SRR 117 Doug Wilson, Federal Vision “Exonerated” with James White

ThornCrown Network iconThornCrown Network

0 views

0 comments

00:02
I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone.
00:13
When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield exposing the air and combating the air.
00:24
We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so the next few statements that I'm going to make,
00:30
I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.
00:37
We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style. I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing.
00:57
It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible. Jesus said,
01:07
Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way, as opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.
01:21
It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle. Okay. Welcome back to the podcast.
01:34
This is Simple Riff around the radio. My name is Tim and you are listening to the podcast where we seek to apply the
01:41
Bible and the Bible in its entirety to all of faith and life. So today it's Tim, me, that's me,
01:48
Carlos Montijo and Hiram Diaz. So I want to say what's up guys and Hiram.
01:53
I actually want to draw some attention to some of the work that you've been doing. And then
01:59
Carlos will get to you in a minute. But Hiram, you recently just published an article on your own blog site called
02:08
The Gospel is of First Importance. So just give you an opportunity to say hello and then can you tell us a little bit about that?
02:16
And then you also published an article on our website. So go ahead and tell us about that as well. Well, hi, everybody.
02:24
I published the article on my blog titled The Gospels of First Importance.
02:30
Because after being analyzed and critiqued by Brandon Adams, a fellow
02:39
Reformed Baptist, Douglas Wilson, wrote a blog. He tried to defend himself and say, well, people have been accusing me of X, Y and Z for years and I'm fine.
02:47
But at the end of the article, what he says is that since he's one of the few people that's standing against the woke foolishness, he calls it.
02:57
Critical race theory, all that stuff. He says that calling him out for his doctrine is a distraction from the real issue, from the actual issue.
03:06
And that just set me off at the edge because all throughout scripture, the actual issue is not whether or not you're going to fight social justice.
03:13
It's whether or not you're actually teaching the gospel. It's whether or not you're actually teaching God's word and you're faithful to the doctrine in scripture.
03:21
And so that's what that article is dealing with. It's pointing out that by the very fact that Wilson is saying, don't focus on my doctrine, focus on my politics.
03:28
That gives us ample reason to suspect that he's actually a wolf whose doctrine we really need to, you know, we really need to hone in on.
03:38
Because only a heretic would say something like that. Only someone who is either completely intellectually inept to be a teacher or flat out unorthodox in every area would say something like, don't look at my doctrine.
03:52
Look at my politics. And that's exactly what Wilson was saying. And so that's why I wrote it. Yeah. And this is on your, this is on your blog to tell our listeners what your blog is.
04:02
It's biblical Trinitarian, but right. It's biblical Trinitarian or what is it? That's a, that's a different site that I write for.
04:09
The one where, where you're going to find the article that we're talking about is that invospec .org. That's I N V O S P E C dot
04:17
O R G. Okay. That's my personal blog. It's kind of all over the place, but.
04:23
Okay. And, but you, you do have the biblical Trinitarian as well. Yeah. Biblical Trinitarian is, it's kind of a broader thing.
04:30
We have been dealing mostly with theology, proper Trinitarian issues, things like that.
04:38
Okay. So you're all over the place and you, you just published another one on our website and it's about final salvation.
04:46
Let me go ahead and pull it up so I can look at the title. It's a logical case or something like that.
04:52
Right. It's a simple, logical, simple. Go for it. A simple, logical case against final salvation by works.
05:02
Okay. And you, you were going to publish this a while back, right? Yeah. I had a different kind of a take that I was going to have a while ago.
05:12
And so I just, I went a different route with this one, but I had basically the same idea in the background.
05:18
Okay. Well, I want to point our listeners to those two articles by you.
05:23
And I just want to say thank you for contributing to Thorn Crown Ministries. And then Carlos, we're going to dig into your article a little bit more.
05:32
And I just want to say big congratulations to you for, you just did an interview on Trinity Foundation Radio with Steve Matthews.
05:42
And man, you've come a long way from a failed Trinity Foundation essay contest contestant to now being interviewed.
05:51
So that's a, that's a big accomplishment. I just want to say congratulations on that. Of course, this was dealing with your article that you published and the article that we're talking about.
06:02
So why don't you just tell us a little bit about that? Yeah. Yeah. Thanks.
06:07
That was a really, I just finished doing that recording with Steve Matthews about the, the, the article that the
06:14
Trinity Foundation published, which is part one of when Protestants are on the side of Rome. I had a really great interview.
06:20
I had a great time with Steve as I always, I mean, I always have a great time whenever we interview each other or talk about the, you know, this, these important issues.
06:28
And so I really was, was glad that I got the opportunity to do that. And so look for that in the next podcast episode of the
06:39
Trinity Foundation Radio. And just so people are aware, that's actually a podcast.
06:44
I thought it was just like an MP3 that they would post up on the website, but it's, it's an actual podcast that you can find on your podcast app.
