"Reformed" is Not Enough
Sourpuss Stamp Reviews
The moralistic, Dispensational,
sacerdotal, ritualistic new perspectivism of Douglas Wilson exposed in
this critique.
"Reformed"
is Not Enough
by Douglas Wilson
Canon Press, 2002.
206 Pages, Paperback
“Reformed”
is Definitely Enough:
A critique of Douglas Wilson’s book, “Reformed” is not Enough”
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
Innovation and originality in theology are the parents of all
heresy. Douglas Wilson in
his book, “Reformed” is Not Enough demonstrates this subtly
but effectively. To the untrained eye his arguments may sound cohesive,
helpful and clarifying. To
the trained eye his arguments are heretical, and his work demonstrates
his theological and historical ignorance.
If it were that Wilson was the first to propagate false doctrine
in the related arena of justification, effectual calling, and other
standards, then it may be that writers, such as this writer, would take
a far more lenient approach to helping Wilson correct his exegetical and
historical fallacies. Unfortunately,
Wilson is not the first, and he is simply following along, albeit more
conservatively mind you, from predecessors who have belabored a new
perspective on Paul’s theology. Wilson attempts to bypass this accusation through agreeing
with historical formulations, and men like Martin Luther, but fails to
do so in joining the New Perspective on one of its key points in a
corporate covenantal justification (which will be discussed later)
and blatantly disagreeing with Luther at the same time.
This paper is a brief consideration of the information in
“”Reformed” is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the
Covenant (Canon Press, Moscow: ID, 2002.)” by Douglas Wilson.
It is this writer’s opinion that Wilson has crossed the line
from error to heresy based on conceptions propagated at the 2002 Auburn
Avenue Pastor’s Conference with three others—John Barach, Steve
Schlissel and Steve Wilkins, as well as clarifying marks made here in
his new book. These four men have been “labeled” the Auburn Four as
a result of that conference. Wilson
admits in his foreword that he began writing this book before the
accusations to him and his colleagues came about by the Covenant
Presbytery of the RPCUS in June of 2002.
So he has included thoughts about the clarification of his
opinion in later chapter (which happen to be some of the most blatant
denials of orthodox doctrine in the book.) rather than earlier ones.
It should be noted at the
outset that Wilson affirms many orthodox doctrines in this book.
He says he believes in the esse of the church as
historical orthodoxy has affirmed it, but continues to redefine it all
through the book. In
affirming such doctrines as justification by faith alone out of one side
of his mouth, he demonstrates blatantly to the reader that he believes
something different out of the other side of his mouth.
The “article of the faith”, then, is redefined, and a new
perspective is given. Instead,
Wilson should heed Psalm 119:113 where it says, “I hate the
double-minded.”
The purpose of Wilson’s
books is to recapture what he calls the “objectivity of the
covenant.” He says, “One
of the great reformational needs in the Church today is the need for us to understand the
objectivity of the covenant, and so that is the thrust of this book.”
He says that such a return to what historical orthodoxy suggests
around “the objectivity of the covenant” will place Reformed
Theology back on track. Calling
one’s self “Reformed”, according to Wilson, is simply not enough.
Holding to Reformed doctrine is simply not enough.
Being “Reformed” is simply not enough.
The
Foreword
In the “Foreword” Wilson
explains that the RPCUS had deemed him a heretic, but he was already
well on his way of writing this work when the charges had been
delivered. Yet, as a result
of the charges he concedes the need to spend more time, or as he says
“closer interaction” with the teaching of the Westminster
Confession of Faith. This
is all well and good, yet his handling of the Confession and his
comments about the framers of the confession demonstrate an ignorance in
historical theology (this will be seen by quotes and comments from
Wilson, as well as the Puritans who framed the Confession in the first
place.) It is dubious,
though, to make assertions about the Confession without a solid
exegetical theology backing up new “presuppositions.” In this regard Wilson is not a subscriptionist.
He does not subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith
proven simply by his comments about it, and his deviations from it.
He also takes considerable time to build theological straw men to
support deviate ideas about the Confession.
This writer pondered whether or not Wilson may have taken a book
written by Schenck called “The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in
the Covenant” to a unbiblical extreme, and then attempting to prove
that his position was what those quoted in Schenck’s thesis believed.
It was not to this writer’s amazement that Wilson quotes
Schenck’s book for support. Yet,
the evidence to support his ideas is both taken out of the context of
the historical and theological position of the men Schenck quotes, but
adds to the position of the doctrine of children in the covenant the
heresy of baptismal regeneration. Schenck’s
book surveys the historic Reformed position centering on presumptive
regeneration, not baptismal regeneration. Wilson makes this historical blunder repeatedly, even to the
extent where he says that Calvin taught a type of baptismal
regeneration, and the Westminster Confession of Faith taught
baptismal regeneration.
Wilson also says that those who
seem to be “disputing” all of this “covenantal” stuff are
somewhere along the lines of a “variation
of postmillennial, Calvinistic, presbyterian, Van Tillian, theonomic, and
reformed thought, with additional areas of agreement standing
off to the side.”
This writer is not postmillennial, Van Tillian, or Theonomic and
has serious issues with what Wilson is teaching.
Wilson
also says that no one has attempted to contact him in order to sort this
mess out. This is simply
untrue. This writer is
aware of a number of emailing discourses that are currently taken place
with Wilson by able Reformed theologians and Pastors.
Why would Wilson say that, “no apparent need to contact us to
get any clarification”?
It seems that to those who have more knowledge of the situation
from first hand adherents that such pleases seems to capture empathy
from the readers.
Wilson
also makes a self-substantiated distinction between those who are ETR
(Enlightenment Truly Reformed) and TR (Truly Reformed).
It is true that certain aspects of the current Reformed
theological trends today need to recapture their roots.
