? on Wilson

[LadyFlynt]

Okay, I've been doing some looking up of Doug Wilson and I have several questions. Some questions also have to do with Vision Forum.

1) Is DW an ethnic separatist?

2) DW's view of slavery...is it drawn along ethnic lines? What is his view of "biblical" slavery vs American slavery?

3) What is VF's connection with DW?

4) Is there a connection between VF and Bill Gothard?

5) If yes, then what parts of BG's teaching do they take and why?

6) How far do things have to go before someone truely is guilty by association?

 

[Kevin]

1) no

2)no--biblical vs american slavery; thats a hard call he has (seemingly) changed his view, so to pt2 of your question I don't know.

3) Depends on who you ask

4) no I have never heard of any

5) none

6) you aren't serious are you?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Okay, I've been doing some looking up of Doug Wilson and I have several questions. Some questions also have to do with Vision Forum.

1) Is DW an ethnic separatist?

2) DW's view of slavery...is it drawn along ethnic lines? What is his view of "biblical" slavery vs American slavery?

3) What is VF's connection with DW?

4) Is there a connection between VF and Bill Gothard?

5) If yes, then what parts of BG's teaching do they take and why?

6) How far do things have to go before someone truely is guilty by association?

1. No. The Kinists have denounced him for being soft on the race issue.
2. He says that the Bible allows slavery (think indentured servitude) but that American slavery was not biblical.
3. Doug Phillips used to carry his stuff in the past and has said postiive things of him, but has publically distanced himself from Phillips.
4. Don't know. Phillips referenced him positively in one lecture, but I think he was merely be respectful of audience.
5. Don't know.
6. A valid question and one we all have to answer, but the above show that the characters in question are not yet to that level.

 

[RamistThomist]

I misread #6. I don't put any stock in GBA.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I should possibly rephrase #6...guilty by their associations...as in whom they choose to intentionally partner with and be influenced by...not simply know and do business with.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I should possibly rephrase #6...guilty by their associations...as in whom they choose to intentionally partner with and be influenced by...not simply know and do business with.

Ah, be very wise and cautios then. I think Phillips is more open to Gothard than I would be. Does that logically nullify the other good stuff Phillips has said? Of course not. Same as with anybody. Also what I do is consider: does this person have all the information or the perspectives necessary to see the individual in question like I do? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Very true. It doesn't nullify. I like Wilson's and Phillip's writings on the home and family. What I am glad not to see is the extreme twisting that Gothard does, but have heard that they are influenced by Gothard. Gothard is scary stuff.

I also wanted to get my info on Wilson straight. Kinist deny him, yet others call him a kinist (or rather they call him and Phillips white supremicists).

 

[Kevin]

Yes, kinnists denounce DW for his views. At least Harry Seabrook does.

As far as being denounced for being a "white-supremicist" remember what Henry Ford Sr said "the cry bigot is raised oftenest by bigots."

The criticism of kinnists (and others) arises from DW being unwilling to openly defend the scriptural teaching on slavery (i.e. the Bible allows for it).

On the other hand DWs "half-way" defense of the scriptures is the source of criticism from the radical egalitarians & cultural marxists.

 

[py3ak]

Darkwing has also criticized Phillip's in the past.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Darkwing?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

It is my understanding that both Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips are partial to paedocommunion.

 

[py3ak]

I like to call Wilson Darkwing Duck. Ask Jacob.

 

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It is my understanding that both Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips are partial to paedocommunion.

Doug Phillips is a credobaptist... so I don't see how he could be partial to paedocommunion.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It is my understanding that both Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips are partial to paedocommunion.

Doug Phillips is a credobaptist... so I don't see how he could be partial to paedocommunion.

At his church the fathers (not the minister) administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to their own families and make their own determinations about how old the child must be to partake.

Moreover, Doug Wilson's National Center for Family-Integrated Churches includes a lot of paedocommunion churches.

[Edited on 9-19-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It is my understanding that both Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips are partial to paedocommunion.

Phillips adminstering the sacraments to his children doesn't necessarily equate to paedocommunion. Although if his children, given his credobaptist views, are baptised, to the Supper it is. But that is as far as the similiarites go.

Moreover, Doug Wilson's National Center for Family-Integrated Churches includes a lot of paedocommunion churches.

Do you mean Wilson or Phillips?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It is my understanding that both Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips are partial to paedocommunion.

Phillips adminstering the sacraments to his children doesn't necessarily equate to paedocommunion. Although if his children, given his credobaptist views, are baptised, to the Supper it is. But that is as far as the similiarites go.

Moreover, Doug Wilson's National Center for Family-Integrated Churches includes a lot of paedocommunion churches.

Do you mean Wilson or Phillips?

I don't know specifically if Doug Phillips has administered the sacrament to his young children before their profession of faith. I am told that fathers in his church have administered it to their infants and young children.

Sorry, I meant Doug Phillips' NCFIC.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am told that fathers in his church have administered it to their infants and young children.

Ah, if that is true I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[Kevin]

I don't think it is fair to impose "our" catagories on DP.

Chad is correct DP is a baptist so our idea of paedocommunion is not applicable. In his view if a child is "saved" i.e. they can say "i love you Jesus" then they should be baptised AND admitted to the Lords table.

BTW I agree with Draught Horse we need to be a little more sparing in our use of anathamas.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Kevin
I don't think it is fair to impose "our" catagories on DP.

Chad is correct DP is a baptist so our idea of paedocommunion is not applicable. In his view if a child is "saved" i.e. they can say "i love you Jesus" then they should be baptised AND admitted to the Lords table.

BTW I agree with Draught Horse we need to be a little more sparing in our use of anathamas.

I don't think anyone here has anathematized Doug Phillips. I have pointed out that his church has a policy which places admission to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the hands of the fathers rather than the minister and at least some of whom have been observed administering the Supper to infants who are, by definition, incapable of profession of faith. I acknowledged that I don't know if Doug Phillips has done this personally but it [paedocommunion] is allowed by his church's policy. And paedocommunion is no bar to membership in his group of "family-integrated churches," which in fact includes quite a few which adhere to paedocommunion.

What I initially said is that it is my understanding that Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips are partial to paedocommunion (note I did not address the merits of paedocommunion). "Partial" means "to favor" something. While it is strange for a credobaptist to be partial to paedocommunion, his church allows it (in the context of a strange approach to administering the sacraments that in itself is worthy of notice) and it is a practice adhered to by many of the churches with whom his group is loosely-affiliated. So far I have not seen any information to contradict what I have said. It may be that he is strongly opposed to paedocommunion personally but is content for his church and the churches with which he is associated to practice it, but when a person surrounds themself with a particular controversial practice and does not condemn it, I think it is reasonable to conclude that he favors or approves of it. I have been careful not to condemn Phillips. My post was just for the sake of pointing out what appears to me to be a common thread between Wilson and Phillips.

[Edited on 9-20-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Kevin]

Thanks, point well taken.

I haven't with either doug in a while but in a converstion a couple of years back with DW his view/practice was just as VirginiaHuguenot said above.