Is DOUG WILSON a FALSE TEACHER? | Theocast

Over the last few years, we've been getting a lot of questions about Doug Wilson and a lot of questions about federal vision. And the more that Justin and I have spent time and my elders have spent time examining this, we have felt like it's time for a statement for us to put out there.

And with it, not just a statement, but actually show you the research that has gone into this so that you too can be wise in knowing how to handle particular men like Doug Wilson. So this is not a simple video.

It's gonna be quite lengthy, but I wanted to let you know that in the description below, there'll be a link that'll have all of these quotes to them and that you can go and do further research for yourself.

But I am very concerned with Doug Wilson and his teachings and this isn't a new phenomenon. So we'll go ahead and jump into that. One of the things that's probably Doug Wilson's most famous for is his participation in the federal vision statement.

And if you don't know anything about that, I'm gonna go ahead and let you do your own research on that. But it was started back in 2002 and it was a document that was presented. And in this document, they were trying to bring some explanation and really, I think, some changes to the Reformed faith.

And this document has been examined and condemned by multiple Reformed denominations and seminaries, and so we're gonna look at that in a moment. I have had a lot of people reach out to me and say, well, John, you are misrepresenting Doug Wilson and you're misrepresenting his teaching and you're slandering him.

And so I do not want to misrepresent anybody. I'm gonna read them directly and I definitely don't want to do anything that is slanderous. So to be clear, on 2017, Doug Wilson did write an article, which I think people have been confused by, that said, Federal Vision No Mas, or No More.

But in that article, he makes it very clear that he's just denying the title. Let me read this to you. And I provided the link if you wanna go read it. It's still available, so he hasn't changed his mind.

And if he has, as of today, when this video comes out, then I can recant this, but there's no change on his website. This article is still out there and this is what he says. This statement represents a change in what I will call what I believe.

Notice the keyword there. It does not represent any substantial shift or see change in the content of what I believe. Okay, so still holding to federal vision. I am making this lexical shift for the sake of clarity and communication.

So defining more precisely what was already there. Again, he's not removing what was there. He signed the federal vision document and he is saying, I just don't want to call myself a federal vision, but the theology that existed behind it, I'm just clarifying it more.

So that being the case, it is true. You can still see that even after he wrote this article, he is continuing to believe and teach this theology. So just so you understand, this is not my conclusion. I am standing on the shoulders of wise men who are far more educated than me, been in ministry longer than I have, and I am thankful for these councils that have come together.

And so this is in the document I provided. This is the Ecclesiastical Reports of different denominations. So this one is going to be from the URCNA. And their study committee had, on federal vision and justification, made this statement.

It's a very long document, but I just want to read this one statement to you. By the standards of biblical and confessional teaching, this reformulation of the doctrine of education by federal vision writers stands condemned.

So they're saying it is not biblical, it is not acceptable. Rather than a radical contrast between justification by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from works of any kind, a distinction is drawn.

So they're saying federal vision draws this distinction of meritorious works, which play no role in justification, and non-meritorious works, which do play a role. So they're creating this whole new category of meritorious works versus non-meritorious works, which we're going to see here in a minute is not biblical.

So that's the URCNA. They have said it is condemned. You also have the Associated Reform Presbyterian Churches, the AARP, and in their general synod, they said the new perspective on Paul and the federal vision are in conflict with teaching of Scripture, and as such, they are unacceptable.

So it's not just that it's another variation. It's condemned, it's unacceptable, which means it cannot be accepted as a definition of justification. You have the Orthodox Presbyterian Report on Justification, and in their 73rd General Assembly, and they wrote, quote, the committee believes that the following points that are held by some or one or others of advocates of federal vision are out of accord with Scripture and our doctrinal standards.

So they went through line by line, and to show it's a very long document of where it does not line up with Scripture. I'm just gonna read you a couple of points. This is point 11. A denial of the, so they're saying federal vision is a denial of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ's righteousness in our justification.

Now, before you send me the links at this point in the video, hold off. Doug Wilson has said, I believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and I'm going to show you he redefines faith. He also redefines imputation.

So their conclusion is they do not believe in the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ's righteousness. Number two, defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins. So basically our count is cleaned by faith alone, but we must add to our salvation, or we need to be completely saved by our works.

And then number 14, including works by use of faithfulness or obedience, et cetera, in the very definition of faith, and I would agree with them. So when they say faith, they don't mean the same definition that we mean.

