The Federal Vision | James White and Doug Wilson | Sweater Vest Dialogues

[Music] so Doug Wilson it's been what 15 years I think since we last saw each other yes seems like yesterday for me and both of us look a little bit different we did 15 years ago lots of water under the bridge since then but of late a lot of discussion partly because you are brave enough to sit on couches that are on fire which personally I'm still waiting for the inside story on that one because I I would not be able to remember what I was supposed to be saying that was going on so I was pretty impressed just just so you know well thanks it was it was fun I'll put it this way it it was a real fire and it was really there when I was talking but it was enhanced somewhat enhanced somewhat ok I won't even go there I don't want to know how you enhance fire on a couch anyways but the point is that that was the beginning you all did your November thing then you've done it again this year right and obviously you are addressing a lot of issues that are great common concern for a lot of people who are watching with a tremendous amount of dismay entire Seminary faculties denominations that I was naive enough at one point to think would not fall into the perspectives they're falling into because of something called sola scriptura i thought that that would function as a a gate a wall a barrier you'd have to make meaningful positive argumentation to promote stuff like that I was naive I've admitted that many many times now but obviously this is an area you've been addressing for a long period of time and you do so with a kind of insight and shall we say vigor that a lot of folks are to even try to emulate because of their situations because I mean there's a lot of people who agree I'm just afraid to say they agree yeah they agree but they've got mortgages or boards or donors they've got complications lots of complications and especially within the nomination 'el structures and seminaries and things like that so as a result your articles get shared and when that happens I thought for a period of time that I might have the most derangement syndrome followers until I started seeing what happens to you right and so I have to give you the crown on that I'm close but not we get that we could have a troll contest I didn't I wouldn't you want to see what that would look like it's sort of something out of Lord of the Rings but so actually the orcs but we won't go into that right now but anyway the point is that when that happens when you write something that really nails a particular development that this does took place what happens is you get a certain set of memes back almost reflexively from a very vocal group of people right and there's all sorts of things that are included in that but since we have a brief out of time the primary thing the primary focus of that is always going back to the issue of the federal vision fran specifically our Scott Clark's criticisms and the repetition of those criticisms ad nauseam over and over again recently Brandon Adams who has reformed Baptists wrote an article in light of the fact that Toby and others that are associated with Moscow were at reformed con at apologia and the whole issue was before in Baptists and the federal vision at 7-7 right so there were certain things brought up in that article you wrote a piece for your blog I think it was posted yesterday Monday I think Monday well sometime this week who couldn't keep track of these days IIIi can't but where you interacted with some of the things that he said and you sort of had to I mean it was sort of buried in the midst of things but let me just read one statement at best Wilson is thoroughly confused on the gospel having been deceived by Shepards faults teaching at worst he is a wolf speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after themselves and quote there really wasn't any really positive area to put a foot down in that particular conclusion so it's not like you could just let it go swinging by so how how do we deal with this issue today in light of the fact that you have specifically spoken of the fracturing of what was once known as the federal vision movement into people going a lot of different directions right you have wanted to change terminology while at the same time maintaining certain emphases in regards to the importance of holiness and and issues long those lines let's start with how we define federal vision today because that seems to be one of the biggest issues right so one of the difficulties is that the the term federal vision was simply the name of a conference that was the title conference title back in 2002 and federal is simply the word that comes from the Latin for deuced which means covenant so it was a covenant and vision conference and at that conference for basically about six months after that conference at Auburn Avenue in Louisiana about six months after that John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation sort of launched an attack on the whole thing and basically the lines were drawn simply by where everybody was standing when the shooting started all right so what what happened was there were from the very beginning disparate elements in what came to be called the federal vision I would regard myself as as a conservative Westminster Ian's advocate within the federal vision I called that the federal vision amber ale and then the federal vision oatmeal stout would be people like Jim Jordan Peter lightheart etc okay just lost all the Baptist's in the group but don't worry yeah someone told the stories that Jews are people who don't recognize them Jesus is the Messiah Protestants are those who don't recognize the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and Baptists are those who don't recognize one another in the liquor store but but anyway so not