Is DOUG WILSON a FALSE TEACHER? | Theocast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- In this episode, Is Doug Wilson a False Teacher, Jon Moffitt walks through years of quotes from Doug Wilson from the Federal Vision Statement, Wilson's book on "Reformed is not enough," and several interviews and blog posts. The main argument Jon makes about Doug Wilson's theology is that he redefines faith and justification by adding works into the definitions, which is a denial of the gospel. PLEASE WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO before commenting. There is a lot of material covered over 20 years of Doug Wilson's writings.
LINK TO NOTES: theocast.org/i...
SUPPORT Theocast:
theocast.org/g...
FACEBOOK:
Theocast: / theocast.org
TWITTER:
Theocast: / theocast_org
Jon Moffitt: / jonmoffitt
Justin Perdue: / justin_perdue
INSTAGRAM:
Theocast: http: / theocast_org
RELATED VIDEOS & RESOURCES
heidelblog.net...
heidelblog.net...
nocompromisera...
Theocast episodes:
(Coming Wednesday) Review of Wilson's theology by Jon and Justin
theocast.org/s...
theocast.org/d...
theocast.org/f...
Miss quotes, and inaccurate information are enough to get you canceled! Learn your facts before you go public. Doug Wilson is most definitely not a fake or false teacher!
I was a theocast subscriber until I heard their repeated criticisms of Doug Wilson, a man who I have come to respect through his writings. They have helped me immensely. Is he perfect no. Is he heretical? No. Is he a wolf? No. So I have unfortunately removed my support and listening to theocast.
ua-cam.com/video/VoBlMzd25GM/v-deo.html
The members of the Westminster Assembly included an entire chapter on the subject of good works. In that chapter, they wrote, “Good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life” (Westminster Confession of Faith 16.2)
Have you really watched the 2019 James White/Doug Wilson discussion? They clear a lot of this stuff up. I do not find DW confusing at all. Seems like Theocast has a confirmation bias concerning all things Wilson.
If he watched it, it appears he wasn’t paying attention .
Totally
He says Doug doesn't mean the obvious meaning of his words delivered in the context of clarifying these very issues because Doug uses different definitions, then proceeds to call him a heretic for quoting Scripture. Also, poor James couldn't seem to figure out that Doug is a proponent of the Catholic heresy of faith plus works. If only there had been someone present who is more familiar with Catholic heresy, more willing to call out works salvation heresy, and more willing to be critical of Doug's theology.
An absolutely amazing broadcast!!
💯
Hi Jon. I listened to your broadcast here and found it very interesting. I’m not a huge fan of Doug Wilson and see some problematic things as well. I wanted though to direct my concern toward you in three different areas: 1. When you are quoting the notitia, assensus, fiducia breakdown make certain you understand it more fully AND to define each step from the Word of God. 2. You never once opened a Bible, quoted then from Scripture and defined your concerns with Doug solely from God’s Word. Your opinion means little. 3. This video lacked theological, doctrinal and biblical precision to declare Doug a heretic. As a pastor you know better for you have a higher duty not just to bloviate, but to specifically demonstrate your charges from God’s Word and then reveal where Doug continues in rejecting the biblical standard refusing to repent. I’m praying for you… Pastor Steve Camp (2 Cor 4:5) PS: have you reached out to Doug? Thx.
Amen! Well said! Jon is in fact in direct violation of 2 Timothy 3:16
Who is bloviating? We all know the verses laying out the elementary principles of the gospel. Are you telling me Jon has to quote Eph. 2:8-9 et al, which probably everyone here has memorized, before his critique of DW becomes credible? (That's a rhetorical question...)
The FV is barely distinguishable from the Papist fables that inspired it; DW admits that he agrees with FV even if he doesn't that use term anymore. He has plenty of nods to core FV tenets (e.g., subtly redefining faith). No need to overthink it.
DW *might* actually believe sola fide, but for the sake of protecting the church, we have to recognize that he has tampered with it, even if only in some kind of provocateur marketing effort for his brand (undeniably his shtick).
You should be able to recognize principles of scripture without hearing the verses directly quoted. I can have a discussion with you about WW2 without once citing some historical textbook or historical work.
@@corbinbrosneck790 exactly. Biblicism is rather rampant still.
Seriously? You're asking for bible verses that teach justification by faith alone. Even these terms are euphemism. Do you want bible verses that teach the Gospel?
True belief is what what true obedience actually means. If you really believe, you will obey. Romans 2:6-8 speaks of those who do not “obey the truth.” How do you “obey the truth”? You believe it and submit to it. This is faith. And that faith will then lead you to obey it in action as well.
Doug Wilson is our brother in Christ
Yes, but I would that he would treat Baptists as his brothers in Christ. But they are his favorite whipping boys.
@@recalltolife3478 I'm sure James White would have a word or two to say about that.
I encourage everyone to listen to Doug Wilson for themselves. He is reformed and biblical, ascribing to the 5 solas, e.g., justification by faith alone. I do not understand why this video even exists.
Protestants since Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the Wittenberg Church door have been striving after theological purity ever since. The Catholics warned this would happen. I heard years ago that AW Pink dove so deep in this direction that he eventually believed he was the only Christian left on earth! I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. I recently listened to Shia LaBouf's conversion story in his interview with Bishop Barron, and it's incredible. As shocking as this would be to many Evangelical Christians, God even works through the Catholic Church! Your typical Evangelical would never have reached him. Anyway, I'm with you on this.
@@mikedvirgilio1960 I do believe God works through the Catholic Church. I’m also skeptical of Shia LaBouf’s conversion… Then again, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach him a great gospel to receive.
8:43 [quoting Wilson] "The Lord is the author of eternal salvation for all who obey him."
"That is not true. We do not gain salvation by our obedience."
Where does Wilson say we gain our salvation by obedience? All his statement does is identify the receivers of salvation with those who are obedient. And it is the long-held view, per Romans 6, that those who are justified, are sanctified.
So I don't think we have to read this in a way that leaves Wilson saying we gain salvation by obedience.
You are reading it backwards. Doug is saying eternal salvation is from the Lord. It is not work. Who is it that has been granted eternal salvation? Those who obey him.
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Heb 5:9
@Carl Jethro None, just repentance. Just ask Doug Wilson, that's what he'd tell you. Or listen to Jon Moffitt read whatever he wants into Doug's own words and get a completely different answer than anything Doug Wilson intended......notice how Jon couldn't nab a video of Wilson saying any of these things, the man is a preacher, just grab one of those videos where he is teaching whatever Jon is selling us that he supposedly is teaching. No, Jon he has to read excerpts out of context to tell you what Doug means, don't let Doug tell you what Doug means......that's dangerous......what a joke this charade was/is, oh well, hope he got the clicks he wanted, was Doug on his hit list before NBC ran a piece on him? Or is this even more opportunistic than I had previously thought?
Jesus commanded all people to believe in Him and therefore be saved. When we believe in Him, we obey :)
Yeah still unpacking the other quotes but I also felt the same way on this quote.
You might disagree with Wilson on some issues, but to declare him a heretic is silly. You would have to declare that the apostolic fathers, Aquinas, all the medieval scholastics, many Anglicans, John Piper, etc. are all heretics.
Aquinas is a heretic wdym…..