06:51
So you can take a look at that. And it'll be the next episode that comes out soon.
06:59
So, and, you know, I, I don't know, guys. Since, since you brought this up,
07:06
Hiram, I think we should deal with it because I'm, I'm a little ticked off at what, what happened with the interview that James White did with Doug Wilson.
07:14
And there's just a few things that I want to, I want to point out, because that was a very provoking and irritating kind of encounter that was very upsetting.
07:27
And the first thing is that James White basically had
07:34
Doug Wilson on. And when you get interviewed, you can say whatever you want. You know, you can say whatever you want.
07:40
And it's like, you can ignore everything that he's written before. And so that was a little irritating because he had nothing to bring, to call
07:49
Doug Wilson on. He had none of his writings at hand. And like he, Doug Wilson is going to jump, is going to get on there and say, oh yeah, no,
07:57
I believe in Saltafita. Yeah, I believe in, I'm a Protestant. I'm Westminster reformed. I'm this, that, and the other.
08:03
And then James White is not going to call him out on anything that he's written down that was problematic.
08:09
And that did seem to contradict those things that he was affirming. And so that's why Robbins wrote an entire book about what exactly he meant by recovering the objectivity of the covenant and why reformed is not enough.
08:21
And so the book is pretty serious, has some serious criticisms to make about Wilson.
08:27
And apparently he hasn't renounced any of it. And so that was really irritating to see that. He basically gave him a platform to validate himself without ever being scrutinized or confronted with what he's written down, which is what should have happened.
08:40
And then the other thing was in that same interview,
08:45
Doug Wilson says, oh, well, I affirm the covenant works. I affirm the
08:51
Westminster covenant works. The only thing I would add to that is that I think it's also a gracious covenant because I think
08:59
God dealt graciously with Adam and Eve. Because even if he says, even if they had obeyed perfectly,
09:06
God would have dealt with them graciously in the reward or whatever.
09:12
Let's back up a little bit, because one of the points that they're trying to address was the fact that some have accused him of denying the law gospel distinction.
09:23
And so he says basically that he affirms the doctrine of the covenant works, but he wants to rename it as the covenant of life.
09:33
And so that becomes very problematic when you actually listen to what he says. And it's just astonishing because even as a reformed
09:45
Baptist, James White should have pressed him on that a little bit more because it's like, wait a minute. Even in your explanation, you have law gospel confusion because you're saying that...
09:56
Perversion. Yeah, exactly. So go ahead and continue, Carlos. If they haven't read
10:02
Brandon Adams's article, if they haven't read Doug Wilson's response, that's what we're talking about.
10:09
Yeah, and Brandon Adams's article, it's called Federal Vision Baptist, right? And so Wilson says he affirms the covenant of works.
10:18
He just prefers to call it covenant of life or creation or whatever. It doesn't really matter what you call it,
10:24
I guess. But what he meant was that God also dealt graciously with Adam and Eve prior to the fall.
10:32
And he went as far as to say that even if he had obeyed perfectly, that God still would have dealt graciously with Adam and Eve.
10:42
And it's like, okay, that's exactly what the mono -covenantalists say, which is exactly what he denied.
10:49
Because he said he affirms the covenant of works. And it's like, well, if you affirm the covenant of works, then you would have to say that you don't believe that God dealt graciously with Adam and Eve because they did nothing wrong prior to breaking the law.
11:02
And there is no law where there is no sin. And so if you did not do anything wrong, grace is not necessary.
11:11
And there's another problem with what people make about confusing condescension with grace.
11:18
It's one thing for God to condescend to man and to deal with him on his level.
11:23
That's condescension, but that's not necessarily grace. Now, when you do something wrong and God forgives you, that's grace.
11:32
And so he's totally perverting the law gospel distinction in that very covenant of works and James White did nothing about it.
11:42
He just moved on to the next point like it was nothing. James White, man,
11:48
I am like, oh, I'm so frustrated with James White. I'm sick and tired of hearing about fundamentalism.
11:57
If you disagree with him, then it's like, oh, it's a fundamentalist tactic or whatever.
12:04
And guilt by association. And we really need to get into this more.
12:09
But what really frustrates me is and I don't know which one of you pointed this out.
12:16
So I'm stealing from you because it's a good point. I think it might have been you, Hiram, pointing out that.
12:23
Oh, no, it might have been you, Carlos. Well, whatever. One of you take credit for this. If it's a valid point, it's mine. Yeah. OK, we'll go with that.
12:33
He is like talking about Rosario Butterfield and just, you know, how there's no there's no deep thinkers.
12:42
Everybody's shallow. And yet when he talks about Doug Wilson, it's like you're extremely shallow.
12:49
And Piper. Yeah. And Michael Brown. Yeah, exactly.
12:55
And so having him on in that fashion, it's it was almost as if to exonerate him from any anybody, you know, leveling a charge against him.
13:10
And it was extremely frustrating because it's like, OK, so you want to you want to go after Dan Gatskins article on Rosario Butterfield and criticize everybody for being superficial and shallow.
