Guys, I really can't believe y'all are still beating this drum. Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Right there, obey what Christ has commanded. Repent is a verb. Believe is a verb. Is anyone saved who has not repented and has not believed the gospel? No. Is anyone justified who has not repented and has not believed the gospel? No. Is anyone being sanctified who has not repented and has not believed the gospel? No. All who are saved must repent and believe in the gospel. That is obedience to Christ. That obedience is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone according to scripture alone. That obedience is not to the law, that obedience is to Christ's call to repent and believe. That response can only come from grace by faith. It is not a work and no man may boast. But it is obedience. It is obedience to Christ. I'm a Baptist, so there are plenty of issues where Doug Wilson and I disagree. But he's not a heretic. You're using several Wilson references but you're mixing them with examples of actually heresy that Wilson did not say, and you are choosing not to give complete contextual references to Wilson's response to claims that he is a heretic. With a 15 minute reaction/response video, you could clear up all this mess, but instead y'all posted another video, doubling down, without letting Doug speak. Tilt at another windmill guys, or prove your point. You can't be taken seriously in your argument if you refuse to acknowledge his response to your claim. At the moment, y'all are coming across dishonest. Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Yes, Proverbs 18:17 is in play here: Doug Wilson has had his say and his “side” out there for many years, but now those on the other “side” are speaking up and having their say.
@@ExaminingMoscow yet you're still afraid to have him speak directly? It sounds like you're afraid that he may clear things up and show that you are incorrect in accusing him of heresy
I hope it happens, but by all appearances, they would rather avoid it because for whatever reason they have a vested interest in continuing to distort whatever explanation he gives.
@@THEOCAST I appreciate you responding to my comment. I’m not sure that a video to video “discussion” is all that helpful for these particular topics, a conversation contained in one video, I think, would be more helpful for folks like me that are trying to keep up with the topic. By saying he is welcome to respond, are you implying that he is not welcome to join you in a video?
@@LetsGetCoffee giving a heretic a platform to further repeat his views, which are outside of orthodoxy, gives him unmerited legitimacy at a table he has no right to. I know this may come across harshly: it’s not meant to. If you look at scripture and church history, the pattern of dealing with those who consistently and unrepentantly persist in teaching heresy is not to handle them with kid gloves, but to mark them out and publicly put them out of the church.
@@THEOCAST That's not the same as a discussion. The truth tends to come out in cross-examination (Proverbs 18:17) in real time rather than isolated tennis ball volleys. Invite him, and let him look like the coward for dodging you. If he accepts, you get to correct him with precision as he misuses or mis-defines words in real time. Don't fall for the postmodern cowardice of "But then we'd be giving him a platform." Fear of platforming is weakness of character or weakness of position or both. Not saying you guys are guilty of said cowardice (I have no evidence of that!), but this tends to be a lie that a lot of otherwise smart people buy into.
@@THEOCAST I agree, why not invite him to discuss these issues directly? Doug is known for not running away from debate - if he refuses, you will have more reason to say your criticism is valid. If he agrees to come on, you'll have a change to correct him and do it Biblically. Otherwise, it looks like you are not interested in the Biblical approach but instead just want to slander him.
Wondering if you guys will be doing a critique of Tim Keller and his false teaching of social justice, and cultural marxism (I can't find it if you have). He has had everything from trap door theology, to basing your faith on the works of social justice. Tim Keller seems to be more of a liberation theology than reformed. He seems to be just as big of a problem as Doug Wilson ever was.
How does requiring faith for the covenant of works/creation equate to denying it? I didn't hear "Adam's obedience would not have mattered." I only heard (in what you quoted) "The keeping of this covenant could not have happened apart from faith." Which is obviously true.
Because where the first Adam failed, the second succeeded. If the first Adam would have (should have)achieved it by grace through faith, that's how the second Adam achieved it. It makes it all meaningless, because of how it was achieved. Jesus achieved it not by grace through faith, but by works. He achieved it, He lived the life we couldn't live, and died the death we deserved, credited to our account by faith.
I have seen Doug speak to many people with smaller platforms than yours. I am sure if you reached out to him he would be happy to talk. I question your motives when this could be resolved with him personally. Matthew 18:15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."
It’s not a private sin issue, so Matthew 18 is not in play. No private discussion is necessary re public content widely taught. Any of us may interact with it freely and publicly.
@@ExaminingMoscow True, I have no problem calling out public heretics publically. But when there is the possibility that you could be mistaken in your analysis of another brother's beliefs, you should clarify with him first if possible. Would it not be more edifying for us all if they were to just talk about it with him?
@@hgpilott No reason to clarify. DW had adhered unwaveringly to the Federal Vision schema, which is heretical, for more than 20 years. I don’t have any questions for him.
If Adam would have obeyed, he would have continued to live without sin, however, in doing so he would have been acting in faith believing that God's prohibition was for his benefit. Obedience involves faith in the one who requires it. Would it then be incorrect to say that that faith was a gift from God?
Why couldn't he have obeyed out of fear? I'm not saying Adam didn't have faith, but I don't see anywhere that indicates that Adam had to have faith while in the garden.
Adam was made in the natural image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. He had union and communion with the triune God who formed him for himself. He was trained by God's own voice speaking the Word by which he lived. The emphasis in Genesis 2 is the requirement of the covenant, obedience to the command "do not eat." If Adam as the federal head of humanity obeys, he is promised the fruition of the covenant in confirmed fellowship with God in the highest heavens, the realm of Sabbath rest. As the hosts point out, Romans 5 highlights the federal work (not faith) of both the first Adam and the Second Adam, an obedience that is imputed to those who are united to them. It is not the work of Eve and their posterity that is in view in Genesis 2, but the obedience of Adam; it is not your and my obedience that is in view in Romans 5, but that of Christ, the Second Adam. From our (Spirit-wrought faith-producing) union with Christ's obedience flows all the blessings of life, both justification and sanctification.
@@annaanderson5276 this is helpful and worthy of consideration. My statement is based upon the qualities of volition or choice in everything that we do. When ever we act or obey, that choice is made of our will. That may be out of fear or love but it is still one of volition. If I choose to sit in a chair, that act or "work" involves "faith" that the chair is going to do what the chair is designed to do. So this is the context that I ask whether faith was still present before the fall. Thoughts?
@@mrhudson8701 Faith went with the grain of Adam’s nature. His soul was inclined by nature toward God. The emphasis in Genesis 2 is the providence of covenant by which Adam can advance himself and all those united to him beyond probation by perfect and entire obedience to the command “do not eat.” If he obeys, he merits life for himself and all his posterity; if he disobeys, he merits death for himself and all his posterity.
@@annaanderson5276 I agree that "faith went with the grain" of Adam's nature and agree that the Bible teaches that he was our federal head. What I think cannot be overlooked is the importance of the faith that Adam exercised as he believed God until he did not. He then exercised his faith, believing that eating was to be a greater benefit and volitionally acted upon that belief. This of course was of no supprise to his sovereign creator and depending upon one's theology, decreed to take place. If not, then how long would it have taken for one of Adam's children or great grandchildren to have eaten from the tree (assuming that the prohibition applied to all mankind). I am thinking outloud at this point.
At 5:34 you say that "Jesus would've been accounted as righteous based on faith." The Lord Jesus Christ IS "Faith." If course His perfect faith is how He "learned obedience from the things He suffered." He said, "Not my will, but Thy will be done." He was "tempted in all ways, like we are, yet without sin," that He woukd be the "Author and the finisher of the faith" of Gods elect. Im confused by your suggesting that Christs perfect faith is the means by which He remained in perfect obedience. Please explain.
With all sincerity, you guys really, *really,* need to read more broadly in the Reformed tradition and not just repeat pop-level talking points when responding to this stuff. For instance, Turretin and Bavinck both affirm what you reject about the Covenant of Works: “Hence it is evident that the beginning of sin is better referred to unbelief than to pride, although in it both are joined…Pride could not have had place in man except on the positing of unbelief. As long as man remained constant in belief of the divine word, he never could be impelled to pride, nor shake off God’s yoke…But unbelief could not have a place in man, unless first by thoughtlessness he had ceased from a consideration of God’s prohibition and of His truth and goodness. If he had always seriously directed his mind to it (especially in the moment of temptation), he could have never been moved from his faith and listened to the tempter. Hence, therefore, unbelief or distrust flowed first. By this, man did not have the faith in the word of God which he was bound to have…” (Turretin, Institutes 9.6) "There is no such thing as merit in the existence of a creature before God, nor can there be since the relation between the Creator and creature radically and once-for-all eliminates any notion of merit. This is true after the fall but no less before the fall. Then too human beings were creatures: without entitlements, without rights, without merit. When we have done everything we have been instructed to do, we are still unworthy servants (Lk. 17:10)...Every creaturely right is a given benefit, a gift of grace, undeserved and nonobligatory. All reward from the side of God originates in grace; no merit, either of condignity or congruity, is possible. True religion, accordingly, cannot be anything other than a covenant: it has its origin in the condescending goodness and grace of God. It has this character before as well as after the fall." (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2:570) I've released a fell-length response to your long form video on Wilson arguing from historic reformed sources like these. You can find that here: th-cam.com/video/VoBlMzd25GM/w-d-xo.html
People may not like Doug Wilson's idea of what faith is - but it sounds like Luther's in his Preface to Romans which is considered to be a foundational document of the reformation. Here is what Luther says about Faith. 'Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works'
I don't see a link to the article you were reading, at least give a title of the article from his website and date published. Thanks. It seems like you don't understand Covenant theology. Nor that you distinguish justification and sanctification. Also, the baptism of babies in reformed churches isn't a baptism of regeneration. They would deny that the Visible church is full of elect people as well. It's literally people that are physically in the church and acting as members, but may or may not be elect (no temporary election).
