Doug Wilson, Federal Vision, Serious Error and Heresy

Well, well, it's been quite a weekend, has it not?

It's been quite a weekend. We had a surprise video drop on Saturday. It was teased on Friday and dropped on Saturday.

Everyone was super excited about it. When I say everyone, you know, some people on the internet. Oh man, it was a conversation with Dr.

James White and Doug Wilson, two of my favorites. No question about it. Both of those men

I've learned a lot from. I love their attitudes. I love the way they conduct themselves in general.

So much learning going on here. And what they're talking about is the federal vision.

Now, most people don't really care about the federal vision and I can understand that, but if you do care about the federal vision and Doug Wilson's positions on justification and different things like that,

I highly recommend you watch it. It's about an hour of your time. It clears up a lot of things. It'll never please the critics.

It'll never please the trolls. Obviously, nothing can possibly please the trolls, but it is very good and it'll help you out,

I believe, to watch it. Now, if you don't care about the federal vision, which is like 95 % of you, I'm sure.

Federal vision is a very niche subject. There's just no question about it. But if you're in the 95 % of the world of normal people that doesn't care about the federal vision, the last 10 minutes of this video, which

I'll link to in the description of this one, last 10 minutes has nothing to do with federal vision and is extremely helpful.

It's about how to receive criticism, how to interpret life when people are lying about you and ridiculing you and attacking you and stuff like that.

Let's not, you know, no despair, no, you know, what was me kind of stuff, none of that stuff.

It's super helpful. It's straight out of the Bible. I highly recommend it. So this video is good if you care about federal vision, you 5 % of weirdos out there.

And if you don't care about federal vision, this is also a very good video.

Now, I wanna mention something about this video because I find it helpful for so many reasons.

Now, the first thing is, Doug Wilson, this is nothing new. So if you've paid attention to the controversy over time, you're not gonna get any new information here.

Doug has been saying these things for probably decades at this point. There's no changing here.

It's just, he's changed in some of his wordings as far as what he calls himself, but his beliefs really haven't changed.

This is nothing new. So this will be a review for you. It's all in one place, which can be helpful. But what I appreciate is that Doug has answered these questions again and again and again and again and again.

And he still does it with such patience, with such charity and clarity, frankly.

And so that's something to be emulated, you know, is as much as someone annoys you, as I mean, you could tell that Doug Wilson is annoyed by some of these people, but it doesn't come through in like in screeching or like, it doesn't seem like he has a hard time, you know, answering these questions again for like the hundredth time.

So that's the first thing I really appreciate. Just Doug Wilson, the way he conducts himself, it's something to be emulated. I can sometimes screech a little bit.

You know what I mean? I've been known to do that, but Doug really doesn't. I'm sure he does in his life.

He has at some point, but he just really doesn't with what he puts out online. So good on him.

The second thing I really appreciate though is about this is that he's offering extra helps for his critics.

He doesn't just state what he believes, he also states where he thinks the confusion is coming from.

And that is super gracious. That is super gracious with people that are not gracious with him. Despite the fact that people want to destroy him, his family, his life, his livelihood, all that stuff, he is still offering extra help.

He's saying, look, I see where your confusion is coming from. I think here's where it is, and here's why you don't have to worry about that.

So he's offering extra help. He's not just saying, here's what I believe, figure it out for yourselves. He's actually telling you where he thinks the confusion's coming from, and he explains it further.

So here's a perfect example. So we're using the Brandon Adams article. This is the guy that me and Matt Williams interviewed or talks to,

I don't know, it wasn't really much of an interview. We talked to him on a Reformagelical show, and they used his article.

And here's the first point that Brandon says, that R. Scott Clarke says, defines federal vision, and Brandon seems to adopt this definition.

The first point of federal vision that is so wrong with it is, quote, there is no covenant of works before the fall.

The covenant of grace was established before the fall and continues after the fall. Now, the idea here is that if you make, in normal covenant theology, there's two covenants, right?

So there's the covenant of works before the fall, and then there's the covenant of grace after the fall. Every covenant after the fall is a form of the covenant of grace, in other words.

So if you make it just one covenant, right, the whole time, there is no covenant of works, in other words.

If you say that, then you're going to end up, when it comes to justification, mixing works and faith, works and grace, and so you're going to end up saying something like you're justified by works, in part at least.

That's the argument, and that would be very dangerous, I agree, but Doug Wilson, does he agree that there is no covenant of works before the fall?