This is Mid-America Reforms Seminary. They put out a testimony regarding the recent errors. This is back in 2007. And in their article 52, it says, we deny that faith alone means that the fruits that accompany our faith, such as works of love or faith in its faithfulness, or faith in its non-meritorious working, or any other kinds of works, are included in the definition and instrumentality of justifying faith.

So they are picking up on the issue. It's a redefining of terms. Faith no longer just means faith. It has, there's a new definition to it, and we'll talk about that for a moment. And so we deny that justifying faith is faith as a virtue.

And then article 53 says, we affirm that faith is merely the instrument for receiving Christ and accepting his merit. So we're receiving his forgiveness and we're receiving his obedience. We deny the claim that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself and the imperfect obedience of faith as perfect obedience to the law and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

So again, these links are there. We have a seminary who is saying that they're clearly out of bounds and they're adding things back into it, and we would say that this is an error and it's underneath the article of rejection of an error.

So throughout this, my study, it's been very hard because I've received videos. I've watched the James White video. I've seen Doug Wilson's Sola Fide video where he perfectly and accurately, without fail, gives a clear affirmation of Sola Fide.

But the problem is, just because one claims to believe in faith alone doesn't mean that they actually hold to the same definition. So I'm going to prove to you at this point that Doug will say one thing, what he thinks faith is, but then he redefines it from its biblical and historical understanding.

So here's a couple of definitions. So this is from one of his blogs. You can see this in the link here below. It says this, in the New Testament, obedience is a good word. Also in the New Testament, works is not unless it is modified with a word like good.

We are called to do good works, but we are not saved by works. Okay, so he's creating a distinction really that I've never really seen in scripture before or in history. So again, pay attention to the language.

He's redefining even what works and obedience are. He's saying good, obedience is a good thing, it's a good word. And then works are not. So he's saying obedience is good, works is not unless it has the word good in front of it.

So then he put in his article, Ephesians 2, 8 and 9, so we are called to do good works, Titus 2, 7, but we are not saved by works. Well, the problem is, is that in his definition, it doesn't even work, but John 17 says that Jesus fulfilled the work that the Father had given him, and he didn't put good there.

So the Bible doesn't make this distinction, he's making this distinction, and the reason is, he goes on to explain in the article here, by way of contrast, sinners do not obey the truth. 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. He's even misquoting Hebrews 5, 9 here. He goes on to say, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey him, Acts 5, 32. But the bottom line is that simple words, obey and obedience, should not set off alarm bells for people who read their Bibles.

It doesn't set off alarm bells for me. Every Christian who is called and regenerated by Christ is called to obey, but it is the result of our justification, it is the result of a new life, it is not the cause of it, and he is making it the cause.

He literally says the Lord is the author of eternal salvation for all who obey him, and we are adding works back into the definition. So before I keep going, because there's more to be read, I want to give you a definition of faith so that we can see, here's the historic understanding of the definition of faith.

And I've got this, there's a full article here, you can read it from Ligonier, I thought it was helpful. But there are really three ways in which we would define faith, there are three aspects to understanding justifying faith, all right?

So you have the first, which is referring to knowledge. Okay, you have to be aware that there's, you have to have data, you have to have knowledge in order to say you're gonna put your faith into something.

So we're putting our faith in, not necessarily something, but someone. So in order to believe, we must know that something about, we have to know something about Jesus. So we aren't just believing in the concept of believing, we're believing in the gospel, and the gospel is the declaration of good news.

So that's the knowledge, the gospel, that's the knowledge. And then there's what's called the essences, or that is where, as it says here in the article, our conviction that the content of our faith is true.

So you can know about the Christian faith and yet believe that it is not true. Atheists know the knowledge, but they don't necessarily say that it's true. So there's the data, and then there's believing that it's true, and then there's fiducia, which is the last way of understanding this.

And that's where you go from knowledge, believing that it's true, to relying on the truth, to trusting the truth. And so that's how we've always defined it throughout history, is those three ways where there's knowledge, the knowledge is the facts are true, and then we put our trust in that by faith alone, no works required.

Well, in his book, Reformed Is Not Enough, where he's trying to kind of shake up the reformed tree and get people's attention, which is still available, by the way. So if he doesn't believe these things anymore, and he's denying them, he needs to take it off of his website.

And I confirmed, as before I read this today, it's still there on the website, it's still on Amazon. So in his book, he begins to explain and define faith, which I would say he's going to redefine it.