"But does justifying faith do anything? It certainly does. It rests and it receives. And in the hope that Hicks and Walden might read this particular sentence, that’s the only thing that justifying faith ever does. But . . . does it do these things in a particular way? Does it need to be alive in order to rest this way? Does it need to be living in order to be receptive like this? The answer is obviously, clearly, yes. "So I do not collapse the distinction between faith’s receptive aspect and faith’s active aspect. I am not sending justifying faith out into town in order to help little old ladies across the street, thereby earning Merit Points that can be turned in at the Justification Mart. I am simply saying that faith’s receptive aspect is alive, and so is faith’s active aspect, and they each respectively do what they were created to do, and told to do, and not something else. And doing what you were told to do is obeying. "The faith that God gives is alive from the moment that God first gives it. It is not a dead, inert faith that receives justification, and then somehow comes to life after that. It is alive from the get-go. And this living faith, at each stage, does what it was given in order to do. And the very first thing it does is rest and receive. That obedient resting and receiving is the instrument of justification." Douglas Wilson, December 10, 2023
Quoting Doug Wilson, Sept. 2022; "Justification is a forensic act (method or technique) of God's free grace in which he pardons the sins of the one justified and imputes the obedient righteousness of Jesus Christ to that sinner using the instrument of living faith which God himself gives to the sinner, lest any should boast. This faith is no dead Faith because a living faith is the only kind of faith that God gives in justification. God accepts the justified person as righteous, not for anything accomplished in him or done by him, but solely on the basis of Christ's obedience, both active and passive. Neither does God impute the value of the faith itself to him or any act of evangelical believing or obedience by him, but rather he credits the all-sufficient obedience of Christ to him which he receives at a punctilier moment In time, by faith alone, which faith is not of himself, but is rather the gift of God. This faith is the sole instrument of justification, but is never alone in the person justified, but is always accompanied with all other saving graces. The moment of justification is punctilier, but because the faith that is the sole instrumental means of receiving this righteousness is not a dead faith, but rather works by love, the faith that is given is not punctilier, but rather is the ongoing instrument of all true sanctification, and not just justification. Saving faith is no mayfly. The righteousness that is imputed to him fully discharges the debt that is owed by the one justified and this is possible because the obedience and death of Christ makes a proper, real and full satisfaction for his sins and is accepted in his stead so that the exact justice and rich grace of God might both be glorified in the justification of sinners. Although all this was settled in the decrees of God before all worlds, the justification itself does not actually occur until that moment in history when the Holy Spirit applies Christ and all his obedience to the one being justified. This justification once given cannot be reversed, annulled, canceled or abrogated. “Although a justified man may on account of a sin experience the disciplinary turmoil of God's fatherly displeasure in the course of his sanctification, which will continue until the sins being disciplined for are honestly confessed and faith and repentance are renewed. Every person ever justified in the history of the world has always been justified in this same way whether in the Old Testament or New. Abraham was justified in exactly the same way that Abraham's seed are justified.” “Now while I sit for a moment to catch my breath I would like to invite my severest doctrinal critic to place the preceding paragraph in his confessional pipe in order to smoke it. He will therapon discover that this is the true Westminster Leaf, harvested in the year 1648. It has been preserved in a remarkable way in my personal humidor; one that I had designed by engineers at NASA. It turns out to be nothing at all like the crack cocaine and Pelagianism or the Cannabis Cannonball red of Openness Theology or even those dried maple leaves of Escondido R2K stuff, you know. The kind of thing smoked by Sunday school kids pretending to be naughty Billy.” Douglas Wilson
This is not an orthodox statement. In fact, in reading it through, you can see that Wilson still holds to Federal Vision. You can see it in the paragraph re justification.
@@ExaminingMoscow asking genuinely, please explain where Wilson errors and if you have time, point me to an example of an orthodox statement on justification for comparison.
@@mrhudson8701 the Theocast hosts have done good work on this already. You can start here - Is Doug Wilson a false teacher? (Theocast, 9/26/2022) th-cam.com/video/dDOSLx1z2Z4/w-d-xo.html. Also, there are numerous denomination position papers, seminary statements, articles, blogs, interviews, etc. dissecting Wilson’s Federal Vision views. In brief: the way he talks about justification makes our works an instrument in our justification, rather than our salvation coming by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (the orthodox way to express Sola Fide). Wilson redefines faith as faithfulness. To be frank, redefining terms is a classic cult tactic. And faith is not faithfulness.
@@ExaminingMoscow where you see FV I simply see Wilson quoting John Calvin; "I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light."
@@mrhudson8701 Spirit-produced faith unites us to the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ by which we are saved. It is the means by which God which unites us to Christ, and Christ saves us by what he does imputed to us ( personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience and substitutionary death). Faith does not save us directly, but rather unites us to Christ whose obedience is imputed to us. Our faith is a secondary and not primary cause of our salvation. As I understand it, DWs federal vision upgrades our faith-obedience to a primary cause in our salvation. Man's work looms large in his entire postmillennial system.
Where's the explicit statement denying forensic justification by faith alone, the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, or the necessity of the new birth in evangelical faith? If you're making your case through positives, without negatives, when the positives and negatives of DW's position have been provided, how is this impartial investigation? You're assuming your conclusion from the beginning, who's being partial/contradictory here? You say: +He denies the covenant of works. But, in quoting his defense, you don't establish that the covenant of works as articulated by Doug was something that didn't imply an obedience by Adam. The difference seems to be was Adam potentially justified by faith working itself out in works, and condemned by his faithlessness manifest in his sin? If the righteous live by faith, are you suggesting Jesus, the second Adam, didn't? Who's the "they" denying imputation? Other FV guys may disagree that imputation of active obedience happens- but where explicitly does Doug deny this? I've asked this multiple times, where are your clear, explicit, denials of doctrine?
Question for you, in the “don’t waist your 15 min of fame” video, DW said he only holds to the first half of the FV statement now. Why? WhAt did he write that he now denies? What of his theology changed?
@@THEOCAST What does he give as his reason, in that video, for what he affirms? Or denies? You also dodged my questions. Where's the explicit source material denying forensic justification by faith alone, the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, or the necessity of the new birth in evangelical persevering faith (which only the decretally elect possess)?
@@THEOCAST ...I'll keep asking the same questions until Theocast gives a straight answer, Jon (or Justin). Still waiting for the explicit denials that would allow you to at least say Doug's not Reformed and maybe Augustinian.
I'm curious to know your guys' thoughts/opinions on Wilson's associate Toby Sumpter? I'm asking because a member of my men's group at church was offering Sumpter's content for discussion. It's called 'Having Two Legs'. Would love to know your thoughts, thanks!
@@THEOCAST why is it that you guys will only engage in the comments when you can quickly punch down and walk away. Please consider involving yourselves by responding to reasonable questions by those who may not share your perspective.
This is just sad. I have heard from Wilson's own mouth renunciations of the very things you accuse him of, and yet you continue to misrepresent him and read your own vitriol into his writing where he makes no such statements. You have decided he must be what you accuse him of, and so you inject that into his writings. Snakish behavior, really. No, Doug does not believe you can be "temporarily elect". Stop lying. He has addressed this directly, and you either are too lazy and disinterested to find it or you are intentionally slandering. Either way, you're unqualified to be teachers. I challenge you to weasel your way out of these: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?" Luke 6:46 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." Matthew 7:24 There are countless others just like these throughout the NT. You also misrepresent the distinction Doug makes between "works" and "obedience". It is the _ends_ and _motivation_ . He uses the term "works" in the context of "works salvation", implying those good works _earn_ salvation. This is distinguished from obedience because obedience is the necessary and inevitable fruit of true faith. This is hard to miss in Wilson's theology unless you're _trying_ to miss it. All the same, you remain cowards until you offer to discuss all of this with him. Effeminate, snakish cowards.
What else is possible is if they draw enough traction by making outlandish audacious claims about a well known figure that they may be thinking it will boost their following. Mammon
To deny it also mean he would stop promoting the theology. His articles and books are still being promoted by his ministry and he just affirmed he still holds to FV and the objectivity of the covenant.
Matthew, if Doug Wilson told you that he has renounced Federal Vision, he was not being honest with you. He has never renounced it. He has only affirmed and reaffirmed his adherence to it over the years, and still sells materials that teach it. Not only that, his entire Moscow and CREC schemas are devoted to living out the tenets of Federal Vision.
@@THEOCAST The objectivity of the covenant was true in the OT, as Israel was "in covenant" with God, but not every individual Israelite was saved. Those Israelites who were saved were saved by grace through faith in a coming Messiah. Not all Israelites in the covenant were elect. What is your basis for believing this aspect of the covenant was abolished with the coming of Christ? You may disagree, but to label someone "heretic" for holding the objectivity of the covenant is like to anathematizing a person for holding an eschatology you don't agree with.