13:22
But, I mean, when you talk about Piper or when you talk about Doug Wilson, that's exactly what you're doing.
13:30
And you should you should dig a little bit deeper with Doug Wilson. I mean, it is it is significant that every single
13:38
Presbyterian denomination spoke out against federal vision. Every single one.
13:46
Significance kind of like an understatement, too. Yeah. Well, maybe
13:51
I'm maybe I'm not a wordsmith. Yeah. Significance, an understatement, understatement of the year. Yeah, it's a big freaking deal.
13:58
It's a huge deal. And so it's just it's infuriating to like to like, you know, it's like,
14:04
OK, now, because James White has done this, everybody's given Doug Wilson a pass.
14:11
And it's like, wait a minute, you guys aren't even dealing with the real issues. And even there's so many things in that interview where you could have and you should have pressed him a little bit harder.
14:23
And, you know, James White wants to say, well, you know, who's debated you the most?
14:28
It's me. And so, you know, I get I don't care, man. Like if you're going to if you're going to interview the guy about dig into the substance of the issue a little bit more.
14:41
Well, you know, it reminds me of I don't know if you guys remember the remember the elephant room from years ago. Yeah. That big waste of time.
14:48
Yeah. Yeah. Like the whole idea of like, well, I affirmed the covenant of works. If by covenant of works, you mean not a covenant of works.
14:56
You know, it reminds me of T .D. Jakes when they're like, do you affirm the Trinity? He's like, yeah, but, you know, I prefer the term manifestations as opposed to persons.
15:03
So then you don't affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But because he said he does affirm it, you know, people's minds just shut off.
15:11
And they thought, well, he sound, you know, because he was given the green light by who was it again? It was Mark Driscoll and James McDonald.
15:19
I think it was, you know. Yeah. Let me since Doug Wilson likes illustrations, let me just give an illustration.
15:29
So I work as a firefighter and, you know, let's say the officer says, go to the firetruck and get a
15:36
LaFrance bar. And I go to the firetruck and I get a halogen bar and I bring it back.
15:43
It's like, OK, so I can label this thing in my mind and say, well, this is a LaFrance bar. But in actuality, it's not.
15:50
It's something completely different. It's a halogen. And so this is what these guys do in their minds.
15:56
They label their theology as, oh, this is the covenant of works.
16:02
But then when they when they start presenting it and showing you what it is, it's something completely different.
16:09
And so this is like people need to get this. They need to wrap their minds around this where they they think that they understand the correct view or that they hold to the correct view.
16:20
Or maybe that's what they want you to understand. And so they use the same terminology or they will affirm the same terminology.
16:28
But then when they when they actually talk about their views, they espouse something different and something troublesome.
16:35
And I just for the life of me, I can't understand why. And it's like, OK, you say you affirm this, but then you say when you explain it, you define something different.
16:48
And Carlos, you just gave the perfect example of the covenant of works. I mean, what is that?
16:54
But law, gospel, confusion. Yeah, perversion. He said, yeah, that's a better word.
17:00
Perversion. He said, yeah, because he has no excuse. He understands it perfectly well. And he said,
17:06
God, because Adam believed, Adam believed and he had faith. But now you have what one of the false teachers favorite tactic and that's equivocation.
17:16
He's equivocating on the word faith and belief. He's like, well, he believed God and that's why it would have been a gracious act for God to reward him or whatever.
17:24
It's like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You just perverted what faith, what Sola Fide means or what faith means in the context of after the fall.
17:32
Because it's talking about salvation by grace through faith alone. It's not talking about earning a right standing with God by keeping a covenant of works.
17:41
Believing God that he'll do that if you do the right thing. That's not believing God in the same context as believing
17:48
God because you are a sinner condemned in the eyes of God. And the only way you can get right with God is if you believe in Christ alone.
17:55
And so he's equivocating on the term faith in a grossly perverted manner where now he's perverting law and gospel.
18:12
This is another big problem because he keeps saying this. What he said in the
18:18
James White interview, he basically said the exact same thing in the interview with Chris Harns in On Iron Sharpens Iron.
18:23
He said, basically you can believe wrong things about Jesus but still be saved.
18:32
That's why in another interview, another clip he said, you can believe…
18:38
He affirms Roman Catholicism. People like Chesterton or C .S. Lewis, they can be saved because Protestants are correct and they're wrong because we're not saved by works.
18:50
And by works he means doctrinal accuracy. So he means your understanding of the gospel can be fuzzy.
18:58
It can even be a little wrong apparently. It can even be kind of Romanist. Well, it can be totally wrong.
19:04
It can be totally wrong because Roman Catholicism is totally wrong in the gospel. And you can still be saved because you're not saved by doctrinal accuracy.
19:12
You're saved by God, Jesus Christ dying for you. And so here's the thing. Yes, and he equates doctrinal accuracy with works.
