Reformed is Definitely Enough, A Critique

[wildboar]

Since McMahon's review of Doug Wilson's book which can be found here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm
is brought up quite frequently, I thought I would offer a critique of it.

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.[1][

It is interesting to note that on these pages cited by McMahon, Wilson does little more than cite passages from Calvin or Schenk or the WCF or a variety of these. It can hardly be shown that he takes Schenk to an unbiblical extreme when he repeats what Schenck says. I've read Schenck's book and Wilson's book and in a certain sense I think Schenck's is actually more extreme. Schenck is constantly arguing for presumptive regeneration while Wilson argues against it. This is one of the quotes provided by Schenck and Wilson of Calvin that argues for a particular type of non-RC-Lutheran-Anglican baptismal regeneration:

We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin stillexisting are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it
is null in regard to imputation.
(Selected Works of Calvin Vol. 3 page 74)

It is really up to McMahon to show how Wilson takes this out of context and what Calvin really means. But McMahon does not do so.

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.”[2][4] This writer is not postmillennial, Van Tillian, or Theonomic and has serious issues with what Wilson is teaching.

Wilson is noting who has taken part in the major debates on the issues and what the controversy is all about. Wilson believes it is an issue of medieval versus modern. He's not trying to provide an exhaustive list of everyone who disagrees with him. McMahon is not a member of the RPCUS which at least a good bulk of this book was in response to.

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”?[3][5] 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.

Once again, Wilson is referring to specific charges which were brought by the RPCUS. A pastor somewhere seeking clarification via email who has nothing to do with the charges is not the same thing. In many ways these things are insignificant, but I believe they show that McMahon is not concerned with reading Wilson in context.

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.”[4][9] 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.”[5][10] 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.”[6][11] 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.”[7][12] 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.”[8][13] Who exactly is this? Wilson makes many judgments in his book, and backs up very little.[9][14] This demonstrates a lack of scholarship and a basic lack of theological prudence.

Wilson describes the positions thoroughly. It is not possible to thoroughly footnote a position which has become very popular in reformed churches but which has no real scholarly defense.

Wilson begins this chapter by saying that he embraces the “richness of the Reformed Faith.”[10][15] 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.

This is the fallacious appeal to authority. You could insert whoever you would like into the equation. “If Herman Hoeksema, Gordon Clark, etc. really held to the reformed faith then they wouldn’t be having charges brought against them.” If Martin Luther really was a Christian he wouldn’t have had charges brought against him.

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.”[11][16] Interestingly enough, there is not one single Reformed Confession, Creed or Catechism that uses the term “objectivity of the covenant.”

This is about as pathetic as the Jehovah Witness who says, “There’s not a single verse in the Bible that uses the word trinity. The question is always as to whether or not a concept is there, not a particular word and I believe Wilson shows that the concept is there in the reformed confessions.

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.[12][17] His train of thought leads one to believe that looking at the term “Christian” systematically or by way of biblical theology is not acceptable.

This is just plain false. In the chapter Wilson speaks of two senses in which a person can be considered a Christian. He points to the fact that the Bible uses the word Christian in a certain way but says that we can use the word in the way it is popularly used as long as we can be clear on what we mean.
In his review of chapter 2, McMahon claims that Wilson denies a whole slew of Calvinistic teachings but does not provide real examples. He just basically says that Wilson must deny Calvinism because he supposedly fell into heresy in chapter 1 in the way he defined a Christian.
In his review of chapter 3, Mcmahon cites the Westminster to show that only those who have made a credible profession of faith truly belong to the church but he fails to deal with the “and their children” clause in the WCF.

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.”[13][58] Wilson is saying the historical position should be modified.

Wrong! Wilson says our current understanding of the covenant must be modified, not the historic position. McMahon is equating the two which Wilson most certainly is not.

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 very plainly that faith is a gift from God. What Wilson denies are Lutheran law and gospel divisions. Many of the orthodox reformed rejected these divisions as well. Ursinus defended them but he was heavily influenced by Melancthon.

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.”[14][60]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.”[15][61] 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.

Wilson is not referring to corporate justification when he says that what he has just said is what the WCF teaches. Affirmation of corporate justification by Wilson is not denial of individual justification. The ordo salutis also has a specific application. Otherwise it would be false to speak of eternal justification and other things. McMahon is reading the WCF as if it were intended to teach what a particular word means in every instance and every case.
I had intended to go on and write a complete list of all the wrong things that are said in McMahon’s article but there were just too many things and I really don’t have the time right now. I don’t believe McMahon had any intention of trying to find out what Wilson actually said and test it with Scripture. He read Wilson looking for things to attack.

[samohtwerdna]

Thanks for the critique WB!

very thought pervoking. I have more reading to do.

[theologae]

Check out this critique as well

http://ecsowder.blogplot.com/categor...html?cat_id=17

I greatly respect Matt McMahon, and have interacted with him on his message board and through email, but the man is simply wrong with regards to Wilson.

[Robert R. Higby]

I really do not care whether McMahon has misquoted Wilson or taken him out of context. If he has, Wilson still stands as one who corrupts the gospel. Just as I denied to present an exhaustive critique of Dabney's 'bipolar God' to Doug (our former moderator), even so I will not spend hours reading Wilson to present an exhaustive critique of him. I have read enough to know that he is not sound on the gospel. You don't have to stick your head in the sewer to know that it stinks. Wilson denies the essence of SOLA FIDE and that is good enough for me to confirm him as a false teacher.

[theologae]

I really do not care whether McMahon has misquoted Wilson or taken him out of context. If he has, Wilson still stands as one who corrupts the gospel. Just as I denied to present an exhaustive critique of Dabney's 'bipolar God' to Doug (our former moderator), even so I will not spend hours reading Wilson to present an exhaustive critique of him. I have read enough to know that he is not sound on the gospel. You don't have to stick your head in the sewer to know that it stinks. Wilson denies the essence of SOLA FIDE and that is good enough for me to confirm him as a false teacher.

Even if you don't provide an exhaustive critique of Wilson, can you cite a source where he corrupts the Gospel? Or are we supposed to accept your assertion without support?

And do all ad hominem, unsubtantiated claims about the heterodoxy of Christian leaders merit a "noteworthy post" award around here?

[Robert R. Higby]

Even if you don't provide an exhaustive critique of Wilson, can you cite a source where he corrupts the Gospel? Or are we supposed to accept your assertion without support?

This question assumes that we have not been over this time and time again; go read the "Federal Vision Babble" thread.

[Brandan Kraft]

And do all ad hominem, unsubtantiated claims about the heterodoxy of Christian leaders merit a "noteworthy post" award around here?

Careful theologae. You're new. But you haven't obviously investigated the threads to see that we have discussed Wilson around here before. Also, I give noteworthy posts whenever I feel like it, so if you have a problem with them, contact me privately. Thank you.