So this is from his book. It says this, in the historic Protestant view, good works are inseparable from salvation. That's not the Protestant view. Because this is the case, he then misquotes James and says, James can speak of justification by works.

No, the Protestant view is not that good works are inseparable from salvation. We actually do separate them. That's a collapsing of law and gospel, that's a collapsing of justification and sanctification into one.

Basically, you're removing or redefining both justification and sanctification. So James does not speak of us being saved by works. That's a complete misquoting of James. James is dealing with people who are quoting, or saying, I'm a Christian to other individuals, and they're unwilling to show love.

And he's saying your claim, your verbal claim to being of Christ is not justified because your works aren't demonstrating that. There's nowhere we would say that that is in comparison to Paul at all. So it's a denial of our understanding of the Protestant view of James.

It's definitely an agreement with Rome. And again, just go back and read the statement. He is saying, because this is true, that good works are inseparable from biblical salvation, that the statement from James is that we are justified by works.

We're not. Later on, he's quoting someone and kind of proving his point, and in this section, he's dealing with, in this section of the book, he is dealing with apostasy and good works. Basically, we are in the new covenant, we've been regenerated, we have the Holy Spirit, we are of the elect, and the way in which we remain that way, his argument, is this.

He's now reading another quote. The means by which men apostatize from the covenant is unfaithfulness. The means by which men preserve in the covenant is faithfulness, and he ends the quote, and this is where Wilson picks up.

In other words, to assert that men fall away because their salvation was contingent upon continued faithfulness in the gospel is not to deny the sovereignty of God at all. So he is saying it's within God's sovereign plan that we must remain faithful.

Notice he says that, faithfulness to the gospel, and we do not remain faithful. That's not how we are saved. There is never faithfulness. There is faith, but there is not faithfulness, which is obedience.

Again, so he's redefining not only what is covenant theology, which we're not gonna get into, but he is saying apostasy is when we are no longer faithful in our obedience. That's not apostasy. Apostasy is when you deny the truth, so you know the truth.

This is starting with the first one, right? We see the knowledge, and then there's a sense that you can believe that it's true. They stop believing that it's true. Apostasy is deny the Lord that bought them, to deny the truth.

They walk away from the truth. That is apostasy. It is not faithfulness or an unfaithfulness, which he has defined here. He goes on to say this. Faith is the only instrument God uses in our justification, but when God has done this wonderful work, listen to this, the faithful instrument does not shrivel up and die.

He keeps intertwining faith and faithfulness. They are different. Our good works are always the fruit of our justification. It's the fruit of the new life. It is not the means. It is not the instrument.

So he says this, the faithful instrument. It is completely construing what the Bible has taught. He continues, this faithful instrument continues to love God and obey him. If it does not, but just lies there like a corpse, then we have good reasons to believe that it was just lying there like a corpse some days before, not being therefore an instrument of justification.

Faith without works is a dead faith, and a dead faith never justified anybody. So he says things that are true, I agree with him, that faith without works is a dead faith. That is true, but there's a difference of it being the fruit of our justification, right?

Guilt, grace, gratitude. We obey because of what has been done for us. He is saying faithfulness is the instrument of our justification. So it's really hard if you're not paying attention, it sounds right, but when you press in, this is now, how many quotes are we in?

But we're not done. So I'm gonna give you another one. This is from one, this was an interview that was done, and in this interview, Doug makes this statement, which I think is interesting. He says, why are we heretics?

Because we say faith cannot be separated from trust and obedience. And because we say saving faith cannot be separated from a life of obedience and trust. Well, Doug, the reason why you're being called a heretic is because that is the definition of heresy.

This is why there's the five solas, and one of them being Christ alone, faith alone, right? So yes, if you're adding obedience into justification, that is heresy. So Doug knowingly has had these accusations, and he's basically pushing back saying, why are you calling us a heretic?

Well, even in your statement, you're proving that you're holding to heretical documents. Now, to be abundantly clear, we are going to look at some other documents. So sometimes people say, you're only looking at one of his writings, you're confused, that was a bad writing.

I'm gonna show you a couple of more. These are interviews, so we've not only seen what Doug's written, we're gonna hear what Doug says, and then I'll look at a couple more blog articles and we'll be done.

I mean, there's just overwhelming condemning evidences here. So Doug was being interviewed by Christian Renewal Magazine, and in this interview, there's a very clear question. This is a question I wish James White would have asked him, but he didn't, and it says this.