19:24
And so he says, well, you're not saved by works. Therefore, you're not saved by doctrinal accuracy. Therefore, you can be saved and not believe in the right gospel.
19:36
Logically, that's essentially where it goes. Now, he didn't say it exactly like that.
19:42
But that's the inevitable logical conclusion of what he's saying. Yeah, no, that is what he said was you can be a non -Christian basically like a
19:51
Roman Catholic. And he said, yeah, Roman Catholicism is an error or whatever. But you can be like a
19:57
Roman Catholic and still be saved because we're not saved by doctrinal accuracy or works.
20:05
So you can have that's a thing. So then now get this.
20:10
So this is and we need to be careful here because Sproul said the same thing. He said something similar.
20:16
He said, we're not saved by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. We're saved by Christ dying on the cross for us and is imputed righteous as being imputed to us on our behalf.
20:29
And it's like, well, that's a psychological fallacy. Believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone means that you believe that very thing.
20:38
So it's a metaphysical fallacy what they're making because they're saying it's not that you believe in the doctrine.
20:46
You believe in the actual act. And so but Sproul had the sense not to take it as far as Wilson and say, therefore, you can believe wrong things about the gospel and still be saved because you're not actually saved by what you believe.
21:01
You're saved by or doctrinal accuracy. You're saved by Christ actually dying for you.
21:07
And so here's one of the things that that does, obviously, is that he just denied faith as the necessary instrumental cause of justification.
21:16
You're basically denying sola fide, which is the very thing that he claimed to affirm in the interview.
21:21
But there's another problem. So let's talk about doctrinal accuracy and what the
21:27
Bible says about it. Right. Because I remember Paul saying something very specific. In fact, anathematizing the one thing that Paul anathematized people over just happens to be,
21:40
I don't know, doctrinal accuracy, maybe. Because he says this in Galatians 1 verse 6,
21:46
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another.
21:52
But there are some of you, there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
22:05
Anathema. As we said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you, then what you have received, let him be accursed or anathema.
22:15
That means eternally condemned, excluded from salvation. And so what Wilson just denied is that you're not saved by doctrinal accuracy.
22:24
But Paul just said the one thing that Paul anathematized people over is if you pervert the gospel.
22:31
In other words, if you're not doctrinally accurate about the gospel and present a different one, you're eternally condemned.
22:39
So I'm sorry, Doug, but you're not exonerated. You're not even close. You just condemned yourself trying to defend yourself from these accusations of not believing, of denying sola fide and monocovinentalism, which is exactly what monocovinentalists do, by the way.
22:57
They say, no, they say God always dealt graciously with man, even before the fall.
23:04
And therefore they blur the covenant between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. That's exactly what they do.
23:09
So functionally, Doug Wilson is basically doing the same thing. And here you have another issue where, okay, no, we're not saved by doctrinal works.
23:19
And yet you just condemned yourself because Paul said, if you pervert the gospel, if you don't have a right understanding of the gospel, you're not saved.
23:27
You're condemned eternally. Well, you know, something I think is interesting, and I've noticed this with cultists and people who claim to be
23:36
Christians, but they aren't, is that when they talk about sound doctrine, they represent it as this thing that they have that they cannot achieve.
23:48
You know what I'm saying? They represent it as this thing that they need to strive for that they just can't get. And because they can't get it, they say, well, knowing this doctrine is not requisite to being
24:01
Christian. You know what I mean? Like if you talk to Jehovah's Witness, if you talk to a Mormon, if you talk to Roman Catholic, you talk to Eastern Orthodox, they have this view of doctrine.
24:10
And the reason why I think is because it's fairly evident what's going on is that they're trying in their own flesh, you know what
24:17
I'm saying, in their unregenerate state, to come to a knowledge of the truth, but they can't. And because of that, they say, well, coming to a knowledge of the truth isn't necessary for salvation.
24:27
And what we know from Scripture is that that knowledge of the truth is a gift, which means that everyone who's saved has that knowledge of the truth.
24:34
Some people are going to have more. Some people are going to be systematicians when it comes to theology. But every Christian is going to believe a very basic set of propositions about the person and work of Christ, about who
24:45
God is, about how one is saved. We all are going to believe the same exact thing.
24:50
And we know that on the basis of Scripture. So when somebody says, well, you're not saved by believing the right things, and by that they mean you can believe anything.
25:00
To me, that's usually an indication that this person cannot come to a knowledge of the truth. And because of that, they are saying that no one else is going to come to a knowledge of the truth either, and that it's not necessary, which flatly, like you said,
25:13
Carlos, flatly contradicts Scripture. Yeah. Well, let me, Carlos, I want to comment on a couple of things that pertain to what you said.
25:23
So inevitably, every time we talk about this, we encounter people who will say, well,
25:29
I know a Catholic who's saved and who really is a Christian. Okay. Let's just stop right there.