even back even back in the day because our debate was in 2004 so that was you know not you know it's sort of been the same obviously the same time period I differentiated between yourself and others from Auburn Avenue and from the presentations we made you had to to be able to accurately understand what somebody was saying right so these guys I would say that a lot of the guys on the federal vision oatmeal stout end of things are my friends I've got a good relationship with them but I would regard them as sometimes more Lutheran or or more Anglican or more friendly to sacramental efficacy in itself right I don't believe that they hold to the X operator parado view of the Roman Catholic Church but I think that there are Protestants who are not as skittish about that kind of thing as I am as I was and as I am so I'm I'm an evangelical in my book from that era reformed is not enough I begin the book with three chapters in a row my Calvinistic bona fides my reformed bona fides and my evangelical bona fides to make it clear that I believe in the absolute necessity of the new birth to make it clear that I believe in justification by faith alone plus nothing and so I've held to those views throughout this whole controversy but I do hold in the thing that made me federal vision at all is I do believe in an object of the objectivity of the visible covenant the objectivity of the visible Church and it's genuine relationship to God in Christ and that was the hinge of our debate back in 2004 that's what we were talking about but I absolutely affirmed that if a if a person is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit in turn in his heart if he's not it doesn't have the hardest stone taken away in the heart of flesh replacing it done by the Holy Spirit he's lost it doesn't matter what kind of Christian he was or calls himself he's the kind of Christian that is going to hell he doesn't he was not a member of what classic reformed theology would call the invisible church he's not going to be part of what I called the eschatological church he didn't have the root of the matter in him and the root of the matter is faith begins with faith continues by faith finishes by faith and so one of the weird things in this in the troubles that come out when if if I attack the people who are just causing our civilization to disintegrate and many of our evangelical institution institutions are disintegrating right along with it as you pointed out the trolls come out and one of the things they say over and over and over is federal vision he denies justification by faith alone but I don't deny justification by faith alone I affirm it stoutly from beginning to end I don't deny the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ I don't deny the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ as a forensic act that God performs at the point of a of an individual's true conversion that's that happens and I've maintained that now maintained it all the way through there are five points that were listed by Brandon Adams drawn from our Scott Clark and my understanding is you do not follow any of them correct leads to tremendous confusion so number one there is no covenant works before the fall the covenant of grace was established before the fall and continues after the fall right I affirm the doctrine of the covenant of works the prelapsarian covenant of works before the fall the thing that throws some people is I don't like calling it the covenant of works because I think the term is misleading because anybody who's biblically literate works in the Bible in the Paul line in Nepal and vocabulary works as a bad thing you know it's fair circle attempt set self justification I would rather call it the covenant of life or the covenant of creation and I believe it was a gracious covenant but I believe that God gave made a covenant with Adam it's not the covenant of grace it's a different covenant than what we are saved by and the the terms of the covenant what Adam had to do was not eat from the tree in of the knowledge of good and evil so the fulfillment of the Covenant was contingent upon Adams obedience so you would not embrace the description of ma no covenant Elizabeth no I'm not a Monica a Mentalist I don't I and that that is the view that there's just one covenant throughout all human history that spans the fall I believe there was one covenant before the fall that we broke that we broke in our Father Adam and that the second Adam is given in order under the terms of a new covenant the covenant of grace to restore us so two covenants and they had different conditions different different things that in the first one Adam had to obey God and not eat from the tree and in the second covenant Christ had to obey his father and go to the go to the tree so the first Adam so baited a tree the second Adam obeyed on a tree so I believe it was two different covenants that another subtlety that some people miss here is that I believe that if Adam had a kept the Covenant the first one he would have done it by trusting God by believing God he he would have done it by faith and I believe if he had withstood his probationary test he would have thanked God afterwards and so I think it was a gracious covenant because I think God is gracious and I believe that Adam would have fulfilled it by trusting God and believing God and walking with God that way so Adam would have been a believing Adam just as Christ was a believe in Christ but they would have been doing two different things with two different covenants second point and this is this sort of circle around to what we were talking about just few moments ago and this is really important the conditions of the covenant with Adam are the conditions for Christians faithfulness now there's a obviously distinction being made between faith and faithfulness