Well, for decades, and in this video, he says, no, I don't agree that there is no covenant of works before the fall.

So that's a flat, that should be enough. If you're a Christian, and you don't recognize, Doug Wilson is a covenant member, he's in the faith, you know,

I should believe what he says, then that should be enough for you. You say, Doug, do you believe that there's no covenant of works before the fall, like it says in the

R. Scott Clark points of federal vision? Doug says, no, I don't believe that.

I believe there was a covenant of works before the fall. That should be enough, but Doug, knowing that his critics are going to criticize, obviously, and seeking to help clarify the issues, and seeking to provide them a little bit of a help, a little bit of a way out, he explains where he thinks the confusion is coming from.

So here's what, here's the first part of it. Number one, he believes in the covenant of works, but he doesn't like to call it the covenant of works, because he believes that that leads to misunderstandings of what the covenant of works is all about.

Okay, so that's his first point. He doesn't like to call it the covenant of works. Now, he doesn't have to call it the covenant of works.

The Westminster calls it the covenant of works, but he doesn't have to use the same wording, right? Well, no, he doesn't, but he does want to call himself a

Westminster guy, so he probably should, right? That would be the argument, he doesn't have to. Well, the problem is that the

Westminster standards themselves sometimes refer to the covenant of works as the covenant of life, and that's what

Doug prefers to call it, the covenant of life. Now, this is something that if you teach your kids catechism, if you catechize your children like I do, then you would probably recognize this, because it's the

Shorter Catechism that says that God established the covenant of life with Adam.

This is Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 12. What special act of providence did

God exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created? Answer, when

God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him. Okay, so Doug is well within Westminster standards to say,

I wanna call this covenant the covenant of life. He does not deny that it was a different covenant than the covenant of grace, he does not deny that it was the covenant of works, technically speaking, he just prefers to call it the covenant of life, and the

Westminster standards totally allow that. Okay, so when I teach my kids what covenant did

God establish with man, my kids answer the covenant of life, that is correct. Okay, that is the correct answer.

By the way, side note, it's adorable. It's adorable, doing catechism with your little kids.

My four -year -old and my two -year -old, you ask them, what is a covenant? This is a question that I probably couldn't have answered like five years ago, what is a covenant?

At least in a very pithy kind of way. And they'll say something like this with their cute little voices. A relationship that God establishes with us and guarantees by his word, oh, that's adorable.

My two -year -old saying that, oh, it's adorbs. Anyway, back to the issues. So that's the first confusion, okay?

So he doesn't like to call it the covenant of works, but he believes in it. So he says, okay, guys, look, I'm gonna help you out here.

Now, here's a second confusion. He believes that the covenant of works, or life, whatever you wanna call it, it was gracious of God to establish that with us.

In other words, he didn't have to. God wasn't forced to enter into a covenant with man.

This is something that every Christian should believe. There's nothing forcing God to establish a covenant with Adam.

And so it was gracious for him to do so, and he says that often. I agree.

Now, that's where he thinks there might be more confusion, because he says, look, it's a covenant of works, different than the covenant of grace, but it was gracious of God to enter into that covenant.

That's not controversial, by the way, but he's thinking that's probably where some of this confusion is coming from.

So he's helping you guys out, your critics, his critics. He's helping them out, giving them an out for falling flat on their face with this criticism.

So it's false to say that Doug Wilson believes there is no covenant of works before the fall. He definitely does.

He believes it was a gracious covenant. In other words, God did not have to establish it with us. By the way, this is also within Westminster standards.

Here's what chapter seven of the Westminster Confession says. It says, quote, the distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

So the covenant, the Westminster Confession says, is voluntary and it represents a condescension on God's part.

He didn't have to come down and make a covenant with us. He did so voluntarily. Another way to say that is he did it because he's gracious.

By the way, when I was talking to Brandon Adams, he kind of like glossed over that point and said that would bring us too far afield. Now, I had my

Westminster open to that exact page because I thought it would come up and I am not as quick on my feet as I thought

I was. I didn't say anything about it. I just let him say that takes us too far afield, but that's actually the whole point.

That's actually the whole point. So that's just point one. Now, in the video, they go through all of these points and talk about why this is not what he believes.

Doug Wilson doesn't believe any of these points. Any of the five points of federal vision,

Doug Wilson denies them all and offers up suggestions as to why you're confused about his beliefs on that.