25:36
Because, yes, we all acknowledge that it's possible that there's somebody out there who maybe refers to themselves as a
25:42
Catholic, but they don't know what Roman Catholicism teaches. And they actually do believe the true gospel. So you should tell them you're not a
25:50
Catholic. Because at the Council of Trent, they anathematized the gospel. If you believe in justification by faith alone, according to Rome, you're anathema.
25:59
And that council, the ruling of that council, has been upheld in every subsequent council, and it has even been declared infallible.
26:09
The rulings of Trent, according to Rome, were declared infallible. So you need to tell these people, look, you need to stop saying you're a
26:17
Catholic, because you're really not. If you really do believe in the gospel, well, they anathematize you, so you're not
26:24
Catholic. They're condemning you. They're saying you're not Catholic. And that's great, but you're really a
26:29
Protestant, and you need to come out of the Roman Catholic Church. The other thing, Carlos, you said it perfectly when you were talking about equivocation or contradiction.
26:41
And even in the comments section on Doug Wilson's article, Brandon Adams was engaging with him, and it was just remarkable.
26:52
Doug said, and you'll have to read the whole quotes, but I just want to point this out concerning the two covenants.
26:59
Doug says, and Brandon quotes him, and he says this is a contradiction, and then Doug says it's not a contradiction.
27:05
And he says, the conditions laid down for the two covenants are different. Let me read that again.
27:12
The conditions laid down for the two covenants are different. And then he later says, the conditions for keeping this covenant is the same as the first.
27:23
And so Brandon pointed out, rightly so, that, hey, this is a contradiction. And Doug gave some,
27:30
I wish I had screenshotted his response. I'm holding my phone, and I can't look it up right now.
27:36
But he gave some weird non -answer answer, which was, and Brandon kind of asked him to clarify, and to my knowledge, he never got back to him.
27:46
But this is a textbook example of equivocation or contradiction.
27:54
And in either case, it's completely wrong to communicate this way.
28:01
And what I haven't seen, and maybe somebody else, maybe somebody out there can point me to this, but I haven't seen
28:07
Doug Wilson take ownership of, I haven't seen him take ownership of any of this.
28:14
And I'm laying this at his feet. Like, this is your fault. The way that you communicate, if you are a teacher or a pastor, you have a responsibility to be clear.
28:25
You have a responsibility to communicate to people in a way that's not confusing.
28:33
This is a contradiction. And that's the problem. It's like, oh, well, you know, he lays it at the feet of everybody else.
28:40
I haven't seen him take responsibility for this. And it's either he either contradicts himself or he obfuscates or he equivocates.
28:49
And by the end of the day, I mean, this is why so many people are fooled by him.
28:57
And this is why so many people, I mean, all right, are we done here?
29:03
Or should we just, I mean. No, no. I have a thesis. Okay, okay.
29:08
Well, this is turning into its own episode, but whatever. All right, keep going. Keep going.
29:13
That's fine. Tim, you mentioned something about the comment section, and that's something I actually wanted to say earlier.
29:19
A friend of mine linked me to the Doug Wilson response. He was like, what do you think about this?
29:25
And I emailed him back. I was like, same old, same old, same garbage from Wilson that you always get. Obfuscation, equivocation, smokescreen, pseudo poetic language, trying to be clever.
29:37
But something that I wanted to point out to him and to other people is look at the comment section. Like you pointed out, look at the interaction between him and Brandon Adams.
29:46
And when he gets pressed on an issue where it's clearly either or, what does he do? He backs up out of it.
29:52
He throws some sand in your eyes and he runs away. You know what I mean? And that's what the heretics always do.
29:59
They're like, oh, no, you found out the emperor has no clothes. So what do you do?
30:04
You throw a distraction out there and you run away. And that's what he did in the comment section. Brandon Adams was right to point out that's a contradiction.
30:12
You can't on the one hand say that. What was he saying again? He said that the means of justification.
30:20
Yeah. The one that I was talking about was the conditions of the covenants are the same. And then the conditions of the covenants are different.
30:26
Yeah, that's what that's exactly what I saw too. Yeah. Yeah. And that's why I wanted people to read the comment section.
30:32
Just like if you want to see what's really going on, look at his interaction with people. And the thing that's crazy about this is.
30:38
But not hold on. Not his interaction with James White, because James White didn't do any of this. Yeah.
30:43
Yeah. But but that's the thing I'm trying to say. That's the thing that's crazy about it. Right. Like James White, if you ever listen to him talking about debates, he's like, well, cross examination is always where the person's view is put to the test.
30:53
And it's like, well, go to the comment section on Wilson's blog and look at the cross examination that's happening.
31:00
And you'll see what's actually going on. Right. Instead of just taking his blanket assertion, I affirm
31:06
X or I affirm Y or I don't affirm X or I don't affirm Y. Look at it. Look at what happens when he's pressed, because that's what that's where you see the truth coming out.
31:15
You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Yeah. So go for it, Carlos. In another article
31:20
I wrote about what it takes. What's it take to be a good writer? I there is an excellent quote from Luther.