Lewis Schenck’s book is helpful in this regard in order to
remind the TR where their roots are at and where their theology has
gone.
But Wilson sees this degradation in current Reformed thinking as
setting off a particular and distinct theological group – the ETR.
These are those who have been affected by the individualistic
tendencies of revivalism and have become a more baptistic church than a
Reformed Church. This
writer is sympathetic to that shift.
Rather than following the Reformers on why one baptizes a child,
the ETR follows Jonathan Edwards. Children
in the covenant are “vipers in covenant diapers.”
They are baptized, and then evangelized as if they were not in
covenant with God. Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Capito, Turretin, Vermigli, Ames,
Sibbes, Goodwin, Owen, Manton, Hodge, Warfield, and most of the Reformed
orthodoxy up and until the Enlightenment believed that the infants of
believers were already adopted by God before baptism, and that
the parent, in faith of presuming upon God’s promise and command,
baptized the child. That
did not mean the child was infallibly saved, but that the parent
presumed that God’s promises applied to the child.
This position for the bulk of the magisterial Reformers, Puritans
and framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith is not hard to
prove.
However, Wilson goes beyond this.
For Wilson there is a great amount of redefinition and addition
to the Reformers, Puritans and the Westminster Confession of Faith
than any of them intended. And none of them, no matter how subtly Wilson attempts to
“back up” his information with the Westminster Confession of
Faith, believed the same theological formulations as Wilson, or any
of the Auburn Four. This
will be more apparent in the critique of later chapters.
The ETRs
are Gnostic, says Wilson in pages 7-9.
These ETRs are those who believe the “invisible church” is
more theologically important than the “visible church.”
Wilson wants to help the church understand that this is a
misnomer. Those
contemporary writers, pastors and theologians today (whosoever they may
be is only a guess since Wilson cites no one in the whole book except
B.B. Warfield) who call themselves Reformed have been duped into
believing a lesser form of Reformed Theology.
What might the remedy be? How
can they escape this Enlightenment trend?
The remedy lies in redefining what the invisible and visible
church to the historical and eschatological church.
Unless the Reformed church redefines “invisible and visible”
to “historical and eschatological” and adds a few more doctrines
along side those new formulations, then they will stay stuck in the
current trend of Enlightenment thinking. Wilson is here to remedy this,
propagating what he says is the correct aspects of theology
in the “New Perspective on Paul.” It is important to note
that Wilson does not agree with everything the New Perspective teaches.
But he does agree with some of it.
The “some of it,” though, is heretical doctrinally as we will
see.
Wilson then begins a pattern seen
through the rest of the book. This
writer counted 30 assertions that had no footnotes, no explanations, and
no bibliographic associations to them whatsoever.
For instance, “We believe our opponents to be sincere and honest
Christians, but men who have erroneously made a bad truce
with modernity and who have accommodated their theology to the
abstract dictates of the Enlightenment.”
Who exactly are these people?
Wilson continues assertions and bibliographic fantasies like the
following: “The
reason we have to address this
is that in our culture many have grown up in the church:
they were baptized in infancy or when they were ten in a Baptist church, they sang in the choir and went through catechism
class, and they are not Buddhists.”
Who are the “many” exactly?
“But we have to make all such qualifications because current
misunderstandings of the covenant do need to be modified— and when we
do, some will be tempted to think we are compromising
on some of these basics.”
What are these current misunderstandings and who holds them?
“I said earlier that rationalism has made considerable
inroads into the conservative wing of the Reformed faith, and the clear tendency of this rationalism is a reductionistic
one.”
Who exactly holds to this today?
(Interestingly enough, to demonstrate this current tendency,
Wilson quotes B.B. Warfield – someone who wrote in the 19th
century.) “Far
too many advocates of "worm
theology" get stuck in total depravity.”
Who exactly is this? Wilson
makes many judgments in his book, and backs up very little.
This demonstrates a lack of scholarship and a basic lack of
theological prudence.
Chapter 1: Judas was a
Christian?
Wilson begins this chapter by saying
that he embraces the “richness of the Reformed Faith.”
He does embrace it; but that does not mean he is Reformed.
He holds to certain aspects of the richness of the
Reformed Faith. But if he
held to the “reformed Faith” ipso facto, no Reformed
theologians or scholars would be writing critiques about his book, and
his denomination would not be bringing up formal charges against him.
In the next sentence Wilson agrees – he says, “Semper
Reformanda is
not something we should all chant
together right up until someone actually
tries it.” Sounds like
Wilson is taking the banner of “always reforming” to “try” and
propagate his “new theological perspective.”
Always reforming is not the banner of introducing new or novel
doctrines, but continuing to define and understand what God has already
providentially given the church through the gifts of the church (the
pastors, teachers and theologians who teach god’s people doctrine).
Semper Reformanda does not mean we discard fundamental
doctrines, or add to fundamental doctrines.
The church cannot improve on essentials, but it can seek to
understand those essentials more clearly.
Wilson is not asking the church to believe its fundamental
doctrines, rather, he is asking them to change them and redefine them.
His point in writing is to help the church discover the
“objectivity of the covenant.”
Interestingly enough, there is not one single Reformed
Confession, Creed or Catechism that uses the term “objectivity of the
covenant.” It is
Wilson’s intention to demonstrate that the church needs to redefine
its historical orthodoxy by addition, but this, by necessity, warrants
the subtraction of the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith, and a
redefinition of the conversion process and ordo salutis.
This addition of new information changes the information already
present.
Wilson defines what a
“Christian” is according to the Bible. He is right in saying that the term “Christian” is used 3
times, and those 3 times are in a negative circumstance, two of which
come from the mouths of pagans (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:24-29; and 1 Peter
4:14-17) He attempts, though, a discreditation of the connotation of the
“Evangelical” word “Christian” by defining it solely by biblical
quotations. In other words,
being a Christian simply means belonging to a group who follows someone
else, namely Jesus. Wilson
says that using the word “Christian” to mean “conversion as an
internal reality” is fallacious.