right and and so is that definitional of the federalization and what's your view on so my my view is that God gives in Ephesians 2:8 and 9 by grace you saved through faith and that that referring to the faith and that faith is not of yourselves it is the gift of God lest any man should boast so the faith when I first trust in God that faith is the instrument of my justification the ground of the ground of justification is the obedience of Jesus Christ throughout hid the course of his life and his culminating obedience on the cross that's the ground of justification when God gives me faith to trust in Christ at the moment of my justification I trust in God trust in the gospel trust in Christ with that god-given faith that God giving god-given faith is living faith okay and at that moment it's a pump Tilly or moment where I'm justified the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to me and in my justification I am perfect looks at me and sees Jesus Christ and nothing else so my justification my status is that of the perfection of Jesus Christ that's what I have now but that faith that believed that was the instrument to believing - justification that faith doesn't disappear it doesn't go away so I believe in justification by faith alone but I also believe that that faith remains and trusts God in the realm of sanctification now I'm I'm I don't get justified because of how well I'm doing in my sanctification but but the instrument that it let's say five years after conversion I have a really bad week and I sin a lot in that week and on the Friday of that really bad week I get hit by a truck and but I'm and I go to heaven I go to heaven because I'm perfect in Christ I go to heaven because I'm justified because I was declared not guilty because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ but I was having a bad week because I wasn't walking by faith with regard to my sanctification the way I should have been which is why Paul chides the Galatians are you so foolish having begun with the spirit are you now gonna finish by human effort are you not gonna finish in the flesh no and and in Romans 1 Paul says that he quote he's quoting Habakkuk - the just shall live by faith or the just shall live by faith but notice the just it doesn't say the just shall start my faith and finish by works it says the just shall live by faith so I'm converted on Tuesday I'm justified by faith alone on Tuesday on Wednesday everything I do ought to be by faith also right on Thursday sanctification is by faith and it's the same faith and it's a living faith because God doesn't give any other kind okay so let me let me flush this out are you in your mind in is it your intention at this point to be saying what the Catechism says and that's basically that a saving faith is never alone correct we are justified by faith alone but justifying faith is never alone right credits if it's it's the work of God in his elect people he gives faith and purpose is to conform it's the image of Christ therefore that faith and we living faith and we're going to be as new creatures virus of holiness standard stand up this is being pot for a long long time oh that is correct that what I'm affirming here is classic reformed theology 101 the kind you buy at Walmart okay so when you're going to Walmart though you run into a Roman Catholic right that's right so and and this was this was I sure you remember is one of my key issues from from our debate and it's what drew me to the federal Division controversy as it was going on is because I'm doing debates with the best Roman Catholic apologists and the Roman Catholic apologist saying of course we believe in salvation by grace alone through faith mm-hmm without that last word and they then emphasize the fact that well you know it's faith working through love and they use that to open a door to drive the entire bus of the Roman sacramental system into the meaning of what faith is faith includes the penances and faith includes the confessions the priests and faith includes the indulgences and drink and so they they crank the door open to get all that stuff through there and that's when I'm hearing a lot of your critics saying is I know what dougies up to he's such a wordsmith he's he's sneaking it in here isn't risky it's Trixie Trixie dugsi so so how so here's how i insert this is this is I'm glad you asked that so this is the this is the the issue the debate at the beginning of the Reformation and down to the present the debate between Protestants and Catholics it was about imputed righteousness and infused righteousness all right imputed righteousness and infused righteousness but the debate between Protestants and Catholics was not over the existence of imputed righteousness or the existence of infused righteousness both sides affirmed it the Roman Catholics said that infused righteousness was part of your justification okay it was included in it I'm saying together with all my Protestant fathers and all my Protestant brothers I'm saying that justification is an imputation function alone right so we we believe in Christ by god-given faith God enables us to believe and he imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to me his actor is the righteousness of his whole life and his rights are sacrificed on the cross that is imputed to me and that is my justification with no remainder not no pieces sticking out anywhere there's nothing of see the problem is my justification in order to function has to be perfect I can't I don't can't be content with a decree of not guilty mostly I I need it not guilty I need a declaration of righteousness and if my justification is based in any way upon infused righteousness ie my sanctification in this life it's always imperfect so if infused righteousness is part of my justification that means my justification is