31:28
So Luther wrote a letter to Nicholas Armsdorff concerning Erasmus of Rotterdam.
31:34
And this get get what Luther said, OK? I'm just going to read it because it speaks for itself.
31:41
So great a rhetorician as Erasmus, he's talking about Erasmus, and theologian ought not only to know, but to act according to that which
31:49
Fabius says, an ambiguous word should be avoided as a rock where it happens now.
31:54
And inadvertently it may be pardoned, but where it is sought for designedly and purposely, it deserves no pardon, whatever, but justly merits the abhorrence of everyone.
32:07
For to what does this hateful double -tongued way of speaking tend? Let him rather be reduced to order by abstaining from that profane and double -tongued vertability of speech and vain talking, and by avoiding, as Paul the
32:22
Apostle saith, profane and vain babblings. For this it was, that even the public laws of the
32:30
Roman Empire condemned this manner of speaking, and punished it thus. They commanded that the words of him who should speak obscurely, when he could speak more plainly, should be interpreted against himself.
32:45
And this is funny, because you know how people talk constantly, we need to be charitable. We need to be charitable.
32:51
We need to give people the best possible interpretation of whatever they're saying.
32:56
And it's like, well, you need to look at what they're doing. If they're purposely obscuring and obfuscating like false teachers love to do, that shouldn't even apply.
33:09
Yeah, you should use their words against them. And that's how
33:15
Paul and the Apostles dealt with people. They said, you give me an answer, speak clearly, let your yes be yes and your no, no, or I'm not even going to deal with you.
33:26
This is nonsense. And he continues here in the quote. Let me go back to it here.
33:36
And Christ also condemned that wicked servant who excused himself by evasion and interpreting his own words against himself, said,
33:49
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, that wicked servant. For if in religion, in laws, and in all weighty matters, we should be allowed to express ourselves ambiguously and insidiously, what could follow but that utter confusion of Babel, where no one could understand another?
34:08
This would be to learn the language of eloquence, and in so doing to lose the language of nature. Moreover, if this license should prevail, what should become of logic, the instructor of teaching rightly?
34:18
What should become of rhetoric, the faculty of persuading? Nothing would be taught, nothing would be learned, no persuasion could be carried home, no consolation would be given, no fear would be wrought, because nothing would be spoken or heard that was certain.
34:32
Amen. Amen. Yeah. People need to learn this lesson. This was the
34:38
Reformers' mentality. This is what they operated on. They operated on, you need to be clear, you need to speak clearly, and you need to be faithful to the
34:48
Scripture. And not only that, but Carlos, this is what it means to hold somebody accountable. Right.
34:54
We're going to use your words against you. You said this, and now you're contradicting yourself.
35:01
You need to give an answer. So, this was the third point that I wanted to make, and this really irritated me, because Wilson is over here talking with James White, saying
35:14
Federal Vision isn't even a problem anymore. It's not even an issue. It doesn't matter. It's not a problem.
35:20
And he keeps calling these men oatmeal stout. They're oatmeal stout, Federal Vision, and then there's Amber Ale, Federal Vision, as if there's degrees.
35:29
Some are more hardcore than others, but they're all sound. They're all generally okay. And then he said the one thing that they might be a little bit, should be concerned about, is that they just happen to deny regeneration, some of them.
35:41
It's like, okay, dude, yeah. You might want to take some issue with that, yeah. That just happens to be a rank heresy.
35:48
But right, you should rightly take issue with that. Obviously, that's not the only thing, because it just so happens that just about every major reformed denomination has written doctrinal declarations condemning
36:04
Federal Vision. What do you mean it's not a big deal? And so that's what's so irritating about all this mess.
36:11
He's over here writing it off like it's not a big issue. And look at what he did.
36:17
He had the nerve to blame John Robbins from the Trinity Foundation, because he went to the
36:24
Auburn Avenue Conference and criticized what they were talking about, because they were spouting off a bunch of false teaching, and Robbins called it out.
36:33
And so Doug Wilson said, well, basically what happened was when John Robbins wrote against us, the lines were drawn, and basically, the sides became whatever you happened to be standing on at the time that he basically wrote the accusations.
36:49
And so the people who were called Federal Vision were over there on this side, because they were all hanging out together.
36:55
And then there was the other people like Robbins calling him out as if he was a lone voice. And it's like, no,
37:02
Mr. Wilson. It just so happens that entire denominations have categorically condemned
37:09
Federal Vision, and you're playing it off like it was a one man shooting from the hip.
37:16
Yeah, and it's easy for these guys to go after John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation because there's a lot of people out there that disparage
37:25
John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation. And so it's like, oh, let's just blame him for it.
37:31
And Carlos, you were mentioning, and I heard Pastor Hines talk about this on his podcast.
37:40
And by the way, if you want to hear Pastor Hines, he has a Bridwell Heights supplemental podcast for his church, and it's really good.