"I'd go back to what you just said you're saved by faith alone but not by faith which remains alone ,I think, it's uh, as a pastor I think I've been able to clarify this for people when I say you're really saved by faith not by how sanctified you are but if you're not getting sanctified then you don't have saving faith"
-Timothy Keller
ua-cam.com/video/QecyvLgSuN8/v-deo.html
Here’s an idea: invite Doug Wilson to an interview, officially accuse him of heresy to his face, allow him to directly respond to your accusations, learn what Doug Wilson actually believes.
It would go like this:
them: what do you believe?
Doug: *what he believes*
them: you're lying
Doug: *chuckles Reformedly* suit yourself
Correction: these are not accusations, this is documentation, based on Wilson’s on words and teaching of many years.
@@ExaminingMoscow no need for a “correction.” My comment was a suggestion of a course of action that should be taken by brothers in charity. Reading comprehension is an important skill that keeps us out of pitfalls when discussing things. Given the name you’ve chosen on UA-cam, I’m concerned you you may have a bias that keeps you from engaging in good faith.
@@michaelsterling2650 I’m engaging as we all are: with public content that has had a wide influence. I am not prepared to accept your suggestion that this is an in-house discussion between brothers. It is not. Federal Vision has been marked out as outside of orthodoxy by multiple seminaries and denominations. Yes, reading comprehension is an important skill that keeps us out of pitfalls when discussing things. That’s why our group is careful. That’s why the Theocast guys are careful. Precision matters when it comes to how we understand justification.
@@ExaminingMoscow I’d simply point you to Matthew 18:15-18. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile or tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Have you or Theocast personally even taken the first step commanded by Jesus? This is, in fact, first and foremost a conversation between brothers as commanded by our Lord.
I believe it would be beneficial for you to have a personal conversation with Doug Wilson, either in person or via Zoom. It would be great to feature him on your UA-cam channel.
It's you who have a false understanding of faith.
You have withered faith down to mere intellectual assent.
Faith produces fruit/obedience.
Luther said "we are saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone".
If Abraham never offered up Isaac, this would have shown that he didn't believe God. The offering of Isaac was the fruit/obedience of his faith.
Tried to look at your notes for the context of your quotes and found only partial quotes there as well with no links for the actual document. Then I read the Doug Wilson arrival and found this quote’
This statement represents a change in what I will call what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe. I was, am, and will remain a Westminster Puritan within an irenic river of historic Reformed orthodoxy. I am making this lexical shift for the sake of clarity and communication-defining more precisely what was already there. Good fences make good neighbors, and so do good nouns and adjectives.
You seriously misrepresented the context of that quote. He said he is not shifting from orthodox Christian belief because that is what he always was. Having an issue with someone else’s theological position is fine, but I will say I see more of a desire to be open to criticism and to discuss things and study to know the truth from Doug Wilson then I have seen from his critics. He is not a perfect man. I do disagree with him on a few things but if we are looking for truth we should not misrepresent anyone’s position.
Exactly. He gets smeared for everything anyone else says about FV, then he says he's tired of explaining how his FV is different so he's giving up the label (ie. distancing himself from those other FV folks), then his critics say "aha, he's just trying to trick you by giving up the label but keeping everything connected to it." If your explanation is that Doug is afraid of controversy, I'm sorry, you got it really really wrong.
@@stephenbrown9949 Doug Wilson was a primary architect of the Federal Vision movement: he participated in the conference that launched the controversy in 2002, he wrote the Joint Federal Vision Profession in 2007, he reaffirmed his adherence to the tenets of the Federal Vision schema in 2017, and he continues to sell materials that teach Federal Vision as of today, 2022. He is hardly being implicated in a guilt by association formula. He’s in it up to his neck.
Charity, that's the whole point though. FVs have been saying all along they are orthodox and that they are more consistent with Calvin, the WCF, etc. than modern Presbyterians. That's the very thing others in the reformed world have called into question.
@@greg7384 Please forgive me but I don’t quite understand your position. Do they hold historic Christian doctrine or not? And if not what doctrine do they hold that is incorrect? I read the federal vision statement the only contentious thing I could find was pedocommunion. Is there something else I missed? I looked into Johns accusations and he was mischaracterized and even lied about Pastor Dougs position. Seriously confused as to why this is such a controversy.
This guy is overthinking semantics. Douglas is not a false teacher. If anything Doug loves nerdy, fancy wordplay. But he's twisting some of Doug's wordplay to mean something that Doug isn't implying. Like when he quote's Doug saying "God is the author of eternal salvation for all who obey Him". He then says that is not true. Of course it isn't if you twist it how you're twisting it. Doug isn't saying that obedience yields salvation. Duh
Multiple denominations, seminaries, and elders who have carefully studied Doug Wilson’s Federal Vision theology for 20+ years have arrived at a different conclusion. Federal Vision is works righteous heresy that turns believers away from their rest in Christ, and points them toward their own “works” of obedience, faithfulness, etc. to give them assurance of heaven. This is what the Roman Catholics did (and do). This error is the error over which the Protestant Reformation was fought.
@@ExaminingMoscow ua-cam.com/video/0FeNuI1p0-c/v-deo.html
@@ExaminingMoscow
And multiple denominations, seminaries, elders, and other men that God has given as gifts to the church agree with Doug Wilson.
ua-cam.com/video/VoBlMzd25GM/v-deo.html
Wilson is the most misrepresented theologian. Actually play a clip of him discussing what he believes on justification. He doesn’t redefine faith and justification.
As someone who moved to Moscow and has been learning a lot from Doug Wilson and the church, I can say he preaches this: repentance of sin and a living faith in Christ is the only thing that saves man.
Then why does he continue to print books that speak otherwise? Not saying you are wrong, just confused why he would hold to another view in his writings?
@@THEOCAST Jon (?), where does he hold to another view? None of your quotes show he denies forensic justification by faith alone or the necessity of the new birth in evangelical faith. At worst, there’s a question of whether he sounds like the Calvin quote I posted above from your direct quotes, and there’s the question of you of how you deal with biblical language on the word for justification and it’s semantic range. I’ve given a pretty extensive reply to you as someone else who’s moved to Moscow, and is in the seminary up here.
No, the only thing that saves a man is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for all His people. Saving faith and repentance are gracious gifts bestowed on all those redeemed by His precious blood.
I do believe D Wilson teaches one can lose justification if one is not obedient enough ? - if this is true, he is a false teacher. I also believe he teaches that water baptism justifies, which is utter blasphemy. He also regards Papists as possibly Christian's based on being their baptism ????
@@grahamneville9002 do the scriptures say that baptism saves you, in any way? And where does Doug say it forensically justifies you?
@@grahamneville9002 where does Doug say you can lose the merit imputed to you by faith alone? That’s distinct from being able to apostasize- that’s a pretty historic reformed covenantal understanding of what we call evangelical faith.
Justification by Faith Alone and Future Justification / Ask Doug (ua-cam.com/video/u5XPu8_gqj4/v-deo.html)
Doug Wilson:
"On the last day, in a sense of vindication of the reality of this person's profession of faith in Christ, it is best to say that faith justifies you, your works justify your faith, and your works justify your faith at the end of history, manifesting that it was, in fact, true faith. So, it's declarative and evidentiary. God does not, even on the last day, say, "Oh, look at that good work you did; I think I'll let you into heaven." There's none of that, ever."
"it is by grace through faith from beginning to end, plus nothing. That's what the Bible teaches, and that's what I hope."
I don't know if I agree with Doug Wilson or not on all of these things, but this guy here - every time he quotes something from Doug Wilson - changes the meaning of the quote to something different from the obvious interpretation of the quote. He's putting meaning in Doug's words which doesn't appear to be there.