imperfect which means I'm sunk I'm lost so my justification that establishes my status as a child of God has to be perfect but the next morning when I wake up I've got to obey God or not I've got to read my Bible or not I've got to believe what it says or not I've got to conform my life to his word but that's all sanctification so the Protestants said yes the Holy Spirit infuses righteousness that's the fruit of the Spirit the Holy Spirit works love joy peace patience kindness he infuses all sorts of things into me but that's not that cannot be my plea when I ask God to accept me because however much love joy peace I've got I could always have more and I could have always done better in the in the final analysis in in the last day is there any element to where your faithfulness which was the result of the work of the Spirit and everything else but your faithfulness adds to in any way your standing before God no I would say it proves my standing before God it's free an eighth evidence that God was right in doing these things yes correct my at the last day my works of faithfulness or this goes back to your point of the classics reformed formulation we're justified by faith alone but never by a faith that is alone so my life that follows after is evidence it's the fingerprints of God all over my life that points to what God did the genuineness of what God did at that moment of my conversion okay the third this one is this gets often the weeds a little bit because there is no distinction we to those who are in the covenant only externally those who are also in the Covenant internally at baptism every baptized person is endowed with all that we need to persevere and retain what we have been given right this would be an area where I think that some of the federal vision oatmeal stout guys sometimes talk in a way that would justify nervousness on this point or yeah the very least can I ask some follow-up questions but I wrote an entire book against the church addressing exactly this issue on the absolute necessity of regeneration heart regeneration so the kingdom of God is not like a line of Labrador Retrievers where as long as your papers are in order thoroughbred Labradors as long as your papers are an order you're good right well my my daddy was a preacher my granddaddy was a preacher I was baptized by an authorized minister here I'm here here are my papers you've got to be converted to God you've got to be you must be born again as Jesus said to Nicodemus a teacher in Israel your teacher in Israel and don't you know about the new birth don't you know about these things so the new birth is an internal reality and I believe that a Christian baptized Christian papers in order who's born again has something qualitatively different than someone who's an Orthodox Christian sign that can externally assigned all the papers but isn't converted to God isn't regenerated and the person who isn't regenerated is lost and the person who is regenerated is saved so I hotly deny any accusation that I make that I make no distinction between an internal and an external Christian I make that distinction and reformed is not enough and I make that distinction in an entire book dedicated to it against the church well and you made that distinction in the debate with phraseology that of course for most people on my side they're sitting back going why even say this but it was the same distinction you talked about Roman Catholics who are Christians but unregenerate right right and so and see they hear the term Christian and automatically include regeneration in there that's where the dissonance comes though in the thinking of some someone who doesn't have your background that's that's why this is so troublesome and why this recent article by Brandon Adams created this confusion and what it boils down to is your Baptist and I'm a presbyterian all right and so as Presbyterians week I'll just state it in a stark way here as Presbyterians we baptize babies and that creates you heard it you heard it here we baptize babies and what that does is that creates this theological problem now Baptists would say yeah it creates a host of pastoral problems and other problems too but at the very least we can agree that it creates a theological challenge okay if you if you're an evangelical and you say you must be converted to God in order to go to heaven that's the real Christian and you just baptized a baby who can't talk you know isn't participating in the worship service shows no signs of faith you know what what do you do what the heck are you doing here that that creates the tension you this I've got this person who's baptized who's thus in some sense part of the church right in our framework in some sense he's part of the church in some sense he's a member of the church now but we are also maintaining he's got to be converted to God at some point in his life where he's lost forever all right no no that means I've got two kinds of Christians that at a bare minimum now I would point out that Baptist churches also have two kinds of Christians right they try to guard against it by in the south in the Bible Belt everybody's a Christian until they get the driver's license right and then then they then they go off and sow their Wild Oats and then they rededicate their lives a little bit later but every Church in this fallen world has false professors they have people who went through the drill somebody comes to your church because it's a good place to sell insurance or that's this is where the pretty girls are and they get baptized and you've got he's some kind of Christian because he's baptized but he doesn't have the root of the matter in him the difference between let's assume a healthy spiritually healthy Baptist Church and a spiritually healthy Presbyterian Church they care about the the quality of regenerate life