37:51
Yeah, Pulpit Supplemental, and it's really good. He's been talking about this. I'd like to link his episodes about this to this episode.
38:02
But check out what he's doing. And man, it's late because I just totally forgot
38:07
I spaced on what I was talking about. But anyways, you were making a good point, so get back to that.
38:14
Well, so John Otis wrote... John Otis, yep, thank you.
38:20
That's what I wanted to point people to. Because Hines mentioned that in his podcast, and you were talking about that book.
38:28
And so it's not just Robbins, but go ahead and continue your thought. No, it's not. And it's funny because in the
38:34
Chris Arnzen interview, right after Doug Wilson was interviewed,
38:40
Dewey Roberts came on and exposed a bunch of false teachings that federal visionists teach.
38:47
And it's like, dude, who are you trying to kid? I mean, and Dewey Roberts, let me find the book, because they both wrote books.
38:57
John Otis and Dewey Roberts both wrote books about federal vision over 400 pages long, documenting the numerous errors that these men make.
39:09
And so let me get the name of Dewey Roberts' book here. Here it is.
39:15
So Dewey Roberts published a book, and I recommend that people check out that interview with Chris Arnzen, because listen to the
39:24
Doug Wilson part, and then listen to Dewey Roberts coming on and just totally exposing the false teachings that federal visionists teach.
39:35
Dewey Roberts wrote a book called Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision, A Theological Analysis and Practical Evaluation.
39:42
This book was published in 2016. It's 420 pages long.
39:51
Now, John Otis is another gentleman.
39:57
Patrick Hines mentions him, too. He reads quotes from his book. John Otis wrote a book himself.
40:09
It's called Danger in the Camp, An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision. This book was published in 2017.
40:21
It's 544 pages long, and he deals with these individuals on a case -by -case basis, including
40:29
Doug Wilson. So if you want to get informed about federal vision, go ahead and read the declarational denouncements of just about every reformed denomination
40:41
Go ahead and get John Otis' book, Danger in the Camp. It's over 500 pages long.
40:47
It's actually pretty cheap. I think it's like five bucks on Kindle. And check out Dewey Roberts' book on Historic Christianity and the
40:53
Federal Vision. Over 400 pages long. It's unbelievably irritating to see
41:02
James White, because like you were saying, Tim, James White is criticizing critics of Rosaria Butterfield because they're shallow, and all they read is blogs, and they're fundamentalists because they oversimplify things.
41:19
And it's like when it comes to John Piper and Doug Wilson, he is so superficial that he's not even willing to look even a little bit into it.
41:31
Are you even willing to call out what he said in the interview? When he's blurring and perverting law and gospel, saying
41:41
God was gracious to Adam, even if he had fulfilled the covenant perfectly. Yeah.
41:47
Let me point something out here. Federal Vision and Doug Wilson, they're not just problems for Presbyterians.
41:58
We are all Reformed Baptists on Semper Reformanda Radio. While Timothy Kaufman, he does the eschatology, he's
42:06
Presbyterian. But you both are Reformed Baptists.
42:12
I'm a Reformed Baptist. Brandon Adams is a Reformed Baptist. And because this is law gospel confusion or perversion, as you put it,
42:21
Carlos, because you have guys like Rich Lusk and Steve Schlissel, who just outright deny
42:29
Sola Fide. I mean, Lusk is, it's unbelievable.
42:34
He teaches double justification. Double justification. And, I mean, just perverts the gospel.
42:45
This is not just a Presbyterian issue. This is not limited to paedo -communion or paedo -baptism.
42:54
This is not just a Presbyterian issue. This is not just a Presbyterian concern. This concerns every
43:02
Christian because it concerns the gospel. And so, we're
43:07
Reformed Baptists and we definitely do not agree with this. And we wish that other
43:14
Reformed Baptists like James White would actually stop taking so much issue with fundamentalists and actually take issue with the substance of what is at issue with Doug Wilson.
43:32
Well, can I interject here? Yeah, go for it. One of the issues with the so -called fundamentalists that keep being referenced is that they're not really fundamentalists.
43:46
It's kind of like, Carlos, you were talking about how Doug Wilson was calling the other
43:51
Federal Revision guys like Oatmeal Stout, something like that, and Amber Stout. He was making that distinction. And there's a reason why he's using that language and there's a reason why
44:00
James White is using the language of fundamentalists because it's,
44:06
I hate this terminology, but it's like a dog whistle. You know what I mean? It cuts off critical thinking for the people that are listening to them.
44:12
When somebody listens to Doug Wilson, who is a post -millennial beer drinking, you know what I mean, like Reformed pub kind of individual, and they hear him talk about Oatmeal, beer,
44:27
Oatmeal, whatever, Stout, and Amber Stout, whatever, they hear him make these analogies. They think, oh, there goes Doug again, talking about that stuff that we like, which is beer.