There are some people who hate others so much, that it doesn't matter what those other people say, they can make it sound bad. That's what I see here, and in a lot of the other articles and statements that are presented against Doug Wilson. If I read the statements this guy is presenting, without having had his interpretation, I'm pretty sure this guy's interpretation would not come to my mind. He's reading things into what Doug is saying.
Again, I can't defend Doug because I don't know everything about him, but I certainly don't trust this guy.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
The author of Hebrews must be a false teacher too 😮😂
100 thumbs up!!!!!!!!!!
John the Baptist too...
[John 3:36 ESV] Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Your comments about Doug Wilson, and how you've come to despise him, is unchristian. We should strive for humility as no one-nor Wilson, or you-have exclusive insights as to what these things really mean. We should be reminded that we are looking-as Paul wrote-through a glass, darkly. Do not be so arrogant. Adding "good works", as you see it, cannot in any way be a denial or a redefinition of what faith is. As James, sees it, "faith without work, is dead". Now you can struggle with those words of James 'til the cows come home, but such assertion is clear. We do not need to muddy it up with our arrogance and self-piety.
Show me your trust in God apart from some sort of action. I don't think you can. This is why James said show me your faith apart from works and I'll show you mine with works. Faith apart from works is dead. Why are you arguing against the Bible?
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Hebrews 5:9
You smash on DW for using this line @ 9:25? It's literally a quote from scripture.
No but (evidently) YOU are. Give me one Godly reason (justification) to take such potshots at Wilson. Ftr, I've read him for over 20 years and his points seem to go way over your bow. He doesn't "add" and he doesn't "redefine."
You also need to be careful to recognize that within historic Protestant Ordo Salutis, Justification is distinct from "Salvation", salvation is the entire process which ends in Glorification and the Beatific Vision (and obviously includes cooperative Sanctification)... Justification is the forensic element within salvation which guarantees the conclusion of our salvation if we should persevere (and prove ourselves Elect).
Part of the issue is Doug is using more precise language and this can confuse modern Protestant Christians who aren't familiar with Scholastic Ordo schemas.
With the strong claims being made about Doug, you should have him on and talk about it. I think it could be fruitful if both sides go in giving each other the benefit of the doubt
THIS
Yes
Yeah I thought there was a biblical principle of going to your brother or something like that.
If that is the standard, then DW should interview everyone on his podcast that he calls out. Why the double standard?
@@THEOCAST actually, he often does avoid public beef unless he’s privately approached.
The issue here is the kind of claim you’re making. It’s not the same as claiming someone who denies the Trinity explicitly is in clear biblical error. You’re claiming he denies forensic justification by faith alone, and the necessity of the new birth, and that he conflates faith with works. And your quotes don’t show that clearly.
Rom 2:13: "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the DOERS of the law who will be JUSTIFIED."... Paul should be a heretic too...Mt12:37"for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”". The Lord also clearly teaches that at the last day we will also be justified by our deeds. Certanly this justification is not in isolation but depends on the justification brought by Christ(all our deeds are genereated by the Lord himself)
First time I’ve come across this podcast, and I’m not a fan. If you have such concerns regarding Doug’s theology why not reach out to him first? Why do this at a time when non Christians are coming after him so ferociously? I’m hoping you’ll reach out to Doug and apologize and ask for his thoughts on the matter. Until then, you don’t get my trust or support.
I stand with Doug!
How did he misquote hebrews 5:9?That’s literally what it says.
Seriously.
That’s the second time I’ve seen someone rebuke Wilson by quoting Wilson only to have it revealed that he was quoting scripture. The disagreement would seem to be an accidental disagreement with scripture and a failure of discernment to realize Wilson was quoting God’s own words.
When you want someone to be a heretic this much, you can find heresy in the Bible's own words.
Can you give a time stamp?
Jon, was disappointed by what you said here. As someone at his seminary, again, this is dismal.
Saying that DW redefines imputation, that federal vision is bad, and that the proof isn't specific quotes from Doug that expressly deny forensic justification by faith alone, and deny the necessity of the new birth, is a key issue in what you've done here. As much research as you've done, you've basically used ammo based not on "perfectly and accurately representing sola fide", but by quotes that don't support your point.
Let's take point 1 at 7:53. Your quote of Doug here actually explicitly has him saying that works are only good in the NT when preceded by "good". Biblically, is he wrong? Do any reformers (like Calvin? Luther? or even older theologians like Augustine?) talk about the necessity of obedience in the Christian life? "We are called to do good works but we are not saved by works" sounds orthodox. You go on to quote John 17- but that doesn't actually contradict what Doug said- it only does, if you presuppose that what Jesus is saying there about fulfillment is somehow contradictory to Romans 8:4. "He goes on to explain how the award of salvation is to those who obey him". This is ridiculous. If the article previously defined the only kind of obedience that pleases God as the obedience of faith, namely, a living faith that really works itself out in love, then how is it a denial of sola fide to say this? THat's like saying James denies sola fide, simply because you can find a quote of him explicitly denying justification by faith alone, in one sense.
If you agree that the new birth precedes obedience, then the question is, where, in all your research, is the clear denial of that exact premise? If you agree Doug agrees with the necessity of imputation of Christ's active obedience and passive obedience, and your only proof for his denial is an implication worked out of your disagreement on his framing of Adam's obedience, where is your working out of why that messes with imputation?
Let's talk about the second point: DW intertwines faith and faithfulness. Your understanding of faith alone, divorced from faithfulness- is actually ridiculous. Do you feel the same about Calvin?
Another point: Denying the Law-Gospel distinction via the Federal Vision statement - DW signed the statement, but again, you're missing explicit statements that clearly identify DW with denying the new birth, or, the uniqueness of forensic justification being by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from your works. You can sign a statement and find the Law-Gospel distinction at its most extreme not a helpful hermeneutic, and think that other uses of the Law, along with a more continuous hermeneutic that sees grace in the Law, is part of a whole Bible interpretation, and be a Calvinist in good standing.
Jon, I listened, and this wasn't convincing. I think you're eager to defend the church against heresy, and I also think you're allergic to obedience language that's clearly in Scripture weaving faith and faithfulness together in biblical theological categories. DW's willing to parse those apart- but it seems wherever the biblical language puts faith and faithfulness together, you presuppose there's no possible way to read those together. I'm happy to do a deep dive into your article over the next few weeks, and uncover why your quotes would contradict various reformers, and if I dig into the DW quotes, I think I can show why DW often explicitly contradicts in the same sources you quotes the interpretations you draw. If you want to give me more precise citations than your article than merely the book (chapter, page number or Kindle location) resources on your DW quotes, and on the lack of diversity in constructing the covenant of works/life and articulations of it, I can try and dig and find those.
I think it'd help, if you're confident that a reconstruction of the covenant of works as a covenant reliant on God's grace manifest in faith-works in Adam, means a denial of imputation, that you actually trace out your logic. It's not apparent to me at all why that's the case. If we're imputing Adam's faithlessness to humanity, how does that deny the necessity of imputing Christ's faithfulness and imparting it into the nature of the newly born who are united to him by faith alone?
But, I also don't want to waste your time or mine. Let me know here or elsewhere what you'd like to do.
Why not have him on and actually talk about it? Instead of denying him a chance to be on your platform because you perceive him to be a false teacher, why not clear the air and put your ideas to the test of an actual debate with the person you're accusing publicly?
“Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which is the only medium of our reconciliation to God. But this [justification] you cannot attain, without at the same time attaining to sanctification…. Christ therefore justifies no one whom he does not also sanctify. For these benefits are perpetually and indissolubly connected, so that whom he illuminates with his wisdom, them he redeems; whom he redeems, he justifies; whom he justifies, he sanctifies…. Since, then, the Lord affords us the enjoyment of these blessings only in the bestowment of himself, he gives them [justification and sanctification] both together, and never one without the other. Thus we see how true it is that we are justified, not without works, yet not by works; since union with Christ, by which we are justified, contains sanctification as well as righteousness.”
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
trans. John Allen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), III: xvi, 1.
JC sounding mighty FV here...the fact that you can't "be justified without works, yet not by works" seems a little sketch by the logic you employed above in attacking DW.
Genesis 3, Calvin’s commentary: “…after had declined from faith and from obedience to the word, she corrupted both her selves and her senses, and depravity was diffused through all parts of her soul as well as her body.” P151, chapter 3, Genesis commentary on Eve’s fall. Apparently Calvin thought she had faith under the covenant of works, and she fell via a corruption of her faith.
I wonder if we’ll find a similar statement on Adam having had faith before…
@@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS If you can be charitable to Calvin, then you should do so with Doug. Equal measures. Where does Doug mash them together?
@@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS Does Calvin?
He really did sink himself when he answered “yes” to the cause-or-fruit question.
This channel is evidence that a Sure SM7b and a nice background doesn’t guarantee that you will get quality content.
I get how the law is bad news for the unregenerate. As a believer the law should be good news. Why else would you delight in it?
The law sends me to the cross. The law cannot save; it can only condemn. The law reminds me of my desperate need for Christ, who fulfilled the law, because I could not.
@@TheMaineSurveyor That's a very shortsighted view of the law. Yes, it cannot save, and it wasn't meant to save. However, antinomians always seem to conveniently left out the parts where the Bible shows that the law defines what is moral and what is immoral.
It’s true that law is bad news only because it condemns us, but we have to be very careful with our terminology. Seems confusing to start calling the law “good news” unless you are going to do some good explaining right after that. Wouldn’t want to confuse people and make them think that your definition of the good news of the gospel is the same as the law.
*edit for grammar
Threefold purpose of the law: 1) as a mirror to reflect God's perfect righteousness & our sinfulness leading us to repentance, 2) to restrain evil & enforce justice, 3) to reveal what is pleasing to God, thereby allowing us to give Him honor & glory
The bible over and over makes statements akin to what you are condemning.
My favorite part is when Wilson quotes Paul in Acts 5:32, and Moffitt says this is the definition of heresy.
That's what an unbalanced reading of scripture does to you.
Good thing Wilson didn't quote anything from Philippians.
Can you give a timestamp?
Acts 5:32 and 6:7 go hand-in-hand here. What Wilson is interpreting 5:32 to mean is the gift of the Holy Spirit is a reward for obedience to the law. The true meaning of both 5:32 and 6:7 is obedience to God’s call and trusting in God’s Son. The Holy Spirit is sent to believers obedient to the call and to faith. Anything further is works on our part as an act of obedience in order to be given the Holy Spirit. Not trying to split hairs, but it was Peter and the Apostles answering. Paul was still Saul at this point and holds the cloaks of those stoning Stephen in the next Chapter.
@@eprodigy73 He simply does not teach that the holy spirit is a reward for obeying the law - no where have I ever heard him claim that. Send the evidence my way and I'd be happy to check it out. That IS what Moffitt is claiming (but let's not confuse Moffitt's accusations with Wilson's actual teaching or beliefs).In the very passage quoted - Wilson is defending the use of the word "obedience" as being used in reference to "faith". Which in fact, you just proved by appealing to 6:7. The biblical authors often refer to saving faith as "obedience to truth" or "obedient to the faith". There are only two possible ways to interpret that usage and maintain justification by faith alone... Either it simply is a phrase to refer to faith itself in the gospel. Or it's referring to the inevitable fruit that faith produces by the Spirit while identifying the cause -faith, by noticing its fruit - obedience. (which would be more in line with James' way of identifying the species of true saving faith against its pretenders). What Moffitt is doing is saying you can't ever use the word "obedience" to refer to faith, but your point above clearly shows that 6:7 actually does this.
Either 5:3 is reiterating something similar to the James notion that true saving faith will produce works (as a fruit by the Spirit). Ie. The phrase "the Spirit is given to those who obey" is not indicating reward or even result, but rather is indicating inseparable relationship between the Spirit's presence and obedience. That would look like: "the Spirit being given is clearly demonstrated in the obedience of those to whom it is given"
OR another possible option for 5:3 is an instance of a biblical author being comfortable with using the word "*obedience* to the faith" as a term synonymous with faith itself (perhaps this is the case with Rom 1:5, 16:26 and 1 Peter 1:22 also). The latter option is risky because of all the criticism you might get from "discernment bloggers" and youtube videos for using "obedience" at all in reference to faith. My point being, your point above is more consistent with what Wilson has been saying than with what Moffitt is saying (the fact that you described faith as *obedience to the call to believe* is probably setting off Moffitt's heretic alarm bells, but you are right that it's biblical language... It's also what Wilson is claiming in the quote Moffitt goes after.
Agree with you.... I am just studying Christian reconstructionism, and I am surprising that this movement seems doesn't separate well from FV, and Douglas Wilson. And i was surprising last week that Rushdoony deny also the covenant of works, this sound so bad. Thank you for sharing your Knowledge.
A lot of conjecture about what someone else means. This is why I am afraid to talk to and in front of someone like this. I know I will say something Theological incorrect and it will be considered heretical.
Misspeaking is not the same as 20 years of sermons and books that teach false doctrine. Not a mistake, he refuses to repent.
@@THEOCAST I will pray about this. I'm in the Asheville area and new to NC. Finding a church has been hard, but you aren't the only one out here pointing out everyone's "bad" teachings. It seems it is endless on UA-cam of pastors pointing out faults in other pastors. I thought the basics of Unity, Love and Humility was the focus. So many "opinions" these days. Makes me want to stay at home and read my Bible and let the Holy Spirit guide me. It's almost impossible to discern who is telling the truth anymore, what the motives are and who is right and who is wrong. Too many interpretations of what the gospel message means, what election means, what TULIP means for a believer and what Free Will doesn't mean, post mil, pre mil, amil...It just goes on and on. But hey, maybe he will repent and make you feel better.
I am going to assume that this video has connection to Doug's recent comments in an MSNBC interview which has caused many people to get all kerfuffled and paint him as someone who needs to be taken down. Like an act of defending the church and saying "no, we don't believe all that, he is a heretic".
I had a feeling this whole video was going to a drawn out hit-piece from the beginning.
Yep. Doug has laid out a much needed counter to the rampant antinomianism in the church today, and people refuse to actually read what he is saying. What's funny is that a lot of them are clueless that his views on this far more align with historic reformed theology than the hyper-modern version of Protestant soteriology. Modern 'reformed' are far closer to Lutheran in their understanding of law and gospel than they are classically reformed.
you called Doug a false teacher based on him "redefining faith" and then you quote him QUOTING SCRIPTURE when faith was not even the point of what he was talking about.