His train of thought leads one to believe that looking at the
term “Christian” systematically or by way of biblical theology is
not acceptable. Exegetically,
he says, theologians cannot package the word “Christian” in the way
it has come to be known – to be a Christian is to be translated from
the dominion of darkness into the Kingdom of Christ. Does church history agree with this or with Wilson?
Church History disagrees with Wilson vehemently.
Wilson is imparting a type of “moralism”.
For Wilson, Christians may follow Christ, like Judas, who simply
did what Jesus did out of a sense of duty and obligation, rather than
actually being changed. However,
there is a difference from a disciple in this regard to a true Christian.
The church should not simply seek after making men moral.
It should be after making men Christians.
Examples from current
Christendom to yesteryear continually define Christian as one who is not
merely one outwardly, but actually one inwardly.
(This does not exclude children from being called Christians
based on presumption (something Wilson does not seem to understand.))
It is an oxymoron to say “merely an outward Christian by
profession.” Such a
statement is to confuse a disciple and Christian, and it also hinders
understanding, correctly, the Reformed view on infants and children in
covenant with God. To
demonstrate at any point, ultimately, that one is not a Christian is to
demonstrate they have not been changed by God.
They are Gospel Hypocrites.
Christianity is not a matter of mere externals.
Here are examples against Wilson from all sorts of theological
denominational lines: Lewis
Sperry Chafer said, “In his attempt to state what a Christian is, the
author falls, as many do, into the error of substituting a manner of
life for the possession of life.”[18]
Habermas says, “A Christian is justified in making the
assertion that the Holy Spirit provides a witness that they are, God’s
children.”[19]
Turner says, “To be a Christian is to be indwelt by the
Spirit:”
Albert Martin, a baptist pastor says, “According
to the Bible, a Christian is a person who has faced realistically the
problem of his own personal sin… A biblical Christian is one who has
seriously considered the divine remedy for sin… A biblical Christian
is one who has wholeheartedly complied with the terms for obtaining God
's provision for sin… A biblical Christian is a person who manifests
in his life that his claims to repentance and faith are real.”
Gordon Fee said, “A Christian is a person who walks in
the Spirit, who knows Christ.”[22] Spurgeon
said, “What is a Christian? If you compare him with a king, he adds
priestly sanctity to royal dignity. The king’s royalty often lieth
only in his crown, but with a Christian it is infused into his inmost
nature.”
Augustine says, “Let the
very fountain of grace, therefore, appear in our head, whence, according
to the measure of each, it is diffused through all his members. Every
man, from the commencement of his faith, becomes a Christian, by the
same grace by which that man from his formation became Christ.”
Examples
from a Reformed/Presbyterian Background: Marshall says, “What cause
for assurance can the Christian possibly have? Can it have anything to
do with his works proceeding from his natural inclinations? No, insists
Walter Marshall, assurance rests on the work of God, originally as his
will is expressed in the work of Christ, and derivatively as the merit
of Christ is worked out in the Christian: “We must have some assurance
of our salvation in the direct act of faith…before we can, upon any
good ground, assure ourselves, that we are already in a state of grace,
by that which we call the reflex act.”[25]
Vos says, “To be a Christian is to live one’s life not merely in
obedience to God, nor merely in dependence on God, nor even merely for
the sake of God; it is to stand in conscious, reciprocal fellowship with
God, to be identified with Him in thought and purpose and work, to
receive from Him and give back to Him in the ceaseless interplay of
spiritual forces…. According to this the covenant means that God gives
Himself to man and man gives himself to God for that full measure of
mutual acquaintance and enjoyment of which each side to the relation is
capable.”[26]
Robert Haldane said, “A Christian is free from all things,
above all things, faith giving him richly all things.”[27]
Matthew Henry says, “The life of a Christian is in heaven,
where his Head and his home are, and where he hopes to be shortly; he
sets his affections upon things above; and where his heart is, there
will his conversation be.”[28]
Martin Luther said: “A Christian is at the same time a sinner
and a saint; he is at once bad and good. For in our own person we are in
sin, and in our own name we are sinners. But Christ brings us another
name in which there is forgiveness of sin, so that for His sake our sin
is forgiven and done away. Both then are true. There are sins…and yet
there are no sins…. thou standest there for God not in thy name but in
Christ’s name; thou dost adorn thyself with grace and righteousness
although in thine own eyes and in thine own person, thou art a miserable
sinner”
Calvin says, “I speak in Christ,” that is, as a Christian; to
be in Christ and to be a Christian is the same.”
Calvin also says, “That Christians are under the law of grace,
means not that they are to wander unrestrained without law, but that
they are engrafted into Christ, by whose grace they are freed from the
curse of the Law, and by whose Spirit they have the Law written in their
hearts.”
Again Calvin says, “But because believers stand invincible in
the strength of their King, and his spiritual riches abound towards
them, they are not improperly called Christians.”
Calvin makes known that those who hold to the title
“Christian” and do not believe do not really hold the title at all.
He says, “For although the name “Christian” now flits about
among us, yet it is only an abuse if the Name of God is not called upon
by us. And we shall not be able to call upon Him (as says St. Paul)
unless we have believed in Him.”
John Owen is quite blatant on what a Christian is to be and what
his mind is set upon, “The glory, life, and power of Christian
religion, as Christian religion, and as seated in the souls of men, with
all the acts and duties which properly belong thereunto, and are,
therefore, peculiarly Christian, and all the benefits and privileges we
receive by it, or by virtue of it, with the whole of the honor and glory
that arise unto God thereby, have all of them their formal nature and
reason from their respect and relation unto the person of Christ; nor is
he a Christian who is otherwise minded.”