Doug, when you cite continuing in goodness, right? Continuing in obedience in Romans 11 in your 2002 lecture, is that, the continuing in your goodness, the cause of your salvation or the fruit of it? The Reformed, the Protestant, the biblical understanding is that all good works is the fruit of our salvation.

It is never the cause of it, okay? So let me read this clearly again so you can hear it. Continuing in goodness, is that the cause of your salvation or the fruit of it? And Doug Wilson replies, yes. Okay, very clearly, he says yes.

And then he goes on to explain his answer. Again, this is where I was saying, he's claiming to hold in his hand, sola fide, sola fide, but he doesn't. He's trying to hold sola fide, and he's trying to hold faith and work at the same time.

So he goes on and says, look, in Colossians, Paul says, as you received Christ, so walk in him. So the way we become Christians is the way we stay Christians, is the way we finish as Christians, faith by faith from first to last.

I agree with him, but when he says the way we become Christians, he means by continuing in goodness. That is not the same. That is complete heresy. So let me just read you the last statement. It says, so we continue in God's goodness by trust.

We stand by faith, they fell. But you stand, doing that is to the end, is how you come to your salvation. Listen, we don't come to our salvation by standing on faithfulness. Continuing, it is the gift of God lest anyone should boast.

Okay, now we're combining phrases and saying, well no, we're not boasting because these are the good works that God has given us, but that's not sola fide. I believe we are saved by faith from first to last, which is why I have been accused of denying sola fide.

Well, you're being accused of it because you are adding works into it. So one last quote, this is from his blog article trying to clarify this whole predicament, and he says this. I am treating obedient faith, so this is called living faith, I am treating obedient faith and living faith as synonymous.

It is obedient in its life, and in that living condition, it is the instrument of our justification. I mean, how many more times is he gonna write and clarify, and he keeps saying the same thing. Obedient faith is the instrument of justification, and he is combining two parts of theology that just cannot be collapsed.

And the reason for this is, I'm gonna have to go through this as fast as I can, is that he is denying two essential doctrines. And so I'm gonna just point these out. I think it's gonna help us understand why there's a confusion, so I would hope to see him repent of this and change his mind.

And one of these is a law gospel distinction, and the other is a covenant of works. Now, some of you might be saying, well, I don't understand those phrases, but they're not necessarily, they're just helpful phrases like the Trinity.

You don't have to hold to them, but the concepts you need to hold to. So this is the Joint Federal Vision Statement, which Doug Wilson has also in his blog articles has also agreed that he denies this.

It says, we deny the law gospel should be considered as a hermeneutic or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, so indicative is declared truth, like the gospel, imperative is commands, like the law, can be heard by the faithful as good news.

Now, no, it's not. The law is never good news for a believer. It shows us Christ's righteousness, it shows us the holiness of God, and it can show us how we can live. But it's bad news because in order for one to be justified by the law, it requires absolute perfection.

This is what makes the gospel the good news. So we have to define those differently. So they're saying we don't hold to this distinction. It goes on to say, whether containing gospel promises or not will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand.

The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart. It is in the text. I mean, Paul, how many times does Paul have to say that we are saved by grace, not of works lest any man should boast, but works in what?

Works of the law. So the law cannot change the heart. It can guide and direct us, but it cannot change the heart. So therefore, it is not good news. And then this is dealing with the covenant. So this is why you have a collapsing of law gospel, where they keep saying that this distinction is so, so important.

Because if you aren't clear on what the gospel is, the gospel is the good news of what has been done. This is good news. News literally means events that are past. Law is all potentials. This is why Jesus tells the rich young ruler, do this and live.

That's not good news, right? That's not, that's bad news. That's law. And this also plays into his understanding of covenant theology, specifically the covenant of works. Now, some of you might say, well, I don't believe in a covenant of works, so I don't really care about this point.

Just hear it out to the end. You actually do believe in what's called the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Why are you considered, sorry, why are you declared righteous in the eyes of God? It's not your works, right?

It was Christ's works on your behalf. Think about what Paul says. Where the first Adam failed to obey, the second Adam succeeded, right? We inherit Adam's sin, and we inherit Christ's righteousness. And what righteousness is that?

It's his obedience to the Father. It's obedience to the law. So this is what Doug writes in his examination. He's trying to explain his own denomination, examined him on Federal Vision. He's trying to explain his view.