Good morning. I'm not an apologist for Wilson, but one of your comments did strike me as a bit odd, "...believers do not take joy in the law..." I believe you were trying to demonstrate this as a specific heresy towards Wilson? My question, then, is what does the believer do with some of the Psalms of David? David mentions his joy and love for the law repeatedly, and had no knowledge of Christ as redeemer. Psalm 119 is a great example of this. Is it possible the faithful can find joy in God's law, while at the same time acknowledging their own personal shortcomings to His perfect standards?
Maybe you should confront this man in private rather than defaming his character publicly like a cowardly pagan
I’m sorry you feel this way. I guess you should have confronted Jon in private before this comment? And calling names? What would be the difference?
@@THEOCAST I wasn't intending to say anything degrading of Jon's general character here. My point was simply that the action in particular was a cowardly/unbiblical way to go about addressing a point of disagreement with a fellow brother in Christ. I don't know Jon personally to be able to confront him privately nor do i know him to an extent that would allow me to make a full assessment of his character, in fact I see no reason to see him as anything other than a brother. I hope you see that my comment was referring to the action itself and not a generalization of Jon as an individual.
@@matthewball8060 Doug and Cohorts defame Baptists and their transgender causing theology and nobody tells them to confront in private. In fact, I don't know what Doug and the lads would do for vlog content if there weren't any Baptists to bash.
*sigh*… as someone who has devoured Wilson’s content and has actually read Reformed Is Not Enough - twice; I can officially add this video to the garbage heap of “Wilson Screechers”. This is a pathetically lop sided and sound bite approach to Wilson’s content. It is imperative to this video that you strategically start and stop reading Wilson’s words where you do. And as far as the obedient faith thing, go ahead and throw out Paul who explicitly refers to faith as “obedience” multiple times (Romans 1:5 for one example) as well as reformed figures such as John Calvin, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, A.A. Hodge, and the WCF…
Man… there was A LOT wrong in this video, but the rebutting of “the covenant of life” comments is just silly. Adam and Eve sinned quite literally because they didn’t believe God. They questioned His Word about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and they instead trusted Satan. No, they weren’t believing God for forgiveness of sins (obviously they hadn’t sinned yet), but they were still dependent on the grace of His Word, and they were required to believe and trust in it. Sounds like faith to me.
“Sounds like faith to me”
Paul disagrees with you.
Galatians 3:12
Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
@@reformationtoys I would agree that their sin was eating the fruit which broke the only given law of God. However, if they would have resisted Satan, they would have done so by believing and trusting in the given Word of God. If that’s NOT faith, idk what it is.
Obedience and Faith are not the same thing. If they were and you told your son to do something and he obeyed you you would call it Faith.(my son has such faith in me, so when I tell him to clean his room he does.) To say, if you have faith that necessarily will produce obedience is not to say that if you have obedience it is necessarily an outflowing of faith. Unbelievers obey different aspects of God's law everyday that doesn't mean that they have faith or believe in God.
Just on the historical point of WCF, Covenant of Works was made with Adam. Or do you agree with Meredith Kline's Covenant of Grace before the fall?
@@GSS1314 is Meredith Kline a heretic? What's being claimed is that Wilson is a heretic. That's a very serious charge. I would reject that Wilson is actually denying the covenant of works. He merely uses the other word that the WCF uses for the covenant of works which is the covenant of life.
You're way off describing Wilson as a heretic.
You sure? FV is heretical. Wilson endorses it and his denomination sanctions it. Here is what makes FV problematic as stated by the OPC report of justification.
Pitting Scripture and Confession against each other.
Regarding the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic.
A mono-covenantalism that sees one covenant, originating in the intra-Trinitarian fellowship, into which man is invited, thus flattening the concept of covenant and denying the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
Election as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant.
Seeing covenant as only conditional.
A denial of the covenant of works and of the fact that Adam was in a relationship with God that was legal as well as filial.
A denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works.
A denial that the law given in Eden is the same as that more fully published at Mt. Sinai and that it requires perfect obedience.
Viewing righteousness as relational, not moral.
A failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ's.
A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification.
Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins.
The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion.
Including works (by use of "faithfulness," "obedience," etc.) in the very definition of faith.
Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace.
Teaching baptismal regeneration.
Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church.
An overly objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and that tends toward an ex opere operato [automatically effective] view of the sacraments.
Teaching paedocommunion.
Ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.
I bet if you asked to interview Doug Wilson he would gladly be interviewed. Have you tried?
We did interview him! His public writings he’s still selling and has published. If he rejects these writings, we will change our statement.
@@THEOCAST where is the link to this interview?
We took his writings and reviewed them. That was the point. He has so much info we have plenty to work with. 20 years
@@THEOCAST with all due respect, reviewing his writings is not the same thing as interviewing him. A conversation with him I am sure would be welcomed and be beneficial for all. Please reach out to him. Heresy is a serious charge.
@@THEOCAST
I asked if you interviewed him because unfortunately it’s clear you did not. You read everything he wrote over the last 20 years or just the things that seem to condemn his teaching? Just things on FV? If we approached condemning people as false teachers like this, all of us would be condemned. I could do that to a lot of brothers by cherry picking things and building a case that way. One needs to look at a persons entire body of work to make an assessment. Have you watched his interview with James White on all of this? He has hours and hours of content online addressing these topics.
I truly think you want to honor God…I’m assuming that’s why you made this video. With that, I think the God honoring thing to do is to interview the man and give him a chance to answer you directly. He’s addressed all of these concerns (numerous times). It would be a shame for you to stand before the living God having slandered your brother in Christ publicly before thousands, without even giving him the opportunity to have a conversation.
Videos like these misrepresent the man…which is probably why you tried to preface the video with saying you’re not trying to misrepresent him. But you are, sadly. For every accusation of “false teaching” there is a very clear explanation that is within orthodoxy.
Brother, I strongly encourage you to reach out and ask for an interview. We live in an era where we have the technology available to speak directly to people, so you are without excuse. If you have enough people telling you you’re misrepresenting him, you should take that seriously.
Have you asked him to come on your show?
We've read almost all of Doug's books and have listened to so many of his podcasts and talks and sermons. We have never come across anything slightly questionable.
Did you read the provided quotes? If you do not believe these are unbiblical, you are not following orthodox Christianity but the wisdom of man. The concern is not what he says that is true, but what he teaches that rejects the gospel.
@@THEOCAST you don't suppose that any quotes devoid of context make little sense? By their fruits you will know them. Was Jesus telling us how to choose a grocery store? There are implications to our salvation and those are not heresies.
@@THEOCAST too many in the reformed world today have slid into one ditch while trying to avoid another. Brother, we don’t have to choose Paul over James. It honestly seems like you have difficulty seeing how they exist in harmony.
I think Doug's position seems to be more scriptural and balanced between Paul and James. Take a closer look at James and your comments about James and justification are completely opposed to what the passage actually says
*Wilson quotes Hebrews 5:9*
"HERESY!"
Spot on and amen . . . on every count. Wilson is a completely unrepentant heretic. You nailed his conflating of faith and works. What's frightening is how many fail to see this.
For someone on the fringe of, well, everything, to critique someone of Dougs track record, reveals a lack of english comprehension on your part. This is assuming all the best about you. Don't confuse a resistance to the proposition of holding your hand as he walks you through his non-facile nomenclature with a refusal to disabuse you (had he the time or inclination) of your insistence that he make friendly with your partic ular nomenclature. Something about oaktrees and twigs comes to mind.