Charles Hodge says, “It is only faith in Christ, not faith as
such, which makes a man a Christian. “If ye believe not that I am
he,” saith our Lord, “ye shall die in your sins.”
William Twisse, moderator for the Westminster Confession of
Faith, says this, “Question: What is the hunger and thirst of a
Christian as a Christian? Answer: An appetite after that which conserves
the life of a Christian. Question: What is that? Answer: The favor of
God to the pardoning of our sins, and to the saving of our souls.”
William Bridge says, “Christ is in all believers.”
He makes this comment based on 2 Corinthian 13:5 where Paul says,
“Know ye not how that Christ is in ye, unless ye be reprobates?”
Paul does not say, “unless ye be Christians who do not
believe.” Rather, Bridge
rightly asserts that believers have Christ and reprobates do not.
Christians have Christ, and non-Christians do not.
What then is the fundamental constitution of a Christian
according to the Westminster Confession of Faith and those who
wrote it? Continuing with the same information in contradiction to
Wilson, Thomas Goodwin says, “That our being in Christ, and united to
him, is the fundamental constitution of a Christian.”
Goodwin uses Romans 16:7 as his text and meaning, “who also
were in Christ before me,” (i.e. converted before me.)
Goodwin then says that being in Christ is meant individual
“justification.”
Thomas Manton says the same.
The Christian is one who “takes the law of God for your
rule…takes the Spirit of God for your guide,” and the “promises
for your encouragement.” This
“closer walk” Manton says, are of those Christians who are “freed
from wrath…taken in favor with respect to God…under special care and
conduct of God’s providence…hath a sure covenant-right to
everlasting glory…hath a sweet experience of God’s goodness towards
him here in this world,” and “hath a great deal of peace.”
Jeremiah Burroughs likewise distinguishes the Christian by
conversion, “Christians who profess the gospel must have a great care
for their conversation…you think or hope, at least, that through the
gospel there has been conversion, He expects that you will be careful of
your conversations before men…if you would manifest that god has
wrought any thru saving knowledge, any wisdom in you to save your souls,
then know that god requires that you should show your good conversation,
and that with meekness and wisdom.”
This should be enough to settle the immediate discrepancy that
Wilson has created.
This
writer could produce quotes from Calamy, Reynolds, Case, Whitaker,
Rutherford, Carol, Lightfoot, Baillie, Spurstowe, Gillespie, Wallis and
other framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The framers of the Confession believed that a Christian was a
converted believer, not a Gospel Hypocrite.
Judas was not a Christian. They
made a distinction between presuming a person was a Christian until they
proved otherwise as with the Children of believing parents,
and those truly converted. Even
in the basic tenets of basic words Wilson is attempting to define, or
redefine, what they mean to suit a new perspective that he is attempting
to propagate. Wilson says,
“…the word Christian can be used in two senses.”
Yes, a right sense and a wrong sense.
The right sense is that those converted are Christians.
The wrong sense is to mask the use of the term for something
surrounding the “objectivity of the covenant.”
Only when Wilson redefines the word can he say, “Christians in
the first sense alone are condemned to hell.”
He eisogetes Romans 9:6 where Paul says, “for they are not all
Israel, which are of Israel.” Wilson
says, “To apply Paul's distinction here, they
are not all the Christian church who are of the Christian church. There
are those who are covenantally of the Church, but who are not individually
regenerate.” This is not
Paul’s distinction, it is Wilson’s.
Paul never says “Christians and professing Christians.”
Wilson himself said that the term is only used 3 times, and never
in the book of Romans. Christians
are not “non-Israel.” Reprobates
are non-Israel. Then Wilson
concludes this chapter by saying, “Membership in the Christian faith is objective—it
can be photographed and fingerprinted.”
This error is a result of his understanding of the “invisible /
visible distinction” or rather lack thereof.
Membership in the Christian Church can be photographed and
fingerprinted. Christian
faith can be objectively seen, but membership in the Christian faith is
distinguished by the invisible / visible distinction.
Men may say they are in the Christian church, but may not have
Christian faith. Wilson is
blurring the lines here remarkably. He even says, "I want to begin by saying that
when we first start talking about the objectivity of the covenant and it
starts to sink in what we are saying. You mean that you are saying that
lesbian Eskimo bishop lady is a Christian? She is not a Buddhist, she is
not a Muslim, yes, in the New Testament sense, she is a New Testament
Christian" (Doug Wilson.”
Chapter 2:
Calvinistic Bona Fides
In this chapter Wilson sets forth some of the basic principles of
God’s sovereignty, His decrees, election and reprobation.
He uses the term again “objectivity of the covenant” (page
30) still without formally defining it.
He says, “In
no way is the objectivity of the covenant inconsistent with these
truths about God's sovereignty. In no way am I backing away from
high-octane Calvinism. There will be things written later in this book
which may look as though this is happening, but the
reader should be assured that it is not.”
Wilson is wrong. Objectivity in the covenant not only overthrows the
sovereignty of God, but election, reprobation, the sacraments, the
atonement of Christ, and the very essence of the church.
Wilson is not propagating “high-octane” Calvinism.
He is propagating sub-Calvinism or Non-Calvinism when he departs
for orthodox formulations that Calvinists have held for centuries.
Wilson says, “So the reason for covering this ground
again is that some have assumed (readily and wrongly) that the
objectivity of the covenant poses a threat to the Reformed faith. In
reality, it is the historic Reformed faith.”