There's nothing else to be done here on Doug's part. Nothing, nothing.

If you don't believe it, then you just have to admit to yourself, I will never believe Doug Wilson, no matter what.

That's just what you, that's your position. And if that's your position, own it. It's fine if you will never believe

Doug Wilson, no matter what, own it, but you've got to go to God with that. That's a problem. That's a real problem.

So that's what I wanted to say about that. Now, further, I wanted to talk about something that Joseph Spurgeon said on a

Facebook post. Joseph Spurgeon said this on a Facebook post.

So I came into this conversation a little late and the first thing

I saw that I wanted to respond to is that Joseph Spurgeon said, are

Lutherans heretics? Are Anglicans heretics? Was St. Augustine a heretic?

Now, the reason why this is important is because Doug Wilson, I think correctly says that there's two, well, there's more than two, but there's two tiers or,

I don't know, tiers is the right word, but there's a variety of positions and beliefs within what used to be called the federal vision, right?

So there was the Amber Ale style, light coffee, that kind of thing. And that's what Doug Wilson says he was.

And then there was the oatmeal stout, the black coffee, straight, no chaser, just hardcore federal vision guys.

That's what he says. And on the Doug side, he's more Westminster, he's more reformed, he's more evangelical.

And on the oatmeal stout side, they're more Anglican, they're more Lutheran, right? And so if we're gonna say that the oatmeal stout version of federal vision is definitely heresy and Doug Wilson is friends with these guys and platforms these guys and so therefore he's platforming heretics or something like that, we need to go all the way with that.

We need to be consistent. So if we're gonna do that, then we definitely would have to agree that Lutherans are heretics as well.

Anglicans are heretics. St. Augustine believed a lot of these same things. He's a heretic as well. I agree. I think that's a ridiculous position to take.

But if you're gonna take that position, I want you to own it. Go all the way. This is the thing, you gotta go all the way.

You gotta go all the way. And so I told Joseph, I said, I was thinking about this exact thing this morning. Is this the way we're gonna go?

We're gonna say, okay, well, I'm Protestant, I'm Westminster, therefore Lutherans.

Well, I guess you're going to hell. St. Augustine, he was nice. I got a lot of insights from him, but probably in hell.

Anglicans, well, those guys are basically Catholics, in hell. And here's what

I wanted to talk about. Joseph responded, and he said this to me. He said, there has to be a category for people who are wrong and in error on certain issues, but are not damned heretics.

He says, I don't believe that Wilson is wrong, but agree with everything he said in this interview and most of his books.

I do think Peter Lightheart is wrong and seriously wrong, but he isn't a heretic.

This is what I wanted to talk about today. There has to be at least a third category.

There has to be at least a third category when it comes to teachers, professing

Christian teachers and pastors and theologians who are seriously wrong and dangerously wrong on issues, but aren't heretics.

Like it's not, you know, great teacher or heretic. Like those aren't the only two options for us.

There are lots of other options, but at least there's a third where I can say, man, I've got some serious concerns about what

Peter Lightheart teaches or whatever. I've got some serious concerns, serious disagreements.

And I think that it's confusing. I think that if you go all the way with it, you could end up becoming a heretic, where I think that you shouldn't teach that anymore.

You know what I mean? And you could forcefully critique it, forcefully critique it, but it does not mean that they are a heretic.

I mean, why can't there be a third option like that? You know what I mean? Why can't there be?

And the thing is, I know that there can be because here's the reality. Everyone who's reformed, everyone.

Maybe I shouldn't say everyone. That's too easy to refute. But most people who are reformed already disagree with a lot of people they respect on a very, very serious issue.

And yet do not believe everyone on the other side is a heretic, damned, in hell, apostate.

And this is the issue of baptism. If you don't think that baptism, whether or not you baptize your babies is a serious issue, then

I don't think you've thought about it very much. I don't think you've thought about the implications very much.

I don't think you've actually thought about what the scripture has to say about the covenant sign very much.

Because here's the reality. Exodus, Moses almost gets killed by God because he messes up the covenant sign.

Exodus chapter four, Moses has met with God. God gives him his mission essentially. He gives him the signs that he's gonna perform before Pharaoh and he has him go back to Egypt in order to do this.

So God, so Moses is on mission for God, right? God met with him, spoke with him, gave him the signs, all this stuff, right?

And here's what it says in verse 24, ready? At a lodging place on the way, the

Lord met him and sought to put him to death. So right after he gives

Moses his mission, he's about to kill him, why? Verse 25 says, then

Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.

