This extensive book review contains much more proof that Doug Wilson is not only not Reformed (using the confessional and historic meaning of the word), but that he is also ignorant of many classic Reformation doctrines.
Dr. McMahon writes,
"Innovation and originality in theology are the parents of all heresy. Douglas Wilson in his book, "Reformed" is Not Enough demonstrates this subtly but effectively. To the untrained eye his arguments may sound cohesive, helpful and clarifying. To the trained eye his arguments are heretical, and his work demonstrates his theological and historical ignorance."
This review is must reading, as it exposes much false teaching -- and is free online at:
Doug Wilson, Credenda/Agenda, N.T. Wright, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, Steve Wilkins, et al.http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/DWilson.htm
To reform theology (if it is all the major doctrines) is to "restore the doctrines of the Christian faith". So, I am not sure what your point is exactly. I also assume by "Separatist" you mean Anabaptists? If so, they were quite a diverse group with a multitude of beliefs.
I do agree in general with your last point concerning FV. In many ways its an overemphasis on the sacraments resulting in some cases an almost redefinition of their nature.
My concern is the step back towards sacramentalism...adding sacraments to the grace of God. This is where the Reformation protested against Romes insistence to add baptism (baptismal regeneration - infants & adults) and the Mass (transubstantiation) to the gospel. Luther, Calvin and those who followed them...went only as far as to reform Rome's doctrines....when instead they should have went to complete the work to restore the doctrines of the Christian faith. But this would have brought them to align with the Separatist...something they did not want....since they saw them as Rome did...heretics.
Federal Vision/Auburn Theology is the Reformation in reverse...a Protestant form of Romanism....but without a return to Rome.
I know I'm not an official moderator, but I did post this question. Can we please stick to the topic.
You said: [The quotes I posted silly.]
Yes, all your posts are silly. They are heretical.
In my original post (if you read the whole) there is a recurring "good news" "bad news" theme. And this starts from the very first line.
Wot your doin is taking the first use of the term to mean the gospel, which clearly in the context, it is not!
That would make the first sentence a nonsense and tautological .. that my friend is what you excel in, not me .. get it?
No wonder MBL's worried about your integrity .. he has very good grounds cos your proving yourself a dab hand at eisegesis. Have I read the quotes you provided to MBL .. yep.. do they prove what you allege about Ruckman .. nope
You said: [Well maybe you should and tell me what you think about it.]
Think about what?
You said: [I guess in the fanciful world of the Calvinist, anything is possible.]
Actually, with God, all things are possible.
You said: [You wants news, eh? Well the good news is that the gospel is to be preached to every creature. The bad news is that no one will come left to themselves. The good news is that God will save with a mighty arm those whom he has elected, through the instrumentality of prayer and preaching. The bad news is that the rest of mankind, who will refuse to bow the knee anyway, God will pass by. The good news is that the Lord Jesus Christ is going to return physically and gloriously. The bad news is that the goats will be sent to hell forever. The good news is that all them that belong to the Lord (who have been saved by his power .. those who are born again from above .. not by the will of man) will spend an eternity in Heaven with the Lord and there shall be no more sin .. all will be perfect .. and all the glory will belong to God!]
I quite agree bro. Mighty fine!
I think I can summarize in one word:
WYSIWYG: what you see is what you get.
It's an old phrase in computers that relates the program (like Word) to what the final print-out will look like.In the case of FV, it means that when you are baptized you are saved. When excommunicated (although this is not as clearly stated) you lose your salvation. One cannot speak of the church invisible (it cannot be "seen") but only of the church visible (renamed the church historical). The sacraments always give their intended effect since the subjective appropriation is downplayed radically (indeed, almost all introspective meditation, etc. is strongly downplayed if not ignored at times).
It is kind of like a radical empiricism in which only the outward and visible truly count. Thus, it strongly attenuates forensic justification (whose ever seen a heavenly transaction in God's courts?). It confuses faith and works (who has ever seen invisible subjective faith)? etc.
To be fair I am lumping all the authors together because each emphasizes different parts but each also agrees with the others and does not distance themselves from them.
I hope this is clear. (see also the summary by Banner, 8/10/06).
Ciao poichâ€š presente.
"there is an attempt to reformulate the doctrine of the Trinity, to move away from the Reformation commitment to â€śforensicâ€ť justification (by assuming an over-reaction by the Reformers to Rome),
to allege that Hellenism and the Enlightenment led to the "scholastic" propositional statements of Reformed doctrine in the Westminster Standards,
to read Biblical history as "The Story" involving primarily personal relationships between God and His people (rather than a depository for doctrinal propositions),
to deprecate the value of systematic theology, and finally to introduce different views of covenant, faith, baptism, the Lord's Supper, election, regeneration, apostacy, and sacramental efficacy.
While it is claimed that all these re-formulations are within the parameters of the orthodox Reformed Faith, this reviewer has been left in no doubt that the Federal Vision is, in the end, contrary to the Westminster Standards.
One of the critics, Dr. Joseph Pipa, in his response to Steve Wilkins' paper on "Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation," puts this point concisely in these words: â€śIf I have understood Wilkins in this paper, the Federal Vision is a deviant, unbiblical view of salvation...."
Good to see you're still among us!
As to Federal Theology, I have read up on it and, to tell you the truth, find it convoluted. I'm not sure what point its proponents are truly trying to make, what major difference they see, what big theological error they feel the need to correct. Reading quoted statements from its proponents, I get the impression they may speak with forked tongues. I know it takes some of its theology from the New Perspective on Paul movement, apparently to obfuscate Paul's preaching and stand against legalism.
Personally, I say, stick with the Bible. I don't think this movement will make any real headway into orthodox churches, as many are already standing firm against it and publicly declaring so.