that is within the body they both care about it the difference between them it's like the difference between two different kinds of nightclubs if you want if the Baptist wanted a classy nightclub they'd hire security guards to check everybody's ID at the door and they want to make sure you're an okay guy before we let you in a Presbyterian nightclub would hire big bouncers so from inside so we let people in we let we don't check everybody at the door but we have a lot of bouncers and good security team and when someone starts acting up we ask we escort them out so those that's a difference and there's a real theological debate to be had there but what you can't say but what you can't say is that if kehna if the question in Baptist world is can a Presbyterian be an evangelical the historic answer is absolutely yes you know that we've got centuries of evangelical Presbyterians and you Baptists might marvel at the work arounds we must be doing in our heads in order to get to this place but I'm right where I'm right where Hodge was I'm right where Calvin was I'm right where the Synod of dort was I'm I'm right where Dabney and Thornton you know I'm I'm right there I mean evangelical and I'm a Presbyterian and so consequently when I say yeah he's objectively a Christian he's not a Buddhist yeah he's not a Hindu yeah he's baptized I'm saying yes he's not nominally a Christian a member of the visible Church his name is in the church directory now let's talk about whether he's saved what but that's where you get the the language of grab him by his baptism correct right correct and so that that in some way assumes that there's something in that act that is grab a bowl yes and and part of argument was my position was if there's no gospel there there's nothing grabbable there right Quran you were saying well we go different direction on that but the point is and this is and I I'm very appreciative of the conversation and this is the important aspect from my perspective and that is this issue of faithfulness and what baptism does right you said that there are some who've been associated with that phrase focal vision where you start wondering that sounds really Anglican that sounds really Lutheran and that sounds that sounds like there is a if not ex apparat row it's it's getting close to it kind of mysticism in regards to the nature of baptism but you're saying that doesn't fit with a robust understanding of God's sovereignty in election and regeneration and all the rest of correct that is correct so I do think there's a debate a reasonable debate for Baptists and Presbyterians to have on the theological status of covenant members and I do think there's a worthy debate to be had between my objectivity of the Covenant view and some of my friends in the in the dark a the oatmeal stout wing of the federal what used to be called federal vision but there is no federal vision movement anymore really it's not it's not a thing okay so in light of that I'm not sure we should look at the last two points but well anyway it's just true just from just for entertainment entertainment purposes those who cooperate sufficiently with grace will finally persevere and shall and shall have been elected I the the grammar there is rather significant yes it is and this is this is Brandon Adams summary of what he says Scott Clark is saying about us so it's that he says this is Scott Clark's definition of federal vision so this is we're talking about a third hand here but I think that on this one not only is Scott Clark wronging me he's I think he's even wronging the oatmeal stout guys because the oatmeal stout guys are I would say this is my summary of my worries about that wing of the formal federal vision movement those guys are all Augustinian they're they're high predestined Aryans they are not they're not our minions they're not loosey-goosey about God's sovereignty at all I would call them Augustinian and I would say that I'm a Calvinist right so one of the differences be Dean if you if you I think it was Warfield who said the Reformation was a collision between Augustine's view of the church and Augustine's view of soteriology Civic rotation was the Reformation in really considered was nothing more than the victory of Agustin's doctrine of grace over agustín's doctrine of the church correct and and I accept Warfield's its assessment there and I think the the federal vision guys are like I said hi predestined Arian and so there's even in those circles there's none of this shall have been elected stuff so if I could talk to anybody in that whole former movement they say no they would agree the decree doli elect were established before the foundation of the world the number cannot be increased or diminished it's so everybody would be united in rejecting that shall have been elected stuffing right there would be something to talk about on what the sacraments do and and and how much they were given so Augustine for example believed that regeneration was reversible okay so Augustine would say you can't lose your election but you could lose your regeneration it wasn't the idea you could actually be regenerated but not actually elect new heads were given the gift of persevere right correct right and so I I think that that's weird juju and you know Augustine Augustine was far my superior far my better I appreciate him very much I love him but I think that there were some things that I go man I can't get I can't get my head around that but if you look at the history of the church that would mean that I'm a post Reformation Calvinist evangelical where we've worked we've worked this out in a different way than Augustine worked it out and some of my friends in the old federal vision camp are more Augustinian than they are Calvinist and so I'd say this this fourth point misrepresents both me and them okay and finally