Doug posted this after Jon's video dropped so he couldn't have interacted with it. But here is his plain statement on justification...
"Justification is a forensic act 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 punctiliar 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 punctiliar, 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 punctiliar, 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, cancelled, or abrogated, although a justified man may, on account of his sins, 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."
dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/dont-waste-your-fifteen-minutes.html
But you know, Doug is a heretic and should be completely avoided by all Christians...
“And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” -Hebrews 5:9.
Calling a direct quote from scripture heresy. This proves that your systematic speaks louder than you let scripture speak. I worry you would have said the same to Peter “baptism now saves, and James “not saved by faith alone.” Doug is simply letting the scriptures speak.
Jon Motiff did not exegete the passage.
He did not post what Doug Wilson also said:
Justification by Faith Alone and Future Justification / Ask Doug (ua-cam.com/video/u5XPu8_gqj4/v-deo.html)
Doug Wilson:
"On the last day, in a sense of vindication of the reality of this person's profession of faith in Christ, it is best to say that faith justifies you, your works justify your faith, and your works justify your faith at the end of history, manifesting that it was, in fact, true faith. So, it's declarative and evidentiary. God does not, even on the last day, say, "Oh, look at that good work you did; I think I'll let you into heaven." There's none of that, ever."
"it is by grace through faith from beginning to end, plus nothing. That's what the Bible teaches, and that's what I hope."
Three questions:
1. Is repentance required for salvation?
2. Is repentance a work in any sort of way?
3. How much/what kind of repentance is required for salvation
Great questions, 1. Yes repentance is required for salvation because the bible use the word "salvation" in three tenses in the sense that we have being saved(justification), we are been saved (progressive sanctification) and we will be saved (glorification). And in our justification, the Bible say we should repent and believe so repentance is a requirement, however I want to make it clear that this repentance is a gift from God Alone. He does all the work for our justification. In our sanctification is a life of repentance so yes we do required repentance in that sense of our salvation. 2. Repentance is not work and is because is a change of mindset, and my changing one mind doesn't require a work. 3. Lastly, as I said repentance is gift from so in term of what kind of repentance, that will be Godly and sorrowful repentance although we shouldn't always expect perfect repentance. For how much of repentance that is very great question, and I will say since is a gift from God, He knows how much He must grant us a requirement for our salvation, and also you could always pray for more. Sorry there wasn't a lot or I guess any scriptures quoted cos I am in a rush, but feel free to reply if anything you don't understand i will happily drop my socials for us to talk more bout it. Thanks and have a great day.
1: Yes
2: No
3: genuine repentance; at least a mustard seed’s worth.
BUT, antinomian Theocast would probably get this wrong.
@@JosephsCoat In my experience, most people who accuse others of antinomianism can't define it properly, either. Theocast would agree with your answers, BTW. A Lordship salvationist would hate your answer to #3.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Genuine repentance every day, because we sin everyday.
@@razzendahcuben I do know what antinomian is… I am currently writing a masters thesis on the subject. And btw, Lordship Salvation is a dogmatically true doctrine that is often preached in a way that encourages legalism. Just a mustard seed of repentance at the age of 20 probably wasn’t genuine repentance for a sinner dying at 75. But a grain of repentance on a man’s deathbed, or a lifelong up and down struggle with habitual sin marked by a genuine moments of turning to the Lord, is enough for salvific repentance.
DW has distanced himself from FV. I don't know what you think this contributes or why you feel the need to rip down a Christian when the pagans are at the gates and that christian is consistently defending against them. We should not compromise on doctrine, but I hardly think an in-depth analysis (which this is not) coming a day late and a dollar short (FV happened in '07) is needed. You're causing unnecessary division on yesterday's news, on a topic which has been asked and answered over and over. I'm disappointed.
Yeah. I feel like Wilson is the first man at the gate, defending our city and one of the very few running counterattacks. This guy pokes him in the back without warning. This is shameful.
@@andrewk8857 Wilson knows what time it is and has a clear grasp of the moment we're in, which astoundingly few Christians do. Right now is a time for catholicity, and presenting a united, Reformed, protestant, Christian Nationalist front.
Distancing is not repudiating.
@@recalltolife3478 Who said this: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."- Doug Wilson, or the apostle James?
@@Contra_Chaos I know you want me to say "Doug Wilson." Get cracking on your hermeneutics.
You argue that apostasy is not faithlessness/ disobedience as Wilson says, but rather a denial of the truth about Christ. I fail to see how denial of the truth doesn’t fit squarely within the category of faithlessness. I think much of the confusion between Wilson and others is that he doesn’t continually make HARD separations between salvation by faith and the works that inevitably result from it. When I read the inseparable connections between faith and works in 1 John which are delivered without constant “faith alone” caveats, I wonder if Doug is saying something similar?
Any updates over the last year?
#DougWasRight 😏
Really? Have you actually researched yourself?
But it was Ligonier Ministries that provided the platform for Doug Wilson and his Federal Vision!, specifically R.C. Sproul and his Table Talk magazine and addressing Doug in the audience at the Ligonier Conferences, giving him credibility! R.C. Jr. Is also a full blown Federal Visionist! Your definition of Faith should come from The Scriptures ALONE (Sola Scriptura!) and not from Ligonier.
"Obedient faith" sounds like a much-needed antidote to "Easy believism" ... I see that hand ... please sign this card ...
Faith does not justify as it exercises grace. It cannot be denied, that faith invigorates all the graces, puts strength and liveliness into them-but it does not justify under this notion. Faith works by love-but it does not justify as it works by love-but as it applies Christ's merits. - Thomas Watson
[John 3:36 ESV] Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Born again believers *will* be obedient: the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ensures this. If Doug Wilson expressed himself this way, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, he doesn’t: he teaches obedience as an instrument in one’s justification, contra Sola Fide, contra the Reformation.
@@ExaminingMoscow except he doesn’t teach it that way, this is far from the truth
@@ExaminingMoscow you're a UA-cam channel, you should have documented evidence of sermons or lessons DW has given so that we can watch, hear, and examine his own words in context. Instead of reading blurbs from articles and quotes with no context, like the gentleman on this channel did. Care to share some links?
why don’t you invite Doug for an interview and cross-examination and then get into the minutia? I’m sure he would be keen
I don't think he would want that lol
Doug would eat him alive in a very elegant and respectful manner
No need to give a false teacher unmerited legitimacy by getting together with him to discuss his false teaching.
@@ExaminingMoscow especially when you know he will prove you wrong in front of everyone, and then creates a need for restitution. Nobody wants that, right?
@@jpmt That’s not the issue. The issue is giving a false teacher unmerited legitimacy by giving him a seat at the table in an in-house discussion on justification. This is not an in-house discussion.
I’d recommend having him on and asking him questions yourself. As the other comments are showing, there are many conclusions that you are drawing that he would have answers for.
No reason to give a man who holds heretical views unmerited legitimacy by giving him a platform to further spread his views.
“…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 1:5
“Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” - John 6:29
Faith is obedience. Faith is our work, which we are only able to do by grace. It all depends on him.
Ephesians 2:8-9. Even our faith is technically a gift from God and not our work, but your point that obedience is to believe is also what I believe the Scriptures teach.
Doug Wilson’s beliefs are complicated. I would say that 98% of his beliefs are orthodox and that he defends that 98% better than 98% of the apologists out there. There may be 2% that, when analyzed to the nth detail, yield something akin to heresy. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. (Nor would it surprise me in the least if said about pretty much any other single voice out there.)