Wilson is quite wrong. The
objectivity of the covenant overthrows the Christian faith (which we
will cover precisely later on.) Wilson
says, “The resolution of the RPCUS in the summer of 2002 stated
that the doctrinal views I am arguing for here involve a redefinition
of "the Church, the sacrament, election, effectual calling,"
along with many other doctrines central to the Reformed faith.
The goal here is to establish that this is a gross misunderstanding.”
The reader should see right through this at this point.
“Gross misunderstanding?”
Wilson had just spent a whole chapter on
redefining the orthodox understanding of the term “Christian”,
(attempting to apply it to covenant breakers like Judas) and he wants
his readers to follow him into a vindication of a gross misunderstanding
of redefining Christian terms? Dubious.
Chapter 3: Evangelical Bona Fides
Wilson begins this chapter by telling his reader that they need
to “unlearn a few things.” Specifically
he mentions the “meaning of the covenant.”
Now he does not want us to “unlearn too much,” as he says,
but just enough. He
is trying to make theological conservatives (whoever they may be) not
too nervous. Wilson says,
“growing in our covenant understanding does not entail abandoning historic
Calvinism, nor does it mean jettisoning the historical evangelical faith
or the historic Reformed faith.”[49]
This is
actually a wonderful sentence – too bad Wilson does not listen to his
own advice. There is a
difference between redefinition, addition, or changing doctrinal ideas
as a result, and “growth.” Growth
presupposes “Semper Reformanda” as has already been stated.
Change is something different altogether.
Wilson begins to define the
“objectivity of the covenant when he says, “Simply
put, the objectivity of the covenant does not mean that a
man does not have to be born again.”
Hopefully he will explain what he means later on.
Wilson then begins his
downward spiral into unorthodoxy when he takes up the issues of
“corporate regeneration.” He
says, “And Jesus does not just limit this to individual men—all
Israel must be born again (3:7)…”
Jesus says in John 3:7 that “you must be born again.”
The “you” is plural. All
of those who say they are of god’s people must be born again, or they
are not God’s people. Wilson
stresses “Israel” here working off preconcieved notions of Romans
9:7. But Wilson then says
this “is what happened at Pentecost.”
All Israel was born again at Pentecost?
He offers no explanation at what he means by this except to say
at that the prophecy of Israel’s “dry bones” of Ezekiel came to
life in Acts 2. Wilson
seems to be rewriting history and the restoration passages of Israel.
Pentecost has no such connotations.
It is the regathering and restoration passage of exiled Jews of
the Diaspora under the power and ministry of the resurrected Christ who
sends His Spirit from the throne of the Father.
It is the fulfillment of Joel 2.
Wilson says, “The valley of dry bones was transformed, and
Israel stood up again, filled with resurrection life. But of course a
rebirth of all Israel also depends on the transformation of individual
men and women. This corporate regeneration of the people of God in no
way lessens the need for individuals to be born of the Spirit of God.
How could a call for omelettes be taken
as opposition to
eggs?”[51]
Wilson is trying to tell us that these special event marks
a “corporate regeneration” of “all Israel.”
He says this differs from individual regeneration, something all
individuals must have. But what is this “corporate regeneration?”
Wilson does not get knee deep into that at this point.
Rather, he is trying to overthrow the Enlightenment here (or his
conceptions of it in Reformed circles).
Wilson’s notion that the Gnostic ETRs do not have the ability
to see the spiritual regeneration of a person.
Instead, Wilson says, the TRs hold to covenant baptism.
By holding solely to covenant baptism, the ETRs are overthrown by
the TR’s more reformed position of “see no evil” “say no evil”
and “hear no evil” of a person’s baptism.
They simply accept that baptism without question.
This does not mean Wilson would reject someone’s profession of
faith. No, he certainly
accepts this. But Wilson
says that ETRs neglect the simple adherence to accepting a person’s
covenant baptism, and instead they try to see their regeneration as more
important because the “invisible church” to an ETR is more
“valid” than the “visible church.”
Is this the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith?
No.
The Westminster Confession of
Faith chapter 25 defines the invisible church in this way, “The
catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole
number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one,
under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness
of him that filleth all in all.”
(Eph. 1:10, 22-23; 5:23, 27, 32; Col. 1:18).
The invisible church is defines in this way, “The visible
church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not
confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those
throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their
children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and
family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of
salvation.” (I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12;
I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16;
see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24; Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke
1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13; Eph. 2:19; 3:15; Acts 2:47.) Defining the members of this visible church is done in this
way, “This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less
visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or
less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and
embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or
less purely in them.” (Rom. 11:3-5; Acts 2:41, 47; 9:31; 18:8-10; Acts
2:41-42; I Cor. 5:6-7; Rev. ch. 2-3).
But how then does the confession deal with those entering into
this church? What are
ministers to look for? Are
they content with baptism as admission into the invisible and visible
church, or something else? To
ask this question is to already condemn Wilson’s redefinition of
invisible / visible to historical / eschatological (something he will
begin to develop around page 78). The
Confession says that entrance into the visible church is based on those
“that profess the true religion.”
The invisible church consists of those that are of “the whole
number of the elect.” Sovereignty
and regeneration allow a person into the invisible church, and a
profession of faith allows them into the visible church.
Wilson desires to replace sovereignty with “corporate
regeneration” and profession with “baptism.”
The church is not built on baptism.
Not even Abraham was founded by circumcision, but by
justification that was by faith alone (cf. Genesis 15 and 17).
In chapter 26 of the Westminster Confession of Faith it says,
“All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his
Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him.”
Then it states, “Saints by profession are bound to maintain an
holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God.”
In chapter 27 the Confessions says that the sacraments (baptism
and the Lord’s Supper) have been given, “to represent Christ, and
his benefits” to Christians. These
benefits are already owned by the Christian, or presumed to be owned by
the parents of infants being baptized, just as Abraham did his child
Isaac by promise. The
Confession has no room for baptism (or circumcision) to overthrow faith,
or move faith to the background. (Wilson
will discuss what the sacramental union is about later.)