it is possible for those who are truly United to Christ to fall away that is to experience full apostasy okay so here's this is the this is an area where that statement misrepresent ripp misrepresents me because of that word truly truly United to Christ mm-hmm so here's the issue I believe that it's possible to fall away from some sort of connection to Christ but it's always non salvific so I believe I believe that the visible Church the ones the kind of church that we all go to the kind of church that you tithe to and the kind of church you sing in on Sundays that that church is a mixed multitude it's it's not made up of the elect nobody has ever been certain that they've worshiped with only the elect and nothing no one but the elect on any given Sunday so I believe that that church really is connected to Christ that and that means that I believe that there are false professors in the church who are baptized who are members of the church who are preachers perhaps or elders or deacons who are not regenerate and are not saved because they are unregenerate and unsaved they don't have as Jesus put it the root of the matter in them that they they don't have the new birth which is absolutely essential to salvation they don't have that but they do have something okay so they do have some sort of connection to Christ and that's what I that's how I understand John 15 and Romans 11 you can have branches Jesus says I'm the vine you were the you're the branches and he says fruitless branches are cut off and taken taken away and burned I think that that's talking about the kind of apostasy not of the elect not of the regenerate but of dry branches that are cut out of the vine the same thing in Romans 11 with the olive tree so I don't think when the non-elect covenant member when the visible member of the church is removed I don't think it's a matter of removing a frisbee that got caught in the branches an alien object that got caught in the branches there's some kind of connection to Christ but it's not the true connection to Christ it's not the saving connection to Christ it's not the root of the matter connection to Christ but they're basically I'm saying that the visible church is something that God takes seriously but the visible church is not something that God takes salvific aliy membership in the visible church is something that God does not take Sal physically in order for the salvation to occur you've got to have the internal heart work done by the spirit but if you go join the church and you make the profession of faith and the church decides five years later that you're a scoundrel and they excommunicates you I think that you really are being removed from something and that's something that you're removed from is the body of Christ but we have to make a distinction between salvific connection to Christ and visible church connection to Christ it's a not an easy area anybody who thinks that it is easy probably has never pass her to church for any period of time at all all right it's my understanding with that now I never met the gentleman never knew the gentleman but evidently you have a shrine to Norman Shepard in your house and I'm not sure you keep the candles going and things like that but could you could you address what relationship you bear or don't bear to the theology and program of Norman Shaw yeah this is my best way there's a big section and Brandon Adams article on this I've met Norman Shepherd once we chatted amicably at a conference I'm not sure what year for just a few minutes I read Gary North basically in the reconstruction world back in the 80s I read a boatload of the Reconstructionist stuff rush Tunis and north and all of those guys and in reconstruction circles Norman Shepherd was a good guy you know a good guy Gary North wrote a whole book called Westminster's confession on the Sheppard controversy at Westminster East that had just had occurred shortly before that and that controversy expand extended over years so I read North's book in 1991 and I didn't know all the all the particulars but I read it and North was squarely on Sheppard's side and saying that Westminster really messed up royally by letting him go and then 10 years later I read Norman's Shepards small book call of grace is published by Presbyterian and reformed in 2001 it's a little book and I read it and that's the extent of my connection to Norman Shepard so Brandon talks about me following Shepherd or being a disciple of Shepherd but I really am not so for example Norman Shepherd didn't affirms the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ and he denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ and that's a big deal in his system and I affirm both so I I part company with Shepherd on that essential part of his project and but but the areas where we sound like we're saying the same things I think it's because we were addressing the same sorts of problems that but addressing the same questions doesn't mean that you're coming up with the same answers and I came I come up with some very different answers to some of these same questions that that that Shepherd did and I'm not I'm not a disciple not a follower basically that's something that is read into read into this whole thing so I've got none I've got no beef I'm not angry with Norman Shepherd it's just not part of my history right and yet the the reason for the Association is obviously to say well Shepherd was condemned by this person this person that group that group this seminary whatever and therefore I've been using to term a lot recently associational ism I'm primarily referring to fundamentalist there who use the argumentation well you know you have to you have to separate yourself away from anybody who doesn't look like us act like that sound like us and while we see it boldly done by fundamentalists on