Plus, Doug says plenty of things which are more passionate than wise. Still, he is one of our most treasured resources and shouldn’t be treated like this…at least not theologically. Now, maybe he is too authoritarian or something in overseeing Christ Church. Fine. Document it.
But when it comes to theology, after all this time, either get him on the horn and dare to debate him…or shut your trap!
Jon, thank you so much for this video! I don't follow Doug super closely, but it really brought me up to full clarity on some warning signs I had seen here and there. The part at the end with Doug's belief about Adam needing grace in his sinless, pre-fall state, coupled with his views on works maintenance of salvation for the believer is just absolutely shocking. It turns the Bible on it's head and makes man, instead of God, both the centerpiece of scripture and the lynch pin for our own assurance of salvation. In my opinion, this is way beyond some of the erroneous leanings of Lordship Salvation. Tipping his hat to the New Perspective on Paul (which is thorough heresy) just adds a mountain of condemning evidence to his stances. You also mentioned some of his crudeness which also was leaving me deeply concerned in the past. Thanks, again, Brother!
Well said
You should really do your due diligence and reach out to talk with him in person. Assuming you want to maintain credibility.
If someone publishes a work for the public and continues to defend it after multiple accusations (he’s been addressed over these concerns for 20 years), there is no need for a private conversation concerning his work.
Are we not to criticize Luther because we cannot sit down with him first? This is not how the Bible requires the defense of the gospel
Doug talks w really almost anyone. Why are you hesitant to talk w/ someone you disagree with?
@@THEOCAST
Why does almost nobody talk about Doug Wilson's crude language as a CLEAR violation of Ephesians 4-5? If nothing else, he is certainly disqualified from being an elder on that basis alone (not to mention all the other problems).
Before the (ironically) oversensitive Doug Wilson fanboys respond with, "But the prophet Ezekiel said...and Paul told the Galatians..." you should spend some time meditating on the weight of what it means to be a shepherd of God's flock (Acts 20:28) and how a prophet or apostle writing inspired Scripture in a very specific context might be different from a pastor in Idaho who regularly makes flippant and snarky remarks with crude overtones, often times for no other reason than to be shocking and sound clever. If you think there's no difference, you clearly do not understanding the strong language in Scripture and its context.
I thought you should go to the brother privately first. No? Or do we just publicly blow each other out of the water? What's the motivation for all this?
Way to misinterpret a verse Theo-bro.
Looks like the comment section stands with Doug.
This reminds me of edited videos during the last presidential campaign. You are taking brief statements without the explanations that surround them and appear to believe that "knowing them by their fruits" is somehow a heresy.
I'm wondering two things. Have you engaged DW directly? Are you acting out of envy?
Welp this got you an unsubscribe from someone who just found you.
Boohoo
The thief on the cross had his hands spiked and couldn't do any works. He lived a few hours as a Christian. But he was saved. You MOST DEFINITELY can separate a lifetime of good works from justification.
The Law is not bad news. God’s wrath against our sin is bad news. The good news is there is righteousness apart from perfect obedience to the law “in Christ”.
The law is good and a blessing. Sin used what is good and a blessing to us, the Law, and used it to kill us because we are of the flesh and the law is spiritual.
I need to look more into what Doug Wilson is actually teaching.
You are in grave error and have not done your homework well enough . If you were sincere you would have met with the man personally one on one , you have violated how to approach such situations!
How much knowledge does one need to be considered justified? What if some of my knowledge is wrong or incomplete, am I not saved? Works!!!
The thief on the cross surely didn’t understand justification, but he believed Jesus, and was saved.
@@TheMaineSurveyor My point exactly. When we are called by God we are justified regardless of our condition. This video asserts works to be justified via knowledge about it and that is wrong. People never hearing about the gospel can and are justified through the faith given to them at their calling.
@@johnhoffman8203 well said!
@@johnhoffman8203 heresy and misunderstanding
So, what would be the result for my heresy and misunderstanding? Why dont you explain or are you happy in my so called ignorance and rebellion?
James 2:24 (NASB95): You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone
Is the house the foundation, the walls, the roof, or the door, or all of them working together?
Doug would be happy to answer your questions. Did you approach Doug quietly? Did he refuse to repent? Did you bring others to confront Doug?
He has been approached for years on these errors and he still refuses repent. I’m not the first to point this out. He heard my video and reported that he still holds to the errors I pointed out. He’s unrepentant
ua-cam.com/video/sm7TFHzbGcM/v-deo.html
"Faith without works is dead"
True!
@@THEOCAST
I think Wilson has further clarifications not mentioned in your presentation.
I'm just a layman, but he seems orthodox, I would not single him out.
The visible church has real wolves and pretenders, take on the Episcopalians maybe.
@@THEOCAST
ua-cam.com/video/f8C_CBwwS7Q/v-deo.html
I've noticed the more people talk, the more likely they are to say something wrong. Have you noticed that?
@@THEOCAST
Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact you're probably trying to head off the despair a believer can experience in too much introspection.
@@davmatheophilus159 don’t you know, it’s the popular thing to do right now (attacking Doug Wilson) American evangelicalism is rife with followers and not leaders. Do your due diligence talk to the accused before slandering them on your podcast. Unbalanced weights and measures.
Good works can no more be seperated from salvation then a beating heart from a living person. You are twisting Doug Wilson's words.
Dr. James White, a 'Reformed Baptist', straight arrow, and bright light (in my opinion), does not consider Doug Wilson a false teacher. That is saying something. I used to buy Doug Wilsons's books and tapes, and when he went Federal Vision, I quit listening to him for a decade. I heard his view now, and do not consider him a false teacher. Something changed. The next two comments (YT videos), state what he believes, as well as where these brothers may be misconstruing Pastor Doug in this video as well as the follow up.
Keep at it, Sonny. Way to punch way outside your weight class….
The underlying issue is that American Christianity has commercialized the Gospel and made idols of celebrity preachers.
We would all do better to avoid para-church ministries and publishers trying to sell us books.
There is a need to focus more on personal scripture reading, family discipleship, and local church activity.
"Her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money." ~Micah 3:11
This is complete nonsense. You guys need to stop creating false controversy.
Jon Moffit is a perfect example of someone who would take issue with the phrase, "Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and burnt" if he did not already know Jesus said it. Jon Moffitt needs to repent
Wow, if apostasy was “not being faithful in obedience”, we would all be hopeless! Thanks for the clarity here. It’s interesting how performance based justification has seeped into so much teaching.
He is wrong on this one by the distance from earth to the sun. ua-cam.com/video/0FeNuI1p0-c/v-deo.html
Presumptious slanderers who don’t know the text nor your own “tradition.”
You guys are awful
Can’t be slander if you quote the author.
@@THEOCAST it is if you misinterpret, confuse justification with salvation and ignore everything else the person in question has said on the subject. Not saying you did all that intentionally since I can’t know youtr heart but when the person you’re speaking about has literally written books refuting the claim you’re making, a guy has to wonder just how accidental the ignorance is.
“The Lord is author of eternal salvation for all who obey him”. I’m not saying I understand federal vision but there doesn’t appear to anything wrong with the statement. Those who are saved will obey the Lord. He is the eternal author of their salvation. This is akin to the Arminian believing John 3:16 somehow means men can choose God. It’s a statement. It does not speak on ability. Not God’s design to save by faith.
