[Vision2020] Is Doug Wilson a Good Calvinist?

[keely emerinemix]

Thank you, Nick, for an outstanding analysis of Wilsonian "Calvinism."  I 
regret that Mr. Hall's concern is whether or not Wilson deviates from 
Calvinist orthodoxy rather than from the clear Gospel of Christ, with or 
without Calvin, but either way, your analysis is clear and convincing.  It 
will, I hope, raise questions in the minds of those who, in following Christ 
Church and its leaders, think they are following essential, historical, 
Biblical Christianity.  By the Spirit of God, may it be so.

I have hope because my Savior lives, and I have a whole lot of appreciation 
for those friends of mine who don't share my religious beliefs but 
nonetheless treat me with gentleness and respect.  We could use a lot more 
of that in Moscow.

keely emerine mix

From: Nick Gier <ngier at uidaho.edu>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Is Doug Wilson a Good Calvinist?
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:45:23 -0800

         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

_____________________________________________________
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/