimate. Don't dismiss them.
3. I'm not scared of him. He's just a man. Don't idolize him, keep an eye to scripture, and you'll be safe. Better still, you may even benefit from him (and not just as a net positive kind of way).
4. Ya'll have a blessed day! Thanks for contributing.
1. I still like Doug.
2. Some concerns about him are legitimate. Don't dismiss them.
3. I'm not scared of him. He's just a man. Don't idolize him, keep an eye to scripture, and you'll be safe. Better still, you may even benefit from him (and not just as a net positive kind of way).
4. Ya'll have a blessed day! Thanks for contributing.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
I think that was one of the points of Sam Jer's short video from Dr. Everhard. People either like him, or hate him; and most discussions about him are futile, as people usually end up either still liking him, or hating him no matter how heated or lengthy a discourse may be.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Maybe, maybe not. As a lifelong participant in debates I can look back and see that while immediately I am unconvinced by opposition, I find that the points that irritate me most were points I had no real good answers for. My position became clearer even to the point of becoming convinced later on down the road so to speak. This is - of course - subject to one's own subjective ability to self-reflect and tighten up a position or ... not (which is sadly prevalent)
Carrots
Puritan Board Freshman
When I keep an eye to Scripture, I find it teaches (among other things) that coarse, quarrelsome talk disqualifies a man from being a pastor.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
No worries. Give it a few weeks at most. Stick around.
Wilhelmus à Broccoli
Puritan Board Freshman
What an odd thing to say.
First of all, "oh well the world does it" is a terrible reason for any Christian, especially a pastor, to permit himself to speak a certain way.
Secondly, it's not at all true that "we" voluntarily indulge in media that uses such terminology. Maybe you do and that's how you justify following DW.
Thirdly, there's obviously a massive difference between the standards we should hold elders to and the standards we should hold comedians to. "Let not many become teachers." There's further a difference between media you consume because it's supposed to be funny and media you consume because it's supposed to be edifying. Nobody is trying to learn how to live as a Christian in the 21st century from Jerry Seinfeld. Even if you're not as choosy as you should be with your sitcoms, you should be very particular with your theologians.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Its not about holding others to compartmental standards. Its about the standards one holds themselves to. If someone considers a certain type of language sinful, and unbecoming of Christians, then it is universally sinful; and as such, that person should shun all instances of voluntarily indulging in its occurrence. If it is not sinful, then why is it sinful for a pastor to use it? If it is sinful, then why would one otherwise watch, listen, or read such for entertainment? It doesn't make sense. For instance, most Sabbatarian's not only consecrate the Sabbath (or Lord's Day,) but also do not go to any place that desecrates it, i.e. shopping, restaurants, etc. Why? Because something that is sin, is sin regardless if the world disregards it. But, if we openly engage or partake in what we consider sin, can we righteously judge another for it?
And I agree, most certainly there are Christians who hate even the sound of vulgarity entering their ears; and they have every right to form a distasteful opinion of those who use such. But those who act shocked when a pastor uses vulgarity, then pop popcorn and soak it up for couple of hours, have no room to talk about people who use it, pastor or not. The thing is, those who disagree with the latter are simply not willing to give up their entertainment to be non-hypocritical in their pseudo-outrage. And that is the reason, knowing most Christians, do in fact indulge in all sorts of worldly entertainment, (which will include said vulgarities), renders a majority of that outrage artificial at best.
People can deny it, but nobody is fooled, most likely including Doug Wilson. And also, this hypocrisy is most likely one of the reasons certain Puritans had a problem with stage-plays and secular poetry in their day; which would be considered harmless compared to today's PG movies, music, and books. Because if you are going to consider something ungodly, you don't get to be entertained by sin just because its source is sinful, nor do you get to divide your eyes and ears between edifying and not edifying, nor do you get to excuse your voluntary consumption of it by "but they're not Christian." It isn't about them, it is about your standards as a Christian.
I just recently voluntarily watched an R-Rated movie. How am I going to get mad at Doug Wilson for saying boobies?