almost every issue that that kind of mindset is is widespread even amongst what would be called the reformed community there is a grave concern to be on the right side of everything right and unfortunately and I wish Baptists were reformed Baptists were not a suspect to this but reliable to this but we are especially in Presbyterian circles where you automatically have an extra layer of interaction and ecclesiastical Authority with the presbyteries and so on and so forth right you end up with a lot of political posturing and dividing lines between people and you need to be on this side or that side and the idea of allowing for a person to fundamentally define their own position frequently gets sacrificed on the altar of I'm being the pure and holy one and staying away from anybody they could possibly Sully me right and so you throw Norman Shepards name out there that's a little bit more dirt to throw on somebody right to hopefully convince somebody else to not listen and to into not benefit in any way from what that person is saying right it just seems to me that as I as I have experienced what what I see going on aimed toward you with regularity I can I can make reference to one of your articles on the dividing line and for two weeks we've got people calling don't you did you know yeah well exactly and it's not just about federal vision as if we didn't know that in fact have you debated anyone in writing or in person more often than me yes you and I you and I did pretend agenda back in the 90s I think I'm the textual issue we did the book which was way too short and they eventually send you a copy they never sent even sent me a copy of that book somebody else had to send that to me I think I ordered I think I ordered it I think yeah so we did we did the the textual issue book we did the Roman Catholic Rome account our brothers in 2004 and we did the thing in credenza so no I think we've you're up at the top yeah yeah so so a lot of people do not understand how you can debate someone and yet consider them a brother right and the other thing is the people don't take into account is obviously if I got an invitation to speak at a conference dominated by wackos and weirdos I wouldn't want to go I wouldn't want to go but if I were asked to speak at a conference Andrus like I spoke for the Illinois Family Research Council and the other fellow speaking there with with me is Toni esslyn Roman Catholic guy who's done some marvelous work on marriage and it just he's I really like a bunch of what he says so I if as long as restrictions are not placed on what I'm going to say right I'm willing to appear on the same platform together with all kinds of people that I have robust disagreements with in other areas depending on what the banner over us says so if the banner over us says evangelicals for cultural reform I don't want to speak with the Catholic because I don't want to degrade the language but if it's a citizen's pro-life rally right Americans for for the sanctity of life I'm more than happy to march with Catholics and fellow citizens who'd want us to stop killing babies if someone's if someone says truly regenerate Christians for life and some I've not seen that but and someone invites the Mormons I'm not I'm you lost me because you're not going to advance the truth by telling lies yeah you don't want to degrade the language so so basically the association game you're exactly right about that you you can't judge someone based on the kind of books they have read and profited from in in part and reject other you know but that's exactly what happens and you and I both know it right I mean the the fundamentalist attitude is you can't read outside your camp you can't learn from outside your camp it all has to be the echo chamber or you're somehow sullied and you're somehow have been stayin right if and and I I don't know how you can ever present a full orbed understanding the faith that interacts with the culture around us if you don't know what's being said out there if you don't know what the other perspectives right if I just intrude something here I've got a despite all the things that they thrown at my head I've got a warm spot somewhere in my heart for the fundamentalists because we're living in a time where we privilege is not the right word but we're living at a time where we're watching an entire civilization disintegrate the whole thing is coming apart we don't know what a boy is we don't know what a girl is we don't know what marriage is we don't know what up or down we don't know any of this and a lot of our stalwart established reformed evangelical institutions are being swept away or erode badly eroded by this movement and so consequently if I were a fundamentalist I would be pointing at this saying see see you know we we told you you know we told you the problem so the part of the problem with the woke brethren the the people who are evangelical and gospel centric and dadada and they say well Christ relates to everything and they're doing this to introduce liberalism progressivism and evolutionary thinking post-modernism when they say well Christ applies to everything and we have to engage with culture I'm I was point to them and say the problem is that you are doing your level best to give the fundamentalists all the confirmation bias they could ever want and when fundamentalists look at someone like you or me they they see someone who is just gearing up we're just we're stage one's cancer as opposed to the stage for cancer that we see happening in the Southern Baptist Convention or the PC of the reavoice the reavoice foolishness and the fundamentalist are confirmed in there they jump to conclusions but for people who are blindfolded and swing with the bat wildly they're getting way more hits than I want them to and that's exactly yeah and unfortunately though they