So he let him alone. It was then that she said a bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.

So Moses had not circumcised his son. And because he withheld the covenant sign from his son, doesn't say exactly why he did it, he just did it.

God was about to kill him right after giving him his mission and so his wife quickly circumcises him and God relents.

It's a serious issue, right? And before you think like, okay, well, the

Bible says that, but that's kind of a confusing passage, okay, and you know, all that. Look, those of you who are

Baptist and you know that my three sons are baptized, you think that that's a dangerous thing, that's a dangerous message to send to my children.

I'm sure you do, that they're in the covenant, they're in Christ, right? They're in his body.

They're covenant members. That you think it's dangerous to do that before that they've understood, you know, who they are, their nature and stuff like that.

You think that's dangerous. I likewise think it's extremely dangerous. You Baptists out there, I love you guys.

Just want you to know that before I say this, okay? I love you guys. I think it's dangerous to have your kids wondering whether or not they're

Christ's. When you have them praying, when they're four years old, you have them singing the doxology, singing with the church, you have them there and you teach them how to worship

God and you teach them all these things. At the same time, you're telling them, you are a wicked pagan until you repent.

Now pray like me. You are a wicked pagan until you repent. Now sing the songs that I'm singing now.

You don't do it like that because you're not mean. You know what I mean? But that's the thought process for a Baptist. You know, my son's a wicked pagan.

Many of you, not all of you. My son's a wicked pagan and yet I'm teaching him to pray, but does

God even hear his prayers? I don't even know. It's confusing. It's very confusing. I think that that's dangerous to teach your kids that way.

I teach my kids to pray and sing because they're in the body of Christ. That's why I do it. They're in the covenant with Christ.

Christ made a covenant with them. See, I think it's dangerous to say to a kid like that, you know, well, you know, when you're baptized, it's because, you know,

God's making a covenant with you, but you decide whether or not you're in it. No, God decides. God decides who's in his covenant and who's not.

That's what I believe, right? That's why he gave me my sons because he was like, okay, these three, they're mine.

Okay, they're in covenant with me. I am establishing my covenant. He's the actor. Now, Baptists believe that God's the actor in baptism, but I think it sends a confusing message.

When I say, well, when you're ready, when you decide, when you prove it to me, you know what I mean? Like that kind of thing. I think that's weird. Now, remember,

I love you guys. I think it's dangerous what you teach your kids, but I don't think you're heretics.

I think you're in some serious error, but I think you're believers, man.

It's not like we do this all the time with baptism. We do this all the time with other things, right? We have categories for this, where someone is very wrong, very, very wrong, but not a heretic.

I think we should make more liberal use of this category. Just my opinion, just my opinion.

You don't have to agree with me. We should make more liberal use of this third category.

Not all Lutherans are automatically heretics. I know that doesn't seem very, it doesn't seem like I'm going out on a limb, and I don't think

I am, because we don't treat them that way. Not all Anglicans are heretics. St.

Augustine wasn't a heretic. I mean, my goodness gracious.

I don't even know why these things need to be said, but apparently they do. Anyway, this third category thing,

I did a video last week that talked about putting away the pitchforks for now. The pitchforks are always gonna be there.

They're not gonna rust, they're not gonna be useless in a few years or something like that. For now, let's criticize what each other are saying.

If someone's teaching dangerous things, and we're gonna get into this a little bit more this week, regarding Rosario Butterfield and stuff like that, but if someone's teaching dangerous things, can it be enough for us to say, yeah, that's wrong, and that's very dangerous, and all of that, and stop short of saying, and that proves that you're evil.

You are a Trojan horse. You are a wicked wolf speaking perverse things.

I just, I don't know. I don't know, man. By the way, interestingly, this is one of the reasons why

I really like the Doug Wilson objectivity of the covenant stuff. I remember when I first found out about this objectivity of the covenant stuff, it was very freeing.

It was very freeing. All of a sudden, I could criticize people's beliefs forcefully, but not have to assume that they're out and I'm in.

That's freeing, man. That's good stuff. That's good stuff. If you haven't read his stuff on the objectivity of the covenant, don't believe the hype.

It's not federal vision, ooh. It's not. It's good stuff, and I think it'll help you understand this concept of people being in serious error, but not heretics.

Anyway, I hope this was helpful. More videos to come, one more today, and some more the rest of the week.