I wouldn’t worry about what should have happened and worry about what did happen and how to move forward from there. Let’s not stay stuck on the what could have been. It didn’t happen. We are here now.
Brothers, thank you so much for this post! Doug Wilson is a wordsmith. Many of the types of conversations that you are mentioning that people have been in with him are like a game of coconut shells. He has given the appearance of backing off from certain positions, but he only does so until the heat dies down. He just readjusts and restates the same position in a different way. He begins the attack anew. A person doesn't just change their mind on positions this well thought out. And there is an agenda there. If you read Hebrews 11 it defines what faith is. Faith is something given by God as a remedy to our unbelief in our fallen state. God has to "faith us." Adam didnt need faith, because he had *sight*, he had knowledge, he had a face-to-face relationship with God, he was created upright, and had every good thing that God had given him. He wasn't created cutoff, in any way. He was not a stranger or exile on the good earth. The view that Doug is espousing implies that Adam would have to exercise some type of faith because God obviously didn't give him enough to go on to begin with. And had Adam not fallen he would have had to show thankfulness because God rescued him from the impossible situation that God placed him in to begin with. It's slander against God and denies both the Scriptures teaching that Adam was created good and that he could also be held accountable for his bold-faced, full knowledge, red handed disobedience. Before the fall, Adam's obedience and disobedience fell on his own head. Then Doug goes on to say that "obedience is unto righteousness?" And that "election is preserved by faithfulness?" An absolute attack on the Gospel! And you're right, it implies Christ, as the second Adam, would still have something insufficient in his nature to obey God fully. That would imply both that Adam wasn't created good and that Christ was not deity!
If he says that faith is obedience, and that we are saved through faith-obedience, then our salvation lies in something he can prescribe as he exegetes the Word for his people (and by extension all those who rely on his movement). My salvation then is dependent on Doug Wilson's teaching. He can direct me wherever his postmillennialist worldview takes him. This is not freedom, but slavery, binding the consciences of the unwary. What he is prescribing is not living by faith, but living by sight as he himself fills the horizon. This is not the one-thing of the psalmist that directs our hearts to the One who alone is to be desired, but leads to idolatry. His system leads to earthly-mindedness and pushes out heavenly-mindedness.
Faith begets obedience, and is the mark of it being a true living faith. This is the overwhelming testimony of scripture, and it's painful to see so many believers confusing the matter and fleeing from plain scriptural teaching out of fear of having your Sola Fide card revoked.
I dont believe he would say you can be temporarily elect. He would say temporarily in covenant with God, that is a different thing you know. People can be churchmembers/goers and come close to Christ in his ordinances and yet not be one withHim in reality and truly united to GOd in Christ salvifically
A couple of the hens in the chicken co-op Flapping their wings. My guess is he's probably thought through these matters far deeper than either one of these guys. This is how they will know that we're Jesus disciples that we love one another. Quit the slander
I don't think that Doug teaches the things that you are attributing to him. I've been listening to him for a few years now and it doesn't seem like you are representing his position accurately. Or maybe that you aren't representing it precisely. There is some nuance certainly in words like obedience and works and the fact that obedience is a fruit that bears witness to a saving faith. I don't know. It doesn't seem like it's an accurate representation based on what what I have heard from him. You all should invite him to a conversation.
Excellent video. Wilson, Piper, and MacArthur all try to import works into their definition of “faith.” Thank you for your courageous defense of the gospel of grace.
Because DW would clarify things right away, and the only ground they would have left to stand on would be "You are a liar and manipulator! False Teacher! What you say is not what you REALLY mean! Tune in to our future podcasts so we can teach you what DW REALLY means by what he says!"
It seems to me that Doug Wilson is more biblical than you think. Imposing your stark Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction on the whole Bible is eisegesis and is problematic.
This is embarrassing. You got evidence huh. If I wanted I could take Jesus out of context and defend works righteousness. If I wanted I could take your video on 1 John where you say John is aiming to unsettle those who don't care about his law. The aim, as you say, is to get the whole picture, not to take a man out of context. Doug is merely afirming the reformed view that faith produces obedience, if Adam were to obey it would of been a produce of faith. One cannot obey without faith, that's the point.
What does this mean? “and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,” Romans 1:4-5 ESV
This is true. Unfortunately, Wilson goes further than this: he teaches obedience as an instrument in one’s justification, contra Sola fide, contra the Reformation.
@@ExaminingMoscow If faith is the instrument of our salvation, and the Bible teaches that all genuine faith will produce good works in us, then one could logically say that the good works accompanying faith are part of the instrument of our salvation. Unless you think there is such a thing as a saving dead faith that does not produce obedience? The problem is, people start frothing at the mouth when they hear works mentioned in any way because they imagine the person MUST be trying to sneak in some synergistic soteriology. It seems folks like you don't have the mental clarity to understand what is being said so you convince yourself your confusion is a sign of Doug's "duplicity" rather than your lack of mental acuity.
@@ExaminingMoscow No, you are conflating stating the fruit necessarily follows the root, with stating the fruit is a prerequisite work of man needed to receive justification / election. This is precisely the error I mentioned in my previous comment, and you are doubling down. You imagine somehow we must not understand the most basic principle of the reformation, rather than imagining maybe you just don't understand what is being said.
Seriously? This video should be about how to slander someone by sewing their words out of context and weaving it into a tapestry woven by many threads of logical fallacies. How can I put this....... by way of simple analogy ..... If you guys where hired as meat butchers, you'd be fired for leaving so much meat on the bone. 🙂 I'd suggest being more carful with your criticisms so that you're treating your subject fairly. Doug is your brother. He's theologically your older brother. If you're confused on his position then ask him to clarify. Doug Wilson is very accessible and he's written much on the issue you're bringing up, but clearly to me you've not carefully digested it. IN SALVATION.....Faith and Obedience are not in opposition, one to or for the other. Yes we are saved by GRACE, ....through faith. This is to say that faith is the conduit of grace. Faith is also a gift that comes from God, not from ourselves. God gives that faith so that we will receive and know His Grace. AT THAT POINT....... We Obey. Our obedience is because OF our salvation, not FOR our salvation. We don't obey God to receive salvation, We Obey because of the salvation we have ...by grace,.... through faith. This is the basic outline of what Wilson believes, and has described and articulated, albeit with some explanation. Give the man a break. He's lived and walked with God, and preached and promoted the reformed biblical understanding much longer than both of you put together. You're treating him unfairly based on your misunderstanding, not his.
Is faith now faith to him? As I understand it, he redefines faith. He sounds good, but faith (which is actually redefined as works) alone doesn't save, faith alone does.
@@ExaminingMoscow Proved by the fruit of what? A faithful family which has and will continue to produce generations of warriors for God's kingdom? Claiming that moniker for him while ignoring the clear fruit of his life reeks of a lack of discernment, friend.
@@wilsonforney8206 a faithful family doesn’t prove DW is correct on his views. Mormons and Catholics and Islamic Jihadists often have faithful families and think of themselves as warriors for the kingdom. The point is not faithfulness, the point is what are they faithful to? DW’s family is not faithful to the gospel, but rather are faithful to his Federal Vision schema.
Very interesting. This really clarified many issues for me. Small changes in definitions have huge implications as you follow these issues out to their logical conclusions. One of Doug Wilson’s problems revolve around his desire to be clever and to sound revolutionary. You’ve made some excellent points. Thank you.
Doug Wilson's theology sounds "revolutionary" because of how far modern evangelicals have wandered from the Biblical mark. The fools in this video are exhibit A. The truth seems "revolutionary" when viewed from within the zeitgeist, where they (and you?) seem to be operating.
@@matthewdyer2926Thats just plain nonsense. I would go considerably further than these two go in the vid. Wilson is just a heretic and barely even within the scope of what Bible believers in the past would call Christian.
@@toddstevens9667 Again, you're operating out of the zeitgeist. How much primary source writing have you read from these "Bible believers in the past"? I have read extensively. Wilson has read far more extensively. He aligns seamlessly with the reformed confessional Christian faith. Do you? Do you know what that even looks like, or are you taking the secondary and tertiary word of effeminate youtubers like these two guys? Have you read for yourself? Start with your Bible, from cover to cover.
@@matthewdyer2926 My goodness. You certainly sound like a disciple of Doug Wilson. All those big words and condescension to those who disagree. And yes I’ve read a great deal of primary source material. And yes I’ve read my Bible cover to cover many times. And I still think Doug Wilson is a heretic. And yes I’ve even read a couple of his books. But the thing I thought was most interesting was you calling these two guys effeminate. What about this video gave you that impression? I rewatched this video and saw nothing effeminate about either of them. Was one of them wearing a dress or something? Honestly I’d never heard of these guys before, but I’ve watched most all of Doug Wilson’s videos. He’s certainly entertaining, but he seems to have gained a following far beyond his worth. But that’s just an old man’s opinion. Take it for what little it is worth. And no one has ever accused me of being part of the Zeitgeist before. That’s pretty funny. And my favorite book, outside the Bible, is Luther’s Bondage of the Will. When I’m bored I just pull it out and laugh at all his characterizations of Erasmus’s writings. Now that I think about it, you seem to be channeling a little bit of Luther’s wit and sarcasm. Anyway, have a great day.