44:35
And when they hear James White talking about fundamentalists, what do they think of? They think of the
44:40
King James Only controversy. You know what I mean? It's a way of getting people to stop thinking, basically. I don't think that James White is actually concerned with fundamentalists at all when it comes to the things that have come up recently, like the
44:53
Apologia recording phone calls debacle, the Rosario Butterfield debacle, the
44:58
James, the Doug Wilson debacle, and even things in the past, like the, what do you call it,
45:05
Yasir Qadhi incident, you know, the interfaith dialogue thing. I don't think they're concerned with fundamentalists. I think it's a way of deflecting criticism.
45:12
You know what I mean? They're using triggering words. You know what I mean? They might not put it that way, but that's what they're doing. You know, they're saying, well, these are the people that are opposing me.
45:20
Fundamentalists are opposing me, and you know that I've stood against fundamentalism, and if you've read my book on the King James Only controversy, you know what fundamentalists are like.
45:27
Sam Gibb, what's her name, the woman who wrote the satanic New Age Bible versions.
45:33
Yeah. Gayle Ripplinger. You know what I mean? Those are the things that you're going to call to mind when you hear James White call somebody fundamentalist, and it's a way of just ripping somebody off completely.
45:40
Just like with Doug Wilson saying, well, these guys are like beer. You know, like, well, like I said, there goes our buddy
45:46
Doug talking about beer again. You know what I mean? He's really reformed because he's talking about beer and theology, and it's like, people don't get that this is a way of cutting off criticism.
45:58
Yeah. I don't think we're going to ever talk about Piper. So here's what
46:03
I think we should do, guys. Why don't we just label this the episode that was supposed to be about Piper, but was about everything else, and why don't we then do another episode and make it about Piper?
46:16
In closing, I think we're right. Everybody else is wrong. Amen. See you next week.
46:22
All right, yeah. Well, no, I'm not amening that. I probably need some correction somewhere. So let's go ahead and do this.
46:29
You're right. I'm right. I'm right. And everybody else can. Yeah. Well, that just makes you wrong.
46:37
But let's just go ahead and close this episode out. Obviously, we were intending on talking about Piper, but that didn't happen.
46:46
So we'll just have to pick that up next week.
46:52
In the meantime, you can read up on Carlos's article. You can read up on the articles that Hiram has posted.
47:01
Be sure to look out for Carlos's interview on John Piper if you're wanting to get some more stuff on John Piper and what we think.
47:12
That is going to be coming out on the Trinity Foundation. Carlos, do you have any idea as to when that podcast will be published?
47:20
No, I'm not sure, but he said it was going to be soon.
47:26
And another thing I wanted to announce is that we've been having trouble with the website, unfortunately, but I did manage to fix the first part,
47:38
Part 1, of When Protestants Are on the Side of Rome. I fixed the hyperlinks on the footnote, so it's much easier to read now.
47:46
If you click on a footnote, it'll jump right back to it. And then you can jump back and keep reading the article.
47:54
It's just to make it easier to read. And I also polished it a little bit as well to make it clearer. So there's some
48:01
Easter eggs in there for people who want to read it again or whatever.
48:07
And I'm going to do the same thing for... Well, the second part is already pretty much good, but I'm going to polish a few things in there as well to clarify what
48:16
I meant. Okay, and if anybody has any questions, comments, concerns, gripes, we do appreciate hearing from our listeners.
48:25
So Carlos, you want to give out the number and the email address? Yeah, the email, you can email us at thorncrownministries at gmail .com
48:33
and the phone number, or you can also... We have a contact section.
48:41
You can also submit a form, fill out a form there and ask to subscribe to our newsletter, which
48:48
I haven't released in a while. It's been a while. I've only released one, but I do eventually hope to get around to another one.
48:58
And you can call and leave us a voicemail at 915 -302 -01.
49:05
I'm sorry, I just completely misread that. Scratch that. 915 -302 -0915.
49:14
Yeah, it's late. It's later where Hiram is at. So Hiram, we really appreciate you hanging with us.
49:22
What are you, two hours behind us? An hour. Or ahead of us? An hour ahead of you guys.
49:28
Actually, no, an hour. I guess an hour behind, yeah. Wait a minute. Wait. It's 1130 where I'm at.
49:35
It's 1230 here. Yeah, it's 1130. Oh, you got it easier, man. You got it easier. I thought you were like...
49:42
No, it's harder because I have to get my... Never mind, I take it back. I got to get my kids to bed earlier, which is more stressful. So this is my cross to bear.
49:51
Okay, that's it. That's your cross to bear. You can tell Tim wasn't homeschooled because he doesn't know his geography that well.
49:59
I don't remember where he lives. You said that last time, and you said Lewiston, Idaho.
50:05
Okay, and I forgot. I had to ask him, where do you live again? And I completely forgot where you live.
50:12
Sorry. Sorry, bro. And besides that, I am homeschooling my kids, so I'm getting a refresher on all of this stuff.