[Vision2020] Is Doug Wilson a Good Calvinist?

[Nick Gier]

         Mike Hall has requested that I demonstrate the ways in which Doug 
Wilson differs from Calvinist orthodoxy.  I've written up the following 
response and will share it with all those interested in the ongoing Wilson 
saga.  It's 838 words, so you may want to print it out instead, or delete 
it entirely if you are not interested.
         I will defer to other conservative Presbyterians, especially the 
authors of Not Reformed at All, by John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety, 
published by the Trinity Foundation in 2004.  This book is a thoroughgoing 
critique of Wilson's theology and it succeeds in proving that Wilson's 
views are fundamentally at odds with the Westminster Confession, the 
primary Calvinist statement of faith.
         Robbins and Gerety (hereafter R&G) generally characterize Wilson's 
writing as containing "a facial glibness and an adolescent smart-aleckness" 
(17), and they specifically charge him with rational incoherence, 
eclecticism (i.e., mixing several theologies into one), misinterpreting 
scripture, neglecting to define basic terms, and false accusation.
         Mr. Hall wants me to concentrate on fundamental doctrine, so let 
us focus on that.  With regard to the role of scripture and tradition, R&G 
argue (21-29) that Wilson undermines sola scriptura, the central doctrine 
of the Protestant Reformation.  I find it unusually tolerant and 
theologically interesting of Wilson to grant authority to previous church 
traditions, but Luther nor Calvin made a clean break with them.  Wilson and 
his followers are very liberal and promiscuous in the way they pick and 
choose, but this does not make for a systematic theology in general or a 
Reformed theology in particular.
Mr. Hall is very proud that he and other members of Christ Church recite 
the Apostle's Creed, but R&G are scathing in their attack on the 
deficiencies of this early Christian affirmation: (1) it was in no way 
authorized by the Apostles; (2) it was used for political purposes; and (3) 
it "omits the sine qua non of [Reformed] Christianity: justification by 
faith alone, not even mentioning the substitutionary atonement of Christ" (78)
         Wilson is even more liberal when he defines what it is to be a 
Christian.  Here are his very words: "A Christian. . . is anyone who has 
been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by an 
authorized representative of the Christian church"(Reformed is Not Enough, 
19).  R&G take the three New Testament passages that Wilson uses to support 
this doctrine and demonstrate conclusively that they do not support this 
incredibly broad definition that does not even require continued belief in 
basic Christian doctrines.  As promiscuous as ever, Wilson insists that 
"unbelieving Christians" are still "covenantal Christians" (cited in R&G, 
46).  To put his opposition to Luther and Calvin in the starkest 
opposition, Wilson states that "the Bible says that baptism saves" and 
sides with Roman Catholic theologians in denying that the Bible teaches 
justification by faith alone (R&G, 82)
         Another basic doctrinal problem is Wilson's talk about corporate 
souls and collective salvation that is part of his "federal vision." to 
Luther and Calvin  This is the sort of theology that would excite a Hindu 
Vedantist but not an orthodox Christian.  As we have heard so many times 
from Wilson, democracy (one person/one vote) and individualism are the 
great errors of modernism and the Enlightenment.  Theologically, this means 
that there are no grounds for an individual coming to God by himself or 
herself to be born again. Using Wilson's own metaphor, we are no longer 
individual eggs but all those who have been baptized are an 
indistinguishable part of God's Great Omelette.  R&G (74) note that Wilson 
completely ignores the organic analogy that pervades the New Testament in 
which each individual body part maintains its identity in the Body of Christ.
         With regard to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Wilson sides 
with Roman Catholics once again, but, incredibly enough, argues that "the 
Westminster Confession teaches that there is a real presence of Christ's 
body and blood in the act of faithful eating as His Table" (Reformed is Not 
Enough, 111).  The Westminster Confession actually states that Christ is 
symbolically not "carnally and corporally present" in the Eucharist. Any 
Presbyterian Sunday School student knows that this was a major disagreement 
that both Luther and Calvin had with the Roman Church.
         Finally, in my debate with Doug Jones on the Trinity, I have come 
to the conclusion that his views (and I assume Wilson's) are not consistent 
with Calvin's, who is very much part of the Western tradition that has 
always preferred to err on the side of modalism so as to preserve the unity 
of God.  I've tried in vain to get Jones to clarify his position, but it 
appears that he would rather support the Eastern Orthodox view that 
emphasizes the three persons, but flirts with Tritheism in its inability to 
defend divine unity.  For more see www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm.
         I have gone on long enough but here is more than sufficient 
evidence, Mr. Hall, for you to conclude that your pastor's theology is not 
consistent with traditional Calvinism.  Indeed, it looks as if it is very 
liberal and promiscuous with regard to basic Christian doctrine. I suggest 
that you change your membership to a local Presbyterian church where the 
pastors will have been trained at accredited seminaries in the denomination.


"Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be 
discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part 
by itself. . . .We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on the 
interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual 
life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and 
art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts." 
--Max Planck

Nicholas F. Gier
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/home.htm
208-882-9212/FAX 885-8950
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/ift.htm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050326/8e2e2f3c/attachment.htm