@@matthewdyer2926 And I just thought … another of my favorite books is Knox’s The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. It’s fun too. And I divine that it might just be down your alley, as they say. Being almost old enough to remember Mary, Queen of Scots myself 🤪, it was profoundly interesting from the first time I read it. I certainly suggest it to you. I think you would like Knox’s writings.
5:50 - it was by his one act of righteousness and his obedience at the tree that we are accounted righteous. Read Rom 5 carefully without reformed filters, my brethren! lLord bless
Per Mr. Moffitt's comment regarding words and definitions and the criticalness thereof, I could not agree more. As a longtime student (if you will) of logic, it is paramount to establish words/terms then definitions so to proceed to categorization (i.e. types, forms, genera/species), ultimately resulting to consistency, understanding therefore appropriate proposition and conclusion. In so doing, erroneousness is likely avoided if not largely mitigated while blunders exposed. Good conversation, gentlemen, I was prior a bit unclear on the matter of federal vision... Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and Soli Deo Gloria. Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice. Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
It's not complicated. The words belief and faith are synonyms and belief is the better translation of the Greek, pistis. Christians are believers and not "faith-ers" after all. And, anyone who cannot or will not use belief and faith interchangeably has already shown their hand or exposed a central weakness in their understanding of the Gospel. IMO Wilson has been able to bamboozle countless otherwise sound teachers simply because most (oddly enough seminary-trained) pastors and elders do not have a clear definition of faith as the alone instrument in justification. That's because the traditional definition has a level of ambiguity that allows men like Wilson to drive a truck through. I've seen more than one TE get turned around in knots while debating Doug on the meaning of faith and saving faith.
Thanks fellas for this helpful reminder that words matter! A lie is no good if it’s blatant or obvious, but if it’s pretty darn close to the truth, then it can catch the us discerning off guard.
Calvin never holds Federal Vision . So why can’t call Calvinist? Holding the Federal Vision or not is not going to defines about Calvinist. As long as you are opposed Arminian heresy , you are Calvinist, nothing is ashamed of .
Done listening to you guys🙄you sound like leighton flowers doubling down on this. You guys will do whatever it takes to get views. Nnitpicking mcarthur, now Doug Wilson…..so BIG EVA🙄wildly exaggerating his views…shame on you.
Youre all synergists. Faith is an element of sanctification. Faith doesnt save you, the Holy Spirit does, faith is the fruit. So if the branches dont bear fruit it is dead and will be cut out.
i don't think you c an build a theological argument on Hypothetical situations. We can not say " if Adam didnt ....." God foreordained Adams fall. How can we make sense of a argument based on him not falling?
Simple breakdown of the Instrumental Means of Justification: Papal Rome (aka. Antichrist): Faith + Works ------> Justification. (That's Legalism, folks!). Bible/Protestantism: Faith ALONE ------> Justification + Works. Antinomianism: Faith ------> Justification - Works. -----> means: "leads to," or, "results in". John Gerstner (Professor and Mentor of R.C. Sproul, and later colleague as well) wrote it on the chalk board like this DECADES ago. So glad for that man's breakdown; keeping it simple for us simple folk to understand. You guys are correct to expose the errors of Doug Wilson. Sad to see some of my Reformed Baptist brethren clinging so strenuously to him. Justification, and the Sole Instrumental Means of it, is a serious issue; blood has literally been shed because of it! *Soli Deo Gloria*
So do all the authors of the New Testament, and Christ Himself to boot. Have you considered the distinction between the moral, civil, and ceremonial OT laws? Which ones are we continuously commanded throughout the NT to keep?
@@matthewdyer2926 Is that a joke? The NT, apostles, and Christ explicitly taught that the OT is fulfilled and obsolete. You can't choose what to obey and what not to obey when it comes to God's law. That is condemned in countless places in scripture.
@razzendahcuben Nope, I’m not joking, but I suspect you may be; you’re either joking, or Biblically illiterate. “Fulfilled” and “obsolete” are not synonymous, and while Christ is the fulfillment of the law and prophets, I am baffled as to how you’ve come to believe that the fulfillment of something equates to its obsolescence. The entire covenant is fulfilled in Christ, from OT to NT; by your shoddy logic the NT would also be obsolete, since Christ fulfills that too. What exactly are you talking about? “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever." “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.” “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” If you’re still confused, it may interest you to know that Christ and the Apostles quote the OT authoritatively more than 280 times in NT scripture. You should be careful Whose words you determine to be “obsolete”.
Doug Wilson is an historian not only of the Bible, but world and American History. The man reads more books in a year than most people read in a lifetime. To defend or refute his beliefs is a difficult issue because Wilson has a vast knowledge of Biblical information that he uses to plug into History. We all should at least aspire to upgrade our level of knowledge in defense of our faith in Christ.
Doug Wilson has addressed claims such as these and been completely ignored by the likes of these gentlemen. Might be worth going and looking at DW’s response. This work here is slanderous and dishonest.
@@OldFarmCraft Wilson has affirmed and reaffirmed his adherence to Federal Vision for years. He was one of the primary architects of the theology, and has never repented of it. He also continues to sell materials that teach it through his family publishing company. He is the one being dishonest, rather than those calling him out, given that he allows his adherents to go out and claim that he has recanted of Federal Vision.
@@OldFarmCraft He claims his is basically "FV light. " People continue to believe that he rejected FV when he in fact only rejects the title yet still holds the same beliefs he always did. "Light "or not, it's still FV.
Imputation of Gods righteousness in Christ, is more accurate than Christ’s personal righteousness- I would need some clear text to convince me otherwise. All of the atonement was accomplished by Christ on the cross.
@@dacandyman112 brother, are you really suggesting that no one is allowed to make public comments about public teaching unless they "interview them" first? That's not a biblical standard. Private matters should be dealt with privately, public matters should be dealt with publicly. Furthermore, even If you think that they are slandering pastor Wilson, that is no reason to be throwing around words like "coward". You obviously feel they lack charity, then you give them even less. Christians ought to conduct themselves, even in disagreement, as christians.
@@dirkwalstead7891 Christians should apply equal weights and measures. Why are you accusing Andrew of calling Theocast cowards but seem to be okay with Theocast calling Doug Wilson a heretic? If they are accusing him of such a high crime, they shouldn't be afraid of debate and you shouldn't be showing partiality
I am so glad you are doing this....I am going to jump right in to the discussion: At 6:13 I am tracking, and would like to see you develope the idea of Christ Meriting Perfectly and Completely the Work, and his application of it to a Christian is Grace Alone and a One time ACT in our Justification. That is where our good works flow from, our Free Justification and Imputed Righteousness of Christ. Union with Christ. That is why Justification is all Grace and Not called Mercy. It is a Double Exchange. Faith is an Instrument and God chose to use that to apply to us our Salvation. Douglas Wilson has stated in his Self Written Examination Form about Faith, that Faith is Imperfect. His issue is very simple...He is a legalist and hears the Gospel load and clear, but he hears it as Too Good To be True and Believed, so he adds to it, just like Roman Catholism. In short, the Federal Vision is nothing different than Roman Catholism but without Pergatory. Judiasm is always going to be alive and kicking in a gospel preaching and teaching church. That is what Paul Says. Do you have the his written Examination answers? ,Here is a Link dougwils.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Douglas-Wilson-Federal-Vision-Controversy-ExamAnswers.pdf
Guys, I really can't believe y'all are still beating this drum.
Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
Right there, obey what Christ has commanded. Repent is a verb. Believe is a verb. Is anyone saved who has not repented and has not believed the gospel? No. Is anyone justified who has not repented and has not believed the gospel? No. Is anyone being sanctified who has not repented and has not believed the gospel? No. All who are saved must repent and believe in the gospel. That is obedience to Christ. That obedience is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone according to scripture alone. That obedience is not to the law, that obedience is to Christ's call to repent and believe. That response can only come from grace by faith. It is not a work and no man may boast. But it is obedience. It is obedience to Christ.
I'm a Baptist, so there are plenty of issues where Doug Wilson and I disagree. But he's not a heretic. You're using several Wilson references but you're mixing them with examples of actually heresy that Wilson did not say, and you are choosing not to give complete contextual references to Wilson's response to claims that he is a heretic. With a 15 minute reaction/response video, you could clear up all this mess, but instead y'all posted another video, doubling down, without letting Doug speak.
Tilt at another windmill guys, or prove your point. You can't be taken seriously in your argument if you refuse to acknowledge his response to your claim. At the moment, y'all are coming across dishonest.
Proverbs 18:17
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Yes, Proverbs 18:17 is in play here: Doug Wilson has had his say and his “side” out there for many years, but now those on the other “side” are speaking up and having their say.
@@ExaminingMoscow yet you're still afraid to have him speak directly? It sounds like you're afraid that he may clear things up and show that you are incorrect in accusing him of heresy
@GoodUsedTires AMEN! 🙏Everything you said was 110% spot on!!
Would you be willing to come on the podcast with Doug and discuss these issues?
I hope it happens, but by all appearances, they would rather avoid it because for whatever reason they have a vested interest in continuing to distort whatever explanation he gives.
please please please make this happen
Giving heretics a platform to wax on about their views legitimizes them. For this reason, we hope he is not given a forum to teach his views.
@@ExaminingMoscow nonsense, how can you say that with your TH-cam name? He has a right to face his accuser. Smells like cowardice.
@@GraceNerdTV exactly
@theocast I would love to see y’all have DW on and discuss this with him.