Wilson believes that to be
“born of water” means “water baptism.”
He offers no exegetical proof of this vastly contested phrase. Is Jesus meaning baptism, or is He referring to Nicodemas in
being born of a woman? It
seems that the passage flows with the meaning of being physically by
water and then spiritually by the Spirit than to exegetically strain the
idea that “water” baptism somehow comes into play.
But Wilson does not deal with these issues at all.
He assumes baptism is what is meant.
Wilson then says, “we have
to repudiate every form of baptismal or decisional regeneration.”[54]
He says this and then quotes Calvin in demonstrating that
the “legitimate” use of the word is not restricted to “effectual
calling.” This is
actually not off base. The
quote he has of Calvin demonstrates that Calvin saw regeneration as an
individual act of change, as well as it used of the whole life of a
believer. He is quoting out
of Schenck’s book. Here
is where Wilson makes another mistake. He assumes since regeneration can
be akin to sanctification in this “old use” of the word, then
baptism offers a twofold grace – forgiveness of sins and regeneration.
But the way, the manner in which Wilson thinks about this is not the same as how Calvin
is thinking about it in the larger context of his writings.
Wilson will have baptism go beyond the Westminster Confession of
Faith definition of it being a sign and seal, and it will be a means
whereby it actually communicates something ex opere operato (something
Wilson says he denies). He
then says, “in this limited sense, we can say Calvin held to baptismal
regeneration.”[55] No,
we cannot. Wilson is
confusing presumptive regeneration, sanctification, and his view of
effectual baptism. He says
that what God does in salvation, He offers in the sacraments.
This is not what Calvin, nor the Westminster Confession of Faith
taught. The Westminster
Confession of Faith emphatically denies the efficacy of the sign and
seal to those who are not actually sealed by baptism.
It is only a sign and seal of those who are elect.
In all other cases it is a means of condemnation and communicates
nothing to the neophyte. The
Confession says, “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament,
ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party
baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and
seal of the covenant of grace.”[56] We
should, then, take into consideration the Westminster Larger
Catechism when it says in Question 31, “With whom was the covenant
of grace made? Answer: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the
second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.”
Wilson would like baptism, and it “efficacy” to be made with
others than the elect. This is where Wilson is profoundly confused on the Reformers
and the Westminster Assembly’s ideas surrounding presumptive
regeneration and then baptism, and not actual efficacy in baptism.
Chapter 4:
Reformation Bona Fides
Wilson
begins this chapter by saying, “We have seen that the objectivity of
the covenant does not require that we abandon our understanding of the
majesty and sovereignty of God—just the opposite. Nor does it call for us to
walk away from the glory and power of the Holy Spirit's regenerating work in the hearts of men, women and children. And,
as we will consider here, it does not mean abandoning or backing
away from the biblical and historic doctrine of sola fide.”
What exactly is the
doctrine of sola fide? What
is the historical orthodox position on this?
Wilson says, “But
we have to make all such qualifications because current
misunderstandings of the covenant do need to be modified— and when we
do, some will be tempted to think we are compromising on some of these basics.”
Wilson is saying the historical position should be modified.
Think through this – the historical position on “faith
alone” should be modified.
What will Wilson modify about “faith alone?”
Will he take away something from it?
Will he add something to it?
Wilson
modifies faith by helping us understand that the righteousness of God
(or the doctrine surrounding justification by faith alone) is not a
one-time act. We live by faith to faith, he says. It is true that the Christian life is lived in faith, and all
we do in walking is by faith. But
to meld faith as a one time act (justification) into faith as the
discourse of our life (sanctification) is to redefine the orthodox
standards already handed down to us by the reformers (like Luther with
whom Wilson disagrees) and the Westminster Confession of Faith
(with whom Wilson is trying to redefine for us.)
What Wilson is failing to understand is that faith begins as a
reflex act out of a regenerated heart, and God sustains sanctifying
faith from that point onward. Wilson
says, “Faith is life.”
No, grace is life, and faith is the vehicle in which that grace
is experienced.
Wilson
then defends himself on page 44 that he is not overthrowing or
contradicting the solas of the Reformation.
He says he is not, and so we should believe him.
He connects, erroneously, the “objectivity of the covenant”
with the solas of the Reformation and says that solas
which have no heart work in them are dead propositions.
Regardless as to whether a person is in Christ or out of Christ
does not make the doctrine that surrounds Christ dead.
It may be non-effectual for a person in giving them life, but
they are certainly not “dead propositions.”
Wilson then says on the same page, “Some might call this an
innovation and say that it is inconsistent with the historic Reformed faith. Not exactly, and this brings
us back to the Westminster Confession. Not only does this teaching not contradict the teaching of Westminster, it is the teaching
of Westminster.” No,
actually, it is not, because Wilson is going to throw into the mix his
conceptions of “corporate justification.”
In other words, Wilson does not understand, and is mixing up the ordo
salutis. He thinks that
later the church will be “justified” under the category of
“justification” instead of glorified under the proper understanding
of glorification. His theological ignorance here is blatant.
He says, “individual justification which occurs at the moment an unconverted man is
converted from darkness to light.”
Actually, in the ordo salutis, this step is called
“conversion.” Conversion
is faith and repentance. Justification
comes “historically” after faith based on that faith and what Christ
has done for us. As the
Westminster Larger Catechism states in question 73, “How doth faith
justify a sinner in the sight of God?
Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not
because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good
works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any
act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it
is an instrument by which he receiveth and applies Christ and his
righteousness.” This is
not justification, this is faith. Justification
is treated in question 70. Faith
and justification are separate acts in the ordo salutis.
Wilson is blurring these lines and redefining them.