It says this, I believe the covenant of works mentioned in chapter seven is badly named. I would prefer something like the covenant of life. Okay, so all right, change the title. I don't really care. Definitions, titles aren't necessarily always perfect, but that's not what he's doing.

He's gonna tell you he's changing more than the title. I believe that this covenant obligated Adam to a wholehearted obedience to the requirement of God. Agree. One stipulation I would add, here it is, he even tells you, I'm adding something, is that had Adam stood, he would have been required to thank God for his gracious protection and provision.

And had Adam stood, he would have done so by believing the word of God. In other words, it would all have been by grace through faith. No, that is not grace through faith. The covenant of works was not meritorious, and we deny that any covenant can be kept without faith.

That is just historically and biblically 100 inaccurate. This is why it says that Christ is the second Adam. When he obeyed the Father, he brought, Hebrews 2, he brought many sons to glory. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It was not grace that Adam was working upon. He didn't need grace. Grace is to receive that which you don't deserve. He didn't need grace, he didn't need mercy because he was perfect. He was in perfect relationship with the Father.

If he would have obeyed, he would have received what he earned, which was righteousness. He would have earned, he would have merited it. So when he fundamentally denies that, he is fundamentally denying the gospel.

This is why the writers, and I agree with it, say they deny imputation. So we could keep going. I think this is enough to just show you that this is clearly not what the Bible teaches. It's a denial of the gospel.

It's another gospel, it's heretical. And so this is the last thing I'm gonna read to you. It's a blog article called Semper De Formanda. And this is in an interview, this fictitious interview that he's having with a seminary student in relationship to this, and I don't know how you make this any more clear.

He says this, I do not deny the existence of such a covenant. I simply maintain that Adam broke the covenant through his unbelief, and that had he kept it, he would have done so by grace alone through faith alone.

So he's said it twice now. There's two times now that Doug Wilson has said that. So no, Adam was not acting on an obedient faith. He was not acting on faith at all. He wasn't trusting in God for righteousness.

He wasn't trusting in God for forgiveness. He didn't need to do that. The concept of mercy and grace was not given to Adam and Eve until they fall. That was the promise of the seed, which is Jesus. So I wish the interview that James White did where there was a lot of clarifying going on here, he was giving him definitions and asking him, do you agree, but he wasn't asking him to explain.

And that's what this is for. I'll take the same questions that Doug received, and then I'll use his words where written. When he says faith alone, it means something different. When he says justification, he means something different.

So are you saying, John, that he is a heretic? Well, he is if he continues to teach this, and he has taught this for over 20 years. It's been documented in his sermons, in his lectures, in his blog articles, in his books on federal vision.

I don't know what else to tell you. So until he actually completely repents of this and does hold to a historical understanding of faith alone, he is a false teacher. And the Bible says that we are not to just beware of them, but we are to avoid them and to put them out.

So some people have asked me, well, John, I know he's confusing here. Can't we just enjoy some of the teachings he does on politics and on marriage? And my answer to that is absolutely not. You wouldn't do that with Mormon writers.

You wouldn't do that with Catholic writers because they deny the gospel. Like, for instance, if I walked up to someone and said, hey, are you a Christian? And they said, yes, I'm a Christian. And then you find out they're Mormon, they're not a Christian.

Just because they hold the title but don't hold believed to the definition, that doesn't mean it's true, okay? So yeah, I would recommend for all of our congregants and those who listen to stay away from him and his teachings and his podcasts, Canon Press.

They are not clear at all on their defining views of it. And to be frank, a lot of some of the other things he says just make, I think it's crude in how he treats women and marriage. The whole thing is a lot of concerning.

That's not why I'm making this video. We can disagree on how one should handle marriage, but when you mess with the gospel, it's at that point, we're on a whole other playing field. You don't belong on the evangelical playing field.

You don't belong here. You have proven to yourself to be a denier of the gospel, and so I doubt that Mr. Wilson would ever watch this, but if he does, I would strongly encourage him to reconsider, repent, and believe in the gospel.

So if you have any other questions, you know, this is probably the most that we're gonna do on this. Everything I've quoted to you, you can go read these your own, you can read them in context. I have spent so much time reading and evaluating and reading, and my conclusion was to create this video.

So I hope this is encouraging to you to really use discernment, to be clear on the gospel, know your definitions, which is why it's the whole point of Theocast and Grace Reformed Church and the GRN Network, which is to clarify the gospel and to reclaim the purpose of the kingdom.

So we hope that was helpful for you to do that, and we'll see you next time.