He’s free to respond to all of the many men who have called him out for 20 years. And yet he doesn’t
@@THEOCAST I appreciate you responding to my comment. I’m not sure that a video to video “discussion” is all that helpful for these particular topics, a conversation contained in one video, I think, would be more helpful for folks like me that are trying to keep up with the topic. By saying he is welcome to respond, are you implying that he is not welcome to join you in a video?
@@LetsGetCoffee giving a heretic a platform to further repeat his views, which are outside of orthodoxy, gives him unmerited legitimacy at a table he has no right to. I know this may come across harshly: it’s not meant to. If you look at scripture and church history, the pattern of dealing with those who consistently and unrepentantly persist in teaching heresy is not to handle them with kid gloves, but to mark them out and publicly put them out of the church.
@@THEOCAST That's not the same as a discussion. The truth tends to come out in cross-examination (Proverbs 18:17) in real time rather than isolated tennis ball volleys. Invite him, and let him look like the coward for dodging you. If he accepts, you get to correct him with precision as he misuses or mis-defines words in real time. Don't fall for the postmodern cowardice of "But then we'd be giving him a platform." Fear of platforming is weakness of character or weakness of position or both. Not saying you guys are guilty of said cowardice (I have no evidence of that!), but this tends to be a lie that a lot of otherwise smart people buy into.
@@THEOCAST I agree, why not invite him to discuss these issues directly? Doug is known for not running away from debate - if he refuses, you will have more reason to say your criticism is valid. If he agrees to come on, you'll have a change to correct him and do it Biblically. Otherwise, it looks like you are not interested in the Biblical approach but instead just want to slander him.
Wondering if you guys will be doing a critique of Tim Keller and his false teaching of social justice, and cultural marxism (I can't find it if you have). He has had everything from trap door theology, to basing your faith on the works of social justice. Tim Keller seems to be more of a liberation theology than reformed. He seems to be just as big of a problem as Doug Wilson ever was.
Keep quoting him guys!
It's so clear to those who ACTUALLY listen to you that he teaches this stuff.
He doesn’t though…
He doesn't though.
How does requiring faith for the covenant of works/creation equate to denying it? I didn't hear "Adam's obedience would not have mattered." I only heard (in what you quoted) "The keeping of this covenant could not have happened apart from faith." Which is obviously true.
Because where the first Adam failed, the second succeeded. If the first Adam would have (should have)achieved it by grace through faith, that's how the second Adam achieved it. It makes it all meaningless, because of how it was achieved. Jesus achieved it not by grace through faith, but by works. He achieved it, He lived the life we couldn't live, and died the death we deserved, credited to our account by faith.
So God commands Adam. Adam believes God. Is that a work?
I have seen Doug speak to many people with smaller platforms than yours. I am sure if you reached out to him he would be happy to talk. I question your motives when this could be resolved with him personally. Matthew 18:15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."
It’s not a private sin issue, so Matthew 18 is not in play. No private discussion is necessary re public content widely taught. Any of us may interact with it freely and publicly.
@@ExaminingMoscow True, I have no problem calling out public heretics publically. But when there is the possibility that you could be mistaken in your analysis of another brother's beliefs, you should clarify with him first if possible. Would it not be more edifying for us all if they were to just talk about it with him?
@@hgpilott No reason to clarify. DW had adhered unwaveringly to the Federal Vision schema, which is heretical, for more than 20 years. I don’t have any questions for him.
@@ExaminingMoscow that's a pretty arrogant response, brother
@@smt0202 no arrogance. I have no questions about where he stands: his stance is very clear.
If Adam would have obeyed, he would have continued to live without sin, however, in doing so he would have been acting in faith believing that God's prohibition was for his benefit. Obedience involves faith in the one who requires it. Would it then be incorrect to say that that faith was a gift from God?
Why couldn't he have obeyed out of fear? I'm not saying Adam didn't have faith, but I don't see anywhere that indicates that Adam had to have faith while in the garden.
Adam was made in the natural image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. He had union and communion with the triune God who formed him for himself. He was trained by God's own voice speaking the Word by which he lived. The emphasis in Genesis 2 is the requirement of the covenant, obedience to the command "do not eat." If Adam as the federal head of humanity obeys, he is promised the fruition of the covenant in confirmed fellowship with God in the highest heavens, the realm of Sabbath rest. As the hosts point out, Romans 5 highlights the federal work (not faith) of both the first Adam and the Second Adam, an obedience that is imputed to those who are united to them. It is not the work of Eve and their posterity that is in view in Genesis 2, but the obedience of Adam; it is not your and my obedience that is in view in Romans 5, but that of Christ, the Second Adam. From our (Spirit-wrought faith-producing) union with Christ's obedience flows all the blessings of life, both justification and sanctification.
@@annaanderson5276 this is helpful and worthy of consideration. My statement is based upon the qualities of volition or choice in everything that we do. When ever we act or obey, that choice is made of our will. That may be out of fear or love but it is still one of volition. If I choose to sit in a chair, that act or "work" involves "faith" that the chair is going to do what the chair is designed to do. So this is the context that I ask whether faith was still present before the fall. Thoughts?
@@mrhudson8701 Faith went with the grain of Adam’s nature. His soul was inclined by nature toward God. The emphasis in Genesis 2 is the providence of covenant by which Adam can advance himself and all those united to him beyond probation by perfect and entire obedience to the command “do not eat.” If he obeys, he merits life for himself and all his posterity; if he disobeys, he merits death for himself and all his posterity.
@@annaanderson5276 I agree that "faith went with the grain" of Adam's nature and agree that the Bible teaches that he was our federal head. What I think cannot be overlooked is the importance of the faith that Adam exercised as he believed God until he did not. He then exercised his faith, believing that eating was to be a greater benefit and volitionally acted upon that belief. This of course was of no supprise to his sovereign creator and depending upon one's theology, decreed to take place. If not, then how long would it have taken for one of Adam's children or great grandchildren to have eaten from the tree (assuming that the prohibition applied to all mankind). I am thinking outloud at this point.
At 5:34 you say that "Jesus would've been accounted as righteous based on faith." The Lord Jesus Christ IS "Faith." If course His perfect faith is how He "learned obedience from the things He suffered." He said, "Not my will, but Thy will be done." He was "tempted in all ways, like we are, yet without sin," that He woukd be the "Author and the finisher of the faith" of Gods elect. Im confused by your suggesting that Christs perfect faith is the means by which He remained in perfect obedience. Please explain.
With all sincerity, you guys really, *really,* need to read more broadly in the Reformed tradition and not just repeat pop-level talking points when responding to this stuff. For instance, Turretin and Bavinck both affirm what you reject about the Covenant of Works:
“Hence it is evident that the beginning of sin is better referred to unbelief than to pride, although in it both are joined…Pride could not have had place in man except on the positing of unbelief. As long as man remained constant in belief of the divine word, he never could be impelled to pride, nor shake off God’s yoke…But unbelief could not have a place in man, unless first by thoughtlessness he had ceased from a consideration of God’s prohibition and of His truth and goodness. If he had always seriously directed his mind to it (especially in the moment of temptation), he could have never been moved from his faith and listened to the tempter. Hence, therefore, unbelief or distrust flowed first. By this, man did not have the faith in the word of God which he was bound to have…” (Turretin, Institutes 9.6)
"There is no such thing as merit in the existence of a creature before God, nor can there be since the relation between the Creator and creature radically and once-for-all eliminates any notion of merit. This is true after the fall but no less before the fall. Then too human beings were creatures: without entitlements, without rights, without merit. When we have done everything we have been instructed to do, we are still unworthy servants (Lk. 17:10)...Every creaturely right is a given benefit, a gift of grace, undeserved and nonobligatory. All reward from the side of God originates in grace; no merit, either of condignity or congruity, is possible. True religion, accordingly, cannot be anything other than a covenant: it has its origin in the condescending goodness and grace of God. It has this character before as well as after the fall." (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2:570)
I've released a fell-length response to your long form video on Wilson arguing from historic reformed sources like these. You can find that here: th-cam.com/video/VoBlMzd25GM/w-d-xo.html
People may not like Doug Wilson's idea of what faith is - but it sounds like Luther's
in his Preface to Romans which is considered to be a foundational document
of the reformation. Here is what Luther says about Faith.
'Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth
anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely
different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings
the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing
is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith
doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked,
it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is
without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good
works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he
chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works'
Watch Doug's 10 min video on Canon Press dealing with justification.
I don't see a link to the article you were reading, at least give a title of the article from his website and date published. Thanks.
It seems like you don't understand Covenant theology. Nor that you distinguish justification and sanctification. Also, the baptism of babies in reformed churches isn't a baptism of regeneration. They would deny that the Visible church is full of elect people as well. It's literally people that are physically in the church and acting as members, but may or may not be elect (no temporary election).
Link is at bottom of description.
"But does justifying faith do anything? It certainly does. It rests and it receives. And in the hope that Hicks and Walden might read this particular sentence, that’s the only thing that justifying faith ever does. But . . . does it do these things in a particular way? Does it need to be alive in order to rest this way? Does it need to be living in order to be receptive like this? The answer is obviously, clearly, yes.
"So I do not collapse the distinction between faith’s receptive aspect and faith’s active aspect. I am not sending justifying faith out into town in order to help little old ladies across the street, thereby earning Merit Points that can be turned in at the Justification Mart. I am simply saying that faith’s receptive aspect is alive, and so is faith’s active aspect, and they each respectively do what they were created to do, and told to do, and not something else. And doing what you were told to do is obeying.