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I don't think anybody here sees an issue. The behavior is wrong. Christians shouldn't do it. Pastors shouldn't do it. Is it wrong for me to preach a sermon titled "Jezebel's Jigglies"? Is that language unbecoming, yes or no?
Post automatically merged:
That is...a very consistent point.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Honestly, I wouldn't be appalled if I heard it, especially if in a context such as "Christ calls us to unwavering devotion within a world who rather like a picture of Jezebels jigglies, than liken themselves dead to their own lusts and perversions..." or something like that. I dont even think I would bat an eyelid or notice it as crude at all.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
I will not address the language of Doug Wilson. While unbecoming a minister of the gospel, it is like lopping of the head of the dandelion. Doug Wilson has no seminary degree (irregular at best, likely unacceptable in a Reformed denomination). He is not ordained in a Reformed church (self ordained is acceptable these days, apparently). His FV views have been rejected formally and heartily by almost all solid Reformed denominations. With guys like Sinclair Ferguson, Joel Beeke,...and most of the men in our pulpits, why would anyone look to a guy like Wilson?
Last edited:
Am I on the Puritanboard? I couldn't even quote the post I'm responding to.
If one isn't willing to call out a sin because it means incriminating oneself it exposes an even worse sin. If it is honesty and transparency that one aims for, then be honest and transparent. Yes, it is hypocritical to do the same things that you condemn in others. It is no less hypocritical to judge actions in the light of what is done rather than what ought to be done. God's law is laid aside so as to fulfil the lusts of the flesh and of the mind. God's standards are reduced to what everybody does and nobody is willing to speak against. This is what lies at the heart of liberalism, progressivism, wokeism, or whatever else you want to call the gross immorality that pervades society today. This is just as hypocritical. In fact, it is worse because it removes the standard by which hypocrisy can be discerned and dealt with.
Call it out, even if it means incriminating yourself. Call others to repent; and hear the voice of God calling you to repentance. Hypocrisy resides in the deceitfulness of the sinful heart. It manifests itself in more ways than one.
If one isn't willing to call out a sin because it means incriminating oneself it exposes an even worse sin. If it is honesty and transparency that one aims for, then be honest and transparent. Yes, it is hypocritical to do the same things that you condemn in others. It is no less hypocritical to judge actions in the light of what is done rather than what ought to be done. God's law is laid aside so as to fulfil the lusts of the flesh and of the mind. God's standards are reduced to what everybody does and nobody is willing to speak against. This is what lies at the heart of liberalism, progressivism, wokeism, or whatever else you want to call the gross immorality that pervades society today. This is just as hypocritical. In fact, it is worse because it removes the standard by which hypocrisy can be discerned and dealt with.
Call it out, even if it means incriminating yourself. Call others to repent; and hear the voice of God calling you to repentance. Hypocrisy resides in the deceitfulness of the sinful heart. It manifests itself in more ways than one.
dsanch1120
Puritan Board Sophomore
Before learning the specifics of the controversies around him, I found this to be a helpful mindset. We are blessed to have so many godly teachers, past and present, that I lose very little by not studying at the feet of DW
Wilhelmus à Broccoli
Puritan Board Freshman
I guess I don't understand how you can write that and conclude not "I should be more careful about the profane media I consume" but rather "A pastor making the coarse jests of a worldly comedian is completely OK."
Carrots
Puritan Board Freshman
It's not about the standards one holds themselves to, but the standard that God through Scripture holds pastors (and laypeople!) to.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Jolly Ranchers are the best hard candy to date.
Moderating. Separate out morality of viewing habits to another thread, versus ability to judge Wilson's behavior (which has been answered but if folks want to continue that and the OP topic of Wilson, this thread may continue; otherwise, this thread may be done). Pausing for folks to catch up.
Posts on morality of viewing habits moved to the new thread. This thread has be reopened. Stay on topic if we are not done. If we're done it will close of it's own accord after lack of activity.
The argument is silly and a red herring. "I watch movies where murder occurs, therefore I shouldn't call out murder if I see it." Examples could be multiplied.
- Status
