<html>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"><x-tab> </x-tab>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.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I will
defer to other conservative Presbyterians, especially the authors of
<i>Not Reformed at All</i>, 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.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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 <i>sola scriptura</i>, 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. <br>
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 <i>sine qua non</i> of [Reformed] Christianity:
justification by faith alone, not even mentioning the substitutionary
atonement of Christ” (78)<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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”(<i>Reformed is Not Enough</i>,
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)<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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” (<i>Reformed
is Not Enough</i>, 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.
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm</a>.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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.<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=1>"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<br><br>
</font>Nicholas F. Gier<br>
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho<br>
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<br>
<a href="http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/home.htm" eudora="autourl">http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/home.htm</a><br>
208-882-9212/FAX 885-8950<br>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO<br>
<a href="http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/ift.htm" eudora="autourl">http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/ift.htm</a><br><br>
</html>