Chapter
5: Tradition and Systematics
As stated previously, Wilson quotes Charles Hodge when he says,
“I think it was Charles Hodge who said that if something is true, it
is not new, and if it is new, it is not true. In theology, innovation
as such is no virtue. Our responsibility is to be faithful to the faith
once for all delivered to the saints. At the same time, refusal to
innovate must not be confounded with a refusal to grow.”[64]
If Hodge did say this, then Wilson should listen to him.
Wilson is talking license to change theology here and pass it off
as “growing” in Christ.
Wilson asserts quite a bit in
this chapter without giving evidence for his assertions.
“For example, a whole host of individualist traditions have
grown up in the American church. We read our historic confessions
through the eyes of this recent tradition. Many contemporary theologians
and preachers read the Westminster Confession, for example, the way
Supreme Court justices read the Constitution.
Their eisogesis is based on very nebulous and unexamined oral
traditions. In this way, the honest tradition of Westminster is
supplanted by people with modern inviso-traditions, who want the name of
Westminster but not its doctrines.”
One simply asks “who?” Who
does this?
Then Wilson says that those who love Calvin and Knox would be
surprised at their teaching thinking it is coming out of the Council of
Trent because it sounds so sacerdotal.
The reason Wilson thinks this is because Wilson is a
sacerdotalist as he will prove in later chapters, and he is doing, with
Calvin and Knox under his arm, exactly what he is blaming others for –
eisogesis. He has
misunderstood the Reformers but believes they are on his side in his
redefining faith alone, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and “far
more.”[65]
Wilson then attempts to be
“biblical” by pressing us to use “biblical language.”
For instance, Wilson is a sacerdotalist.
He thinks baptism saves. So
he asks, “The Bible says that baptism saves. Why do we not use this
language? It is because our systematic language has replaced scriptural
language.” No, the
reason we do not say “baptism saves” is because that particular
phrase, based on historical problems, tends to set forth the idea that
baptism in and of itself will regenerate the heart – baptismal
regeneration. Something
Wilson blatantly affirms, and says the Westminster Confession of Faith
affirms – “Raise your hand if you knew that the Westminster
Confession taught baptismal regeneration.”[66] (Hopefully
the reader is keener than this.) Wilson
believes baptism saves. No,
rather, our exegesis and systematic theology help us to understand that
baptism does not save, but does have connotations and implications of
salvation in the signing and sealing of that salvation to us.
Thus the Apostle can say, “baptism saves.”
We should be able to say it in context, but not in Wilson’s
context.
Wilson also has some strange
views surrounding the Holy Spirit. As already noted, he said that Israel was “regenerated”
at Pentecost. He makes
another assertion when he says, “But the Holy Spirit has been working
constantly in the history of the Church since Pentecost.”[67]
Actually, the Holy Spirit has been working all through the life
of the church, from the time of Adam until now.
Even Peter says of the indwelling power of the Spirit in the
prophets of the Old Testament, “Searching what, or what manner of time
the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should
follow (1 Peter 1:11).” The
Spirit was indwelling them in the Old Testament.
To speak of two operations of the Spirit, one in the Old Testament
without indwelling (Abraham, Moses David?) and one in the New Testament
with indwelling (Paul, Peter, Lydia and Conrnelius), is to preach
Dispensationalism.
Chapter
6: Individualism
Wilson says, “As
we continue to develop our understanding of the nature of the
covenant, it is important for us to comprehend what we do not mean by
this.”
Since he really has not said much at all about “covenant”
this seems like a good time to begin explain something about it.
Wilson continues to propagate the “corporate covenant
omelet.” Though the
Kingdom of Christ had a corporate covenant context in which it dwells in
the invisible church, Wilson’s redefinition of “invisible” into
something else must be assumed here or the chapter makes no sense.
He does say that individualism
is the deification of the self
– and this is a good statement. The
church is overrun with individualistic tendencies left over from
revivalism. (This is true.)
This chapter is quite short, and besides the first problem with
identification with a “corporate justification” the chapter ends
without much incident. And
it also ends without really defining the covenant at all.
Chapter
7: Defining the Covenant
Wilson wants his readers to “think covenantally.”
His readers can accomplish this if they read the Westminster
Confession of Faith. Wilson
wants to redefine this though. He
says, “Covenants among men are solemn bonds, sovereignly administered,
with attendant blessings and curses.”
This is not so bad a definition, but it is not a full definition. O. Palmer Robertson defines a “Covenant” in this way,
“a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God.”
This also is a bit too simplistic, though it adds in what Wilson
left out by way of blood. Witsius
offers this definition, “A covenant of God with man, is an agreement
between God and man, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness;
including a commination of eternal destruction, with which the contemner
of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished…[it contains]
a promise…a designation…[and] a penal sanction.”
In other words, it is the form of a suzerain (kingly) treaty,
with stipulations, blessings and curses.
Witsius also explains that the Testator of the New Testament,
Jesus Christ, will come and fulfill the requirements of the Covenant of
Grace for His chosen people by blood sacrifice.
Men are obligated to keep covenant with God, but only the
regenerate will do so. Only
those for whom Christ died are partakers of the benefits of the covenant
of grace made with them, as the Westminster Confession of Faith
says and Wilson denies. He
would have anyone who says they are a “Christian” in that covenant,
and a partaker of it. Question
31 in the Westminster Larger Catechism says, “Q31:
With whom was the covenant of grace made? A31:
The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam,
and in him with all the elect as his seed.”
Wilson says, “As we shall see, Scripture teaches that there is
only one covenantal history, which we may call the covenant of grace.”[71] He
makes no mention of the Covenant of Redemption at all.
His history is a bit shy. He
wants to define all covenants by saying that “The covenants are
historical and visible. Covenants of God have a physical aspect, like an
oak tree.”