"The faith that God gives is alive from the moment that God first gives it. It is not a dead, inert faith that receives justification, and then somehow comes to life after that. It is alive from the get-go. And this living faith, at each stage, does what it was given in order to do. And the very first thing it does is rest and receive. That obedient resting and receiving is the instrument of justification." Douglas Wilson, December 10, 2023
Quoting Doug Wilson, Sept. 2022; "Justification is a forensic act (method or technique) of God's free grace in which he pardons the sins of the one justified and imputes the obedient righteousness of Jesus Christ to that sinner using the instrument of living faith which God himself gives to the sinner, lest any should boast.
This faith is no dead Faith because a living faith is the only kind of faith that God gives in justification. God accepts the justified person as righteous, not for anything accomplished in him or done by him, but solely on the basis of Christ's obedience, both active and passive. Neither does God impute the value of the faith itself to him or any act of evangelical believing or obedience by him, but rather he credits the all-sufficient obedience of Christ to him which he receives at a punctilier moment In time, by faith alone, which faith is not of himself, but is rather the gift of God.
This faith is the sole instrument of justification, but is never alone in the person justified, but is always accompanied with all other saving graces. The moment of justification is punctilier, but because the faith that is the sole instrumental means of receiving this righteousness is not a dead faith, but rather works by love, the faith that is given is not punctilier, but rather is the ongoing instrument of all true sanctification, and not just justification. Saving faith is no mayfly.
The righteousness that is imputed to him fully discharges the debt that is owed by the one justified and this is possible because the obedience and death of Christ makes a proper, real and full satisfaction for his sins and is accepted in his stead so that the exact justice and rich grace of God might both be glorified in the justification of sinners. Although all this was settled in the decrees of God before all worlds, the justification itself does not actually occur until that moment in history when the Holy Spirit applies Christ and all his obedience to the one being justified. This justification once given cannot be reversed, annulled, canceled or abrogated.
“Although a justified man may on account of a sin experience the disciplinary turmoil of God's fatherly displeasure in the course of his sanctification, which will continue until the sins being disciplined for are honestly confessed and faith and repentance are renewed. Every person ever justified in the history of the world has always been justified in this same way whether in the Old Testament or New. Abraham was justified in exactly the same way that Abraham's seed are justified.”
“Now while I sit for a moment to catch my breath I would like to invite my severest doctrinal critic to place the preceding paragraph in his confessional pipe in order to smoke it. He will therapon discover that this is the true Westminster Leaf, harvested in the year 1648. It has been preserved in a remarkable way in my personal humidor; one that I had designed by engineers at NASA. It turns out to be nothing at all like the crack cocaine and Pelagianism or the Cannabis Cannonball red of Openness Theology or even those dried maple leaves of Escondido R2K stuff, you know. The kind of thing smoked by Sunday school kids pretending to be naughty Billy.” Douglas Wilson
This is not an orthodox statement. In fact, in reading it through, you can see that Wilson still holds to Federal Vision. You can see it in the paragraph re justification.
@@ExaminingMoscow asking genuinely, please explain where Wilson errors and if you have time, point me to an example of an orthodox statement on justification for comparison.
@@mrhudson8701 the Theocast hosts have done good work on this already. You can start here - Is Doug Wilson a false teacher? (Theocast, 9/26/2022) th-cam.com/video/dDOSLx1z2Z4/w-d-xo.html. Also, there are numerous denomination position papers, seminary statements, articles, blogs, interviews, etc. dissecting Wilson’s Federal Vision views. In brief: the way he talks about justification makes our works an instrument in our justification, rather than our salvation coming by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (the orthodox way to express Sola Fide). Wilson redefines faith as faithfulness. To be frank, redefining terms is a classic cult tactic. And faith is not faithfulness.
@@ExaminingMoscow where you see FV I simply see Wilson quoting John Calvin; "I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light."
@@mrhudson8701 Spirit-produced faith unites us to the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ by which we are saved. It is the means by which God which unites us to Christ, and Christ saves us by what he does imputed to us ( personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience and substitutionary death). Faith does not save us directly, but rather unites us to Christ whose obedience is imputed to us. Our faith is a secondary and not primary cause of our salvation. As I understand it, DWs federal vision upgrades our faith-obedience to a primary cause in our salvation. Man's work looms large in his entire postmillennial system.
Where's the explicit statement denying forensic justification by faith alone, the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, or the necessity of the new birth in evangelical faith?
If you're making your case through positives, without negatives, when the positives and negatives of DW's position have been provided, how is this impartial investigation? You're assuming your conclusion from the beginning, who's being partial/contradictory here?
You say:
+He denies the covenant of works.
But, in quoting his defense, you don't establish that the covenant of works as articulated by Doug was something that didn't imply an obedience by Adam. The difference seems to be was Adam potentially justified by faith working itself out in works, and condemned by his faithlessness manifest in his sin? If the righteous live by faith, are you suggesting Jesus, the second Adam, didn't?
Who's the "they" denying imputation? Other FV guys may disagree that imputation of active obedience happens- but where explicitly does Doug deny this?
I've asked this multiple times, where are your clear, explicit, denials of doctrine?
Question for you, in the “don’t waist your 15 min of fame” video, DW said he only holds to the first half of the FV statement now. Why? WhAt did he write that he now denies? What of his theology changed?
@@THEOCAST What does he give as his reason, in that video, for what he affirms? Or denies?
You also dodged my questions. Where's the explicit source material denying forensic justification by faith alone, the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, or the necessity of the new birth in evangelical persevering faith (which only the decretally elect possess)?
Ok thanks
@@THEOCAST ...I'll keep asking the same questions until Theocast gives a straight answer, Jon (or Justin). Still waiting for the explicit denials that would allow you to at least say Doug's not Reformed and maybe Augustinian.
Already have. You simply will not accept them.
I'm curious to know your guys' thoughts/opinions on Wilson's associate Toby Sumpter? I'm asking because a member of my men's group at church was offering Sumpter's content for discussion. It's called 'Having Two Legs'. Would love to know your thoughts, thanks!
He also affirms DW theology
Sumpter holds the same theology as Wilson.
@@THEOCAST why is it that you guys will only engage in the comments when you can quickly punch down and walk away. Please consider involving yourselves by responding to reasonable questions by those who may not share your perspective.
This is just sad. I have heard from Wilson's own mouth renunciations of the very things you accuse him of, and yet you continue to misrepresent him and read your own vitriol into his writing where he makes no such statements. You have decided he must be what you accuse him of, and so you inject that into his writings. Snakish behavior, really.
No, Doug does not believe you can be "temporarily elect". Stop lying. He has addressed this directly, and you either are too lazy and disinterested to find it or you are intentionally slandering. Either way, you're unqualified to be teachers.
I challenge you to weasel your way out of these:
“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?" Luke 6:46
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." Matthew 7:24
There are countless others just like these throughout the NT.
You also misrepresent the distinction Doug makes between "works" and "obedience". It is the _ends_ and _motivation_ . He uses the term "works" in the context of "works salvation", implying those good works _earn_ salvation. This is distinguished from obedience because obedience is the necessary and inevitable fruit of true faith. This is hard to miss in Wilson's theology unless you're _trying_ to miss it.
All the same, you remain cowards until you offer to discuss all of this with him. Effeminate, snakish cowards.
What else is possible is if they draw enough traction by making outlandish audacious claims about a well known figure that they may be thinking it will boost their following. Mammon
@@OldFarmCraft Yes, that seems likely also.
To deny it also mean he would stop promoting the theology. His articles and books are still being promoted by his ministry and he just affirmed he still holds to FV and the objectivity of the covenant.
Matthew, if Doug Wilson told you that he has renounced Federal Vision, he was not being honest with you. He has never renounced it. He has only affirmed and reaffirmed his adherence to it over the years, and still sells materials that teach it. Not only that, his entire Moscow and CREC schemas are devoted to living out the tenets of Federal Vision.
@@THEOCAST The objectivity of the covenant was true in the OT, as Israel was "in covenant" with God, but not every individual Israelite was saved. Those Israelites who were saved were saved by grace through faith in a coming Messiah. Not all Israelites in the covenant were elect. What is your basis for believing this aspect of the covenant was abolished with the coming of Christ? You may disagree, but to label someone "heretic" for holding the objectivity of the covenant is like to anathematizing a person for holding an eschatology you don't agree with.
I wouldn’t worry about what should have happened and worry about what did happen and how to move forward from there.
Let’s not stay stuck on the what could have been. It didn’t happen. We are here now.
Faith as faithfulness and works as necessary for justification (although they don't earn or merit salvation) is also very Orthodox.
Brothers, thank you so much for this post! Doug Wilson is a wordsmith. Many of the types of conversations that you are mentioning that people have been in with him are like a game of coconut shells. He has given the appearance of backing off from certain positions, but he only does so until the heat dies down. He just readjusts and restates the same position in a different way. He begins the attack anew. A person doesn't just change their mind on positions this well thought out. And there is an agenda there.