Regarding works. Doug is simply detailing the difference in our works and the works that God prepared before hand before the foundations of the world.
And there is clearly a difference.
"Are you really doing it for God or is is all about you in God's name" Paul Washer
You are very much misunderstanding his comments and teaching.
So many well-trained men misunderstanding one man. For twenty years no one can understand his gospel. Seems problematic.
@@THEOCAST There is only one gospel. Not yours, not Dougs. Ponder that. 1Corinthians 3:4
@@THEOCAST so either so many well trained men are wrong or you are wrong.
How is it that Doug Wilson can share the stage at a conference with the likes of RC Sproul and John Macarthur and according to you he denies the gospel?
I think you may need to pray about how you are understanding people and their position on where they stand on doctrinal issues.
From everything I have seen and read of Doug Wilson he understands the gospel.
@@THEOCAST there are plenty who understand.
@@THEOCAST you are getting ratioed in the comments. Does that alone mean you’re wrong? I mean, that’s a pretty strong consensus.
I am not in support of FV at all
But I would be interested in a conversation with a FV proponent
One example of how Moffitt & CO misrepresents Wilson.
Wilson is claiming that dead faith is not the kind of faith that saves (a la James) and the ridiculous assessment of his statements to this biblical posture is that he's denying justification by faith alone, when what he is actually doing is defining saving faith biblically... Saving faith is "living faith" - the kind that will continue and bear the fruit of good works. Like James, he's dealing with the species of faith not the qualifications for justification - and that is ABUNDANTLY clear in all of Doug's teaching.
Doug would not recognize himself in this criticism... It's a stawman.
Two can play at that game... Here's my version: "Moffitt is heretically arguing for justification by dead faith alone, antinomianism, and for excluding James from the canon."
Here is proof that the fanboys come out with gnashing teeth.
@@marie_h1104 I'm trying to show how ridiculous Moffitts claims are. I don't believe any of those claims about Moffitt, but they are the same kind of flimsy grounds he stands on to accuse Wilson.
@@marie_h1104 that's not an argument
Well done. Thanks for adressing these critical issues. From other comments it seems that many do follow Wilson's theology
Well put, appreciate when people stand for the truth DW has been in this mess for decades and has yet to repent of any of it, yet within reformed circles (Baptist) they love him..it's saddening and heartbreaking may he be grnated repentance
It's not even just Baptist Reformers that follow him. I know of Dutch Reform people, who homeschool, who do as well! 😔
@@lornad3554 yes, he popular with many homeschool folks
Unfounded accusations. What a joke
Lower the standard of the law, you can think that you keep it. You can think you're faithful.
The problem is that there is a clash of education. Doug's education is classical; meaning that when he categorizes doctrine its done from classical perspective e.g. Aristotle's 4 causes, categorical logic, and grammar, etc. So, when a reformed Christian who does not have that background, but maybe an ol American public education, there talking over each other. Conclusion: just watched an interview with James White and Doug does not misrepresent the 5 Solas but he describes them from a cause-and-effect relationship, especially that of the 4 causes. So, when you come to words like: according, and through, one sees that there are efficient causes, and formal causes, and final causes e.g. All things were made through him, a man attested to you by God through might works, wonders and signs that he dd through him. So, faith is n that category as well.
Thank you so much for this video. I have also read and listened to Heidelblog and Heidelcast by R. Scott Clark on Doug Wilson and I appreciate you warning Christians of his errors. I am disappointed that many cannot see these errors or choose to excuse them. Thank you.
Justification by Faith Alone and Future Justification / Ask Doug (ua-cam.com/video/u5XPu8_gqj4/v-deo.html)
Doug Wilson:
"On the last day, in a sense of vindication of the reality of this person's profession of faith in Christ, it is best to say that faith justifies you, your works justify your faith, and your works justify your faith at the end of history, manifesting that it was, in fact, true faith. So, it's declarative and evidentiary. God does not, even on the last day, say, "Oh, look at that good work you did; I think I'll let you into heaven." There's none of that, ever."
"it is by grace through faith from beginning to end, plus nothing. That's what the Bible teaches, and that's what I hope."
Theocast *REFUTED* | Is Doug Wilson a Heretic?
ua-cam.com/video/VoBlMzd25GM/v-deo.html
Just so we're all on the same page here, if Doug Wilson were to come on their podcast, he would be platforming the Theocast, not the other way around. I used to listen to Theocast, but after joining their Facebook group and seeing the unkind behavior there that was unchecked, I moved on. Other men like John MacArthur, Paul Washer, & James White were spoken of quite uncharitably in that group. Having Wilson on to discuss the issues Theocast has with him would be right and proper. I've heard DW on smaller podcasts with modest audiences, so I don't think he would be averse to going on with them.
Grace & peace? Practice what you preach.
I don’t know Doug Wilson, but just from the quotes mentioned here, it sounds like you’re not understanding what Wilson means. Sure, he may use the word faithfulness wrong, but that just means at least your definitions could not be lining up. James clearly says Abraham was justified by works… so saying that is not heresy if you define what you mean properly, if you exegete the text properly. All Wilson says that you disagree with, to me, sounds just like James. Faith without works is dead. That’s not a statement about the imputation of Christ’s works to the faithful; it’s a statement about practical evidence for true faith: there must be fruit or you don’t really believe so as to be saved. I think your answer to all these complaints are in the book of James. Abraham was saved; salvation is by grace through faith; so you gotta do the math along with what James says.
No he’s not a false teacher.
Great video and clearly lays out the issue. One small caveat. At the 24:12 mark, you mention that had Adam succeeded in obeying the Covenant of Works, he would have earned/merited righteousness. I know it’s not the main pint of your argument, but we need to be clear that that reward would not have been strictly merited, but it’s a merit that comes by way of God covenanting with Adam. I believe the technical term is ex pacto merit.
It’s a small thing, and I’m sure you agree, but just wanted to clarify. As I said, I understand why that wasn’t clarified in the video because you’re trying to lay out the argument against Wilson’s teachings.
Agree. Great point of clarity. Thanks for the point out!
@@THEOCAST Yes, and like Doug said, it would have been because of his faith in what God told him and he could have thanked God for His gracious covenantal provision.
@@stephenbrown9949 I think, when you put it this way, DW is correct on this. If Adam had succeeded, it still would have been by faith, by belief. That said, the catholic church can get the Trinity right, and still be found heretical. DW denies faith alone, as does N.T. Wright and John Piper (I think). DW and NTW both say that you enter by faith, stay in by faithfulness. Piper is different, but he separates initial justification from final salvation, says that you enter heaven based on faith and works. "What does Scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness". You are justified strictly by faith, initially and finally, but that faith will produce works.
@@joev2223 That's really not what Doug teaches. See here: ua-cam.com/video/sm7TFHzbGcM/v-deo.html
starting at 1:54 he gives you his teaching on justification. He's been teaching this for a long time. I recommend his book ' "Reformed" is not enough'. I would say it was impossible to find works salvation in his teaching if there weren't so many determined to do that very thing, but it's just not in there.
@@stephenbrown9949 I don't hear anything wrong about faith alone in that video. You understand he has said controversial things, has distanced himself from the name of FV, but not necessarily from the teachings? I will says as well, FV isn't necessarily heresy. I think there's such a wide range of what's believed, but at its worst, my understanding is, it turns into regeneration by the act of baptism, enter by faith, stay through faithfulness. If you're not faithful you loose your salvation, youre no longer regenerate, etc.