He makes some groundless assertions again and it would be nice to
know exactly where he thinks his information comes from.
Chapter
8: The Visible and Invisible Church
Wilson says that hose who hold to the invisible / visible
distinction are “ignoring the covenant.”
He says, “In order to understand this, we have to refer to
Hellenism again. The Hellenistic mind tends to see the ethereal,
spiritual realm as the "real" one. That which is material and
earthy is beneath all true philosophic consideration. There is a
religious version of this about, and this is the attitude which sees
the "invisible" Church as the "true" Church and the
"visible" Church, at best, as only an approximation of the
true Church. Down here on earth we might play at Church, but the real
thing is invisible. When you have two churches existing at the same
time, with the membership lists not identical, this creates a problem.
We know there is only one Church, so which one is the real one? Modern
evangelical Protestants have tended to say that the invisible Church is
the real one, which is why we tend to have such a low view of the
churches we can actually see.”[73]
In other words, the Westminster Confession of Faith has it
wrong, and everyone who follows them has it wrong.
Modern Evangelical Protestants are wrong – but who exactly?
Wilson again mentions the ETR problem and the Hellenistic
“divisions” that take place when we see one church is more important
than another – i.e. the invisible is more important than the visible.
Who says that the invisible is more important?
Or the real one? Wilson
is silent. Rather, Wilson
should take up the doctrinal differences in good historical
ecclesiology, which he does not do, and demonstrate the differences in
the history of the redemption between the church militant and the church
triumphant. Both are
exceedingly important, and both uphold the historia salutis
(salvation history) in a proper order, something Wilson confuses.
The ecclesia militans is the earthly church presently
engaged in Christian warfare against sin, death, and the devil.
The ecclesia triumphans is the church glorified in heaven.
Here, as Muller points out, the scholastics rightlfully
distinguished between the ecclesia militans defined proprie at
praecise (properly and precisely), i.e. the congregation of the
saints or believers (congregatio sanctorum; congregatio credentium)
and the ecclesia militans defined improprie et per synchdichen
(improperly and by synecdoche) i.e. the whole church in which faith and
unfaithful, saints and hypocrites, are mixed.
Wilson has redefined this into a big blur.
Wilson says, “The
heavenly Church is not invisible up there.”
His footnote on this statement demonstrate the ridiculous nature
of the statement, “The heavenly Church is invisible to me for the same reason
the church in China is invisible to me—I am not there to see it.”
No, the invisible church is invisible because it is a spiritual
term, not a physical term. The distinction between seeing “bodies” at church” and
seeing “regenerated Christians” at church makes all the difference
in these formulations. Wilson
is trying to meld the two. He
accuses the Westminster Confession of Faith of thinking by way of
an “upper story” and a “lower story” to the church.
He is right in a certain sense.
He is equally wrong. The
church being invisible is made up of all the elect of all ages, those
saved on earth and in heaven. The
visible church is made up of those on earth in a given body of believers
which may have covenant breakers in them (as most churches do).
The interrelation between the unregenerate and the regenerate,
the sheep and goats, set the definitions for invisible / visible
precisely. To overthrow
them would be to overthrew them both in heaven and on earth, which means
there is a mix in the kingdom at all times, even in heaven.
This would be an obvious theological blunder.
Wilson then says he wants to
make a revision of the Confession.
“And so here is one of the rare places
in which we would suggest an improvement on the language of the Confession. A
problem is created when we affirm a belief in two Churches at the same
moment in time, one visible and the other invisible.”
He then asks, “Are they the
same Church or not? If they are, then why are "membership rosters"
different? If they are not, then which one is the true Church?”
He is making a false dichotomy here.
He is asking the wrong question.
The question is not whether one is “true” or not.
They are both true in being actual and real.
The question is how they demonstrates their usefulness in
redemptive history, and what Christ’s intention in the church in these
stages is. Yes, the
membership rosters are different because unregenerate people do not go
to heaven and the roster in heaven is made up of the only the elect.
To change this distinction is to destroy the ecclesiology of the
church militant and the church triumphant.
It has nothing to do with “covenant.”
Covenant is a different question altogether.
If Wilson would buff up on his historical theology, it would help
keep distinctions at variance and would not be confusing, but his
unscholarly approach is vividly condemning.
Wilson then says, “It would be better to consider the one Church under a
different set of terms, discussed earlier, and which preserve the necessary
distinction made by visible and invisible—historical and eschatological.
Because time is taken into account, we preserve the understanding of just one Church,
and at the same time preserve the necessary distinction between those
Church members who are ultimately saved and those who are ultimately lost.
The historical Church is the counterpart to the visible Church,
and consists of those throughout history who profess the true faith,
together with their children. The eschatological Church
is the elect, but it is not invisible. At the last day, every true child of God will be there, not one missing, and every false
professor will have been removed. At the resurrection of the dead, this
Church will be most visible.”
This paragraph demonstrates more of the blatant nature of
Wilson’s theological ignorance. First we should ask, “Is the visible church a historical
church?” Of course it is.
Second, “Is the historical church “eschatological?”” Of
course it is. The elect
must be a part of history or they would not exist.
The church militant must be a part of eschatology or eschatology
falls flat on its face (who will Jesus Christ return for but His elect
in the ecclesia historia.) What Wilson has done is separated historical realties.
He has already said that Pentecost marks the time where the
Spirit begins working in the church (which is a grievous error), and now
he is saying that we have a historical church that is not eschatological
and an eschatological church that is not historical. This is simply a modified form of Dispensationalism.
Wilson has seriously departed the Reformed Faith.
You cannot be Dispensational and be Reformed.
That is an oxymoron. His
new term “eschatological church” and the manner of his definition
seals his Dispensational theology.
|