If you read Hebrews 11 it defines what faith is. Faith is something given by God as a remedy to our unbelief in our fallen state. God has to "faith us." Adam didnt need faith, because he had *sight*, he had knowledge, he had a face-to-face relationship with God, he was created upright, and had every good thing that God had given him. He wasn't created cutoff, in any way. He was not a stranger or exile on the good earth.
The view that Doug is espousing implies that Adam would have to exercise some type of faith because God obviously didn't give him enough to go on to begin with. And had Adam not fallen he would have had to show thankfulness because God rescued him from the impossible situation that God placed him in to begin with. It's slander against God and denies both the Scriptures teaching that Adam was created good and that he could also be held accountable for his bold-faced, full knowledge, red handed disobedience. Before the fall, Adam's obedience and disobedience fell on his own head.
Then Doug goes on to say that "obedience is unto righteousness?" And that "election is preserved by faithfulness?" An absolute attack on the Gospel!
And you're right, it implies Christ, as the second Adam, would still have something insufficient in his nature to obey God fully. That would imply both that Adam wasn't created good and that Christ was not deity!
If he says that faith is obedience, and that we are saved through faith-obedience, then our salvation lies in something he can prescribe as he exegetes the Word for his people (and by extension all those who rely on his movement). My salvation then is dependent on Doug Wilson's teaching. He can direct me wherever his postmillennialist worldview takes him. This is not freedom, but slavery, binding the consciences of the unwary. What he is prescribing is not living by faith, but living by sight as he himself fills the horizon. This is not the one-thing of the psalmist that directs our hearts to the One who alone is to be desired, but leads to idolatry. His system leads to earthly-mindedness and pushes out heavenly-mindedness.
Faith begets obedience, and is the mark of it being a true living faith. This is the overwhelming testimony of scripture, and it's painful to see so many believers confusing the matter and fleeing from plain scriptural teaching out of fear of having your Sola Fide card revoked.
So you deny the third use of the law?
No we did a whole podcast on all three uses
I dont believe he would say you can be temporarily elect. He would say temporarily in covenant with God, that is a different thing you know. People can be churchmembers/goers and come close to Christ in his ordinances and yet not be one withHim in reality and truly united to GOd in Christ salvifically
Jesus didn't earn eternal life for being sinless, just like a sacrificial lamb doesnt earn eternal life for being spotless.
A couple of the hens in the chicken co-op Flapping their wings. My guess is he's probably thought through these matters far deeper than either one of these guys. This is how they will know that we're Jesus disciples that we love one another. Quit the slander
I don't think that Doug teaches the things that you are attributing to him. I've been listening to him for a few years now and it doesn't seem like you are representing his position accurately. Or maybe that you aren't representing it precisely. There is some nuance certainly in words like obedience and works and the fact that obedience is a fruit that bears witness to a saving faith. I don't know. It doesn't seem like it's an accurate representation based on what what I have heard from him. You all should invite him to a conversation.
Excellent video. Wilson, Piper, and MacArthur all try to import works into their definition of “faith.” Thank you for your courageous defense of the gospel of grace.
John MacArthur?
Why dont you debate him?
Because DW would clarify things right away, and the only ground they would have left to stand on would be "You are a liar and manipulator! False Teacher! What you say is not what you REALLY mean! Tune in to our future podcasts so we can teach you what DW REALLY means by what he says!"
@@jaked8537 Clarify? He'd have to at the very least admit that he is a horrible communicator. Can you imagine Wilson doing that?
It seems to me that Doug Wilson is more biblical than you think. Imposing your stark Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction on the whole Bible is eisegesis and is problematic.
This is embarrassing. You got evidence huh. If I wanted I could take Jesus out of context and defend works righteousness. If I wanted I could take your video on 1 John where you say John is aiming to unsettle those who don't care about his law. The aim, as you say, is to get the whole picture, not to take a man out of context.
Doug is merely afirming the reformed view that faith produces obedience, if Adam were to obey it would of been a produce of faith. One cannot obey without faith, that's the point.
What does this mean? “and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,”
Romans 1:4-5 ESV
This is true. Unfortunately, Wilson goes further than this: he teaches obedience as an instrument in one’s justification, contra Sola fide, contra the Reformation.
@@ExaminingMoscow If faith is the instrument of our salvation, and the Bible teaches that all genuine faith will produce good works in us, then one could logically say that the good works accompanying faith are part of the instrument of our salvation. Unless you think there is such a thing as a saving dead faith that does not produce obedience?
The problem is, people start frothing at the mouth when they hear works mentioned in any way because they imagine the person MUST be trying to sneak in some synergistic soteriology.
It seems folks like you don't have the mental clarity to understand what is being said so you convince yourself your confusion is a sign of Doug's "duplicity" rather than your lack of mental acuity.
Wow!
@@jaked8537 You’re conflating the root (faith) with the fruit (good works). That was the error the Protestant Reformation was fought over.
@@ExaminingMoscow No, you are conflating stating the fruit necessarily follows the root, with stating the fruit is a prerequisite work of man needed to receive justification / election. This is precisely the error I mentioned in my previous comment, and you are doubling down.
You imagine somehow we must not understand the most basic principle of the reformation, rather than imagining maybe you just don't understand what is being said.
Doug reminds me of TD Jakes at the Elephant Room in regard to modalism. Doug is doing the same thing with Federal Vision Works Salvation
Seriously?
This video should be about how to slander someone by sewing their words out of context and weaving it into a tapestry woven by many threads of logical fallacies. How can I put this....... by way of simple analogy ..... If you guys where hired as meat butchers, you'd be fired for leaving so much meat on the bone. 🙂
I'd suggest being more carful with your criticisms so that you're treating your subject fairly. Doug is your brother. He's theologically your older brother. If you're confused on his position then ask him to clarify. Doug Wilson is very accessible and he's written much on the issue you're bringing up, but clearly to me you've not carefully digested it.
IN SALVATION.....Faith and Obedience are not in opposition, one to or for the other. Yes we are saved by GRACE, ....through faith. This is to say that faith is the conduit of grace. Faith is also a gift that comes from God, not from ourselves.
God gives that faith so that we will receive and know His Grace. AT THAT POINT....... We Obey. Our obedience is because OF our salvation, not FOR our salvation. We don't obey God to receive salvation, We Obey because of the salvation we have ...by grace,.... through faith. This is the basic outline of what Wilson believes, and has described and articulated, albeit with some explanation. Give the man a break. He's lived and walked with God, and preached and promoted the reformed biblical understanding much longer than both of you put together. You're treating him unfairly based on your misunderstanding, not his.
As Doug demonstrated in his blog post today (12/11/23), you guys simply refuse to allow him to agree with you. You are the only problem here.
Is faith now faith to him? As I understand it, he redefines faith. He sounds good, but faith (which is actually redefined as works) alone doesn't save, faith alone does.
DW is a master manipulator
And your evidence is?
@@mrhudson8701 wait for it....wait for it....Nothing!
Agreed. He is also a “double minded man, unstable in all his ways.”
@@ExaminingMoscow Proved by the fruit of what? A faithful family which has and will continue to produce generations of warriors for God's kingdom? Claiming that moniker for him while ignoring the clear fruit of his life reeks of a lack of discernment, friend.
@@wilsonforney8206 a faithful family doesn’t prove DW is correct on his views. Mormons and Catholics and Islamic Jihadists often have faithful families and think of themselves as warriors for the kingdom. The point is not faithfulness, the point is what are they faithful to? DW’s family is not faithful to the gospel, but rather are faithful to his Federal Vision schema.
Very interesting. This really clarified many issues for me. Small changes in definitions have huge implications as you follow these issues out to their logical conclusions. One of Doug Wilson’s problems revolve around his desire to be clever and to sound revolutionary. You’ve made some excellent points. Thank you.
Doug Wilson's theology sounds "revolutionary" because of how far modern evangelicals have wandered from the Biblical mark. The fools in this video are exhibit A. The truth seems "revolutionary" when viewed from within the zeitgeist, where they (and you?) seem to be operating.
@@matthewdyer2926Thats just plain nonsense. I would go considerably further than these two go in the vid. Wilson is just a heretic and barely even within the scope of what Bible believers in the past would call Christian.
@@toddstevens9667 Again, you're operating out of the zeitgeist. How much primary source writing have you read from these "Bible believers in the past"? I have read extensively. Wilson has read far more extensively. He aligns seamlessly with the reformed confessional Christian faith. Do you? Do you know what that even looks like, or are you taking the secondary and tertiary word of effeminate youtubers like these two guys? Have you read for yourself? Start with your Bible, from cover to cover.
@@matthewdyer2926 My goodness. You certainly sound like a disciple of Doug Wilson. All those big words and condescension to those who disagree. And yes I’ve read a great deal of primary source material. And yes I’ve read my Bible cover to cover many times. And I still think Doug Wilson is a heretic. And yes I’ve even read a couple of his books. But the thing I thought was most interesting was you calling these two guys effeminate. What about this video gave you that impression? I rewatched this video and saw nothing effeminate about either of them. Was one of them wearing a dress or something? Honestly I’d never heard of these guys before, but I’ve watched most all of Doug Wilson’s videos. He’s certainly entertaining, but he seems to have gained a following far beyond his worth. But that’s just an old man’s opinion. Take it for what little it is worth. And no one has ever accused me of being part of the Zeitgeist before. That’s pretty funny. And my favorite book, outside the Bible, is Luther’s Bondage of the Will. When I’m bored I just pull it out and laugh at all his characterizations of Erasmus’s writings. Now that I think about it, you seem to be channeling a little bit of Luther’s wit and sarcasm. Anyway, have a great day.
@@matthewdyer2926 And I just thought … another of my favorite books is Knox’s The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. It’s fun too. And I divine that it might just be down your alley, as they say. Being almost old enough to remember Mary, Queen of Scots myself 🤪, it was profoundly interesting from the first time I read it. I certainly suggest it to you. I think you would like Knox’s writings.
At this point, I think it’s pretty safe to say that Doug Wilson is to Theocast what James White is to Leighton Flowers. Pure obsession
Don't forget a dash of grift, too. The more views they get, the more garbage content about him they will keep churning out.
Faithful shepherds protect sheep, and warn them. That’s what the Theocast pastors are doing.
And judging by your title, you are one of these too😂@@ExaminingMoscow
@@jaked8537 That's very true. It's addictive
@@theschrocks2405 HAha no biased at all
5:50 - it was by his one act of righteousness and his obedience at the tree that we are accounted righteous. Read Rom 5 carefully without reformed filters, my brethren! lLord bless
Ok...
While it was gracious of God to give the Law to us, the Law itself is not grace!
Per Mr. Moffitt's comment regarding words and definitions and the criticalness thereof, I could not agree more. As a longtime student (if you will) of logic, it is paramount to establish words/terms then definitions so to proceed to categorization (i.e. types, forms, genera/species), ultimately resulting to consistency, understanding therefore appropriate proposition and conclusion. In so doing, erroneousness is likely avoided if not largely mitigated while blunders exposed.
Good conversation, gentlemen, I was prior a bit unclear on the matter of federal vision... Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and Soli Deo Gloria.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
It's not complicated. The words belief and faith are synonyms and belief is the better translation of the Greek, pistis. Christians are believers and not "faith-ers" after all. And, anyone who cannot or will not use belief and faith interchangeably has already shown their hand or exposed a central weakness in their understanding of the Gospel. IMO Wilson has been able to bamboozle countless otherwise sound teachers simply because most (oddly enough seminary-trained) pastors and elders do not have a clear definition of faith as the alone instrument in justification. That's because the traditional definition has a level of ambiguity that allows men like Wilson to drive a truck through. I've seen more than one TE get turned around in knots while debating Doug on the meaning of faith and saving faith.
That's cuz calvinists think faith is a work
Thanks fellas for this helpful reminder that words matter! A lie is no good if it’s blatant or obvious, but if it’s pretty darn close to the truth, then it can catch the us discerning off guard.
5:05 “Romans 5 makes what very plain”?
Calvin never holds Federal Vision . So why can’t call Calvinist?
Holding the Federal Vision or not is not going to defines about Calvinist.
As long as you are opposed Arminian heresy , you are Calvinist, nothing is ashamed of .
Done listening to you guys🙄you sound like leighton flowers doubling down on this. You guys will do whatever it takes to get views. Nnitpicking mcarthur, now Doug Wilson…..so BIG EVA🙄wildly exaggerating his views…shame on you.
Youre all synergists. Faith is an element of sanctification. Faith doesnt save you, the Holy Spirit does, faith is the fruit. So if the branches dont bear fruit it is dead and will be cut out.
i don't think you c an build a theological argument on Hypothetical situations. We can not say " if Adam didnt ....." God foreordained Adams fall. How can we make sense of a argument based on him not falling?
“The law is NOT of faith.” Gal.3:12 this at least presents a prima facie argument against the Federal Vision and for the law gospel distinction.
Jesus earned eternal life?? This is some weird theology.
All your vids on Doug Wilson are really bad
Simple breakdown of the Instrumental Means of Justification:
Papal Rome (aka. Antichrist): Faith + Works ------> Justification. (That's Legalism, folks!).
Bible/Protestantism: Faith ALONE ------> Justification + Works.
Antinomianism: Faith ------> Justification - Works.
-----> means: "leads to," or, "results in".
John Gerstner (Professor and Mentor of R.C. Sproul, and later colleague as well) wrote it on the chalk board like this DECADES ago.
So glad for that man's breakdown; keeping it simple for us simple folk to understand.
You guys are correct to expose the errors of Doug Wilson.
Sad to see some of my Reformed Baptist brethren clinging so strenuously to him.
Justification, and the Sole Instrumental Means of it, is a serious issue; blood has literally been shed because of it!
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Jeff Durbin also teaches we have to keep old testament law.
So do all the authors of the New Testament, and Christ Himself to boot. Have you considered the distinction between the moral, civil, and ceremonial OT laws? Which ones are we continuously commanded throughout the NT to keep?
What’s wrong with keeping the OT law ? Want to demolish moral and judicial LAW too ? If you think that Then you are denying God
@@matthewdyer2926 Is that a joke? The NT, apostles, and Christ explicitly taught that the OT is fulfilled and obsolete. You can't choose what to obey and what not to obey when it comes to God's law. That is condemned in countless places in scripture.
@razzendahcuben Nope, I’m not joking, but I suspect you may be; you’re either joking, or Biblically illiterate.
“Fulfilled” and “obsolete” are not synonymous, and while Christ is the fulfillment of the law and prophets, I am baffled as to how you’ve come to believe that the fulfillment of something equates to its obsolescence. The entire covenant is fulfilled in Christ, from OT to NT; by your shoddy logic the NT would also be obsolete, since Christ fulfills that too. What exactly are you talking about?
“Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.”
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”
If you’re still confused, it may interest you to know that Christ and the Apostles quote the OT authoritatively more than 280 times in NT scripture. You should be careful Whose words you determine to be “obsolete”.
@@matthewdyer2926 Ha! I'm going to hell then. I certainly have not kept the law. I have no ability to do that.
Doug Wilson is an historian not only of the Bible, but world and American History. The man reads more books in a year than most people read in a lifetime. To defend or refute his beliefs is a difficult issue because Wilson has a vast knowledge of Biblical information that he uses to plug into History. We all should at least aspire to upgrade our level of knowledge in defense of our faith in Christ.
Well said
It doesn't take a mastermind to see a distorted gospel. Just a Christian with discernment.
Thank you for doing this topic. I was hoping for part 2 of Have We Missed The Point of 1 John though. Hopefully next week.
Doug Wilson has addressed claims such as these and been completely ignored by the likes of these gentlemen. Might be worth going and looking at DW’s response. This work here is slanderous and dishonest.
He continues to sell books and affirm FV. Not sure how that’s addressing issues
@@OldFarmCraft Wilson has affirmed and reaffirmed his adherence to Federal Vision for years. He was one of the primary architects of the theology, and has never repented of it. He also continues to sell materials that teach it through his family publishing company. He is the one being dishonest, rather than those calling him out, given that he allows his adherents to go out and claim that he has recanted of Federal Vision.
@@OldFarmCraft He claims his is basically "FV light. " People continue to believe that he rejected FV when he in fact only rejects the title yet still holds the same beliefs he always did. "Light "or not, it's still FV.
Now this is so childish 😃
Doug Wilson says that if Adam had obeyed, God would have given him what he needed. Legalism!
God gives us what we need, Christ, and then Christ obeys through us.
💥💥💥💥
Imputation of Gods righteousness in Christ, is more accurate than Christ’s personal righteousness- I would need some clear text to convince me otherwise. All of the atonement was accomplished by Christ on the cross.
When are you going to stop being cowards and interview him?
Interesting. Would you like to interview us to back up you comment?
No need to interview a heretic, and thereby give him unmerited legitimacy. There is great wisdom is not giving him a platform.
@@THEOCAST Yes, when and where can we make this happen?
@@dacandyman112 brother, are you really suggesting that no one is allowed to make public comments about public teaching unless they "interview them" first? That's not a biblical standard. Private matters should be dealt with privately, public matters should be dealt with publicly. Furthermore, even If you think that they are slandering pastor Wilson, that is no reason to be throwing around words like "coward". You obviously feel they lack charity, then you give them even less. Christians ought to conduct themselves, even in disagreement, as christians.
@@dirkwalstead7891 Christians should apply equal weights and measures. Why are you accusing Andrew of calling Theocast cowards but seem to be okay with Theocast calling Doug Wilson a heretic? If they are accusing him of such a high crime, they shouldn't be afraid of debate and you shouldn't be showing partiality
I am so glad you are doing this....I am going to jump right in to the discussion: At 6:13 I am tracking, and would like to see you develope the idea of Christ Meriting Perfectly and Completely the Work, and his application of it to a Christian is Grace Alone and a One time ACT in our Justification. That is where our good works flow from, our Free Justification and Imputed Righteousness of Christ. Union with Christ. That is why Justification is all Grace and Not called Mercy. It is a Double Exchange. Faith is an Instrument and God chose to use that to apply to us our Salvation. Douglas Wilson has stated in his Self Written Examination Form about Faith, that Faith is Imperfect. His issue is very simple...He is a legalist and hears the Gospel load and clear, but he hears it as Too Good To be True and Believed, so he adds to it, just like Roman Catholism. In short, the Federal Vision is nothing different than Roman Catholism but without Pergatory. Judiasm is always going to be alive and kicking in a gospel preaching and teaching church. That is what Paul Says. Do you have the his written Examination answers? ,Here is a Link dougwils.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Douglas-Wilson-Federal-Vision-Controversy-ExamAnswers.pdf