tend to hit the friends as well as the enemies when you got the blindfold on that's that's the issue right your time your time is running out and you you're you've got a lot to do there let me just I'm just wrap things up given what I have called the Doug Wilson derangement syndrome that exists in the in the internet how how do you maintain a a positive attitude of of seeking cooperation with other believers how do you keep from just getting so snake bit right that you just want to stay away and stay out in the in the woods someplace and and just just say fine if that's the way it's gonna be I'm gonna sit out here and I'm not even gonna have interaction with people right how do you how do you keep that edge that's a wonderful question I would answer with an illustration and then cite what Jesus said to do if if you if your airplane is surrounded by exploding anti-aircraft fire if there's flak everywhere you look what that means is that you're over the target you know you're you're getting close to where you ought to be if you're in a war if you're in a conflict and everybody reacts that everybody goes nuts over what you just said that what the way I take that the kind of feedback I take from that is oh I must I must be getting warm you know I must so if I write something and and it's just crickets nobody cares I conclude well I'm not addressing the issues I ought to be addressing when I say something and all of and all the trolls come out and all the critics come out and everybody says how dirt how dare you sir how dare you I think okay this is I need to double down here I need to this is the this is the target this is where I need to be and then what the Lord said and I think this is really important for people who are engaged in public life at all jesus said when people despitefully use you when they say all manner of wicked things about you when they start throwing all the dead cats they can find at you jesus said in that day rejoice and be exceedingly glad right so we have we have direct marching orders so that if I am villified if I am hated if if I'm in this situation I'm what I'm supposed to do Jesus says directly I'm supposed to go around the corner get out of sight and dance a little jig just do a little thing thank you lord thank you because Jesus says if you're vilified that way then you're getting no different treatment than the prophets gotten that this is this is how God tells his story in the world funniest we just recently brought someone into membership who moved to Moscow they've nothing to do with us you know they they didn't know about us didn't know anything about us but found our church after they got here and when they were calling around deciding where to live they called a place of employment looking for a job and the person asked them are you you're not one of those doug wilson people are you and and they said who you know they didn't know anything and they said who's that and he said you're hired so so basically when I hear that if I hear that and I turned into a sob sister or I get my feelings hurt or I get offended not only am I going along with one of the problems in our culture which is everybody's grieve aggrieved about everything everybody's offended by everything not only am I going along with that but Here I am standing for the Bible refusing to do what Jesus expressly said to do when people call you all sorts of names you want to make sure that what they're saying is false you wanna if the if they're saying you lied or you stole or you did you want you want that to know in your heart before God the accusations are false but if they're false many Christians that's that's the real hard thing is hearing a false accusation and jesus said expressly that that was a cause for joy fall says so so when people when people say I don't believe in justification by faith when I do Jesus says rejoice when people say that I love pedophiles and I don't you know I don't love or enable that sort of thing and they say that I do then I'm commanded to rejoice if people say that I am vindictive and mean-spirited and I know that that's not my heart at all I'm commanded to rejoice that's just basic follow the Lord the hard thing though is it's one thing when you take the flack over the target it's the other thing when you're trying to land on your home field and they're still shooting at you right so in other words for me when unbelievers act like unbelievers yeah no problem but it's when people make a credit credible profession of faith yeah and they're the ones behind the a a gun that's that's a different that's a that's a that's a separate challenge this is a separate challenge yeah it is it is it is well Doug thank you very much for your time I know that you need to get going and I hope that this discussion will be of some assistance to some people I am not naive enough to think that no matter what the level of clarity that their will that everyone's just gonna go oh well okay great let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya well hopefully at least for some people there will be some clarity provide thanks for doing this and over the years I have greatly appreciated your ability to engage and disagree debate me amicably and thank you and God bless you thank you very much bless you

Channel: Canon Press

Views: 65,983

Rating: 4.8313098 out of 5

Keywords: federal vision, doug wilson, douglas wilson, the truth about federal vision, federal vision heresy, james white, dr james white, alpha and omega ministries, the dividing line, dividing line, james white doug wilson, canon press, theology, bible, reformed, calvinism, reformed theology, sweater vest dialogues, sweatervest dialogues, sweater vest dialogue, sweater vest, theology debate, debate, theological, Christian

Id: ZWqW41sBdYQ

Length: 55min 4sec (3304 seconds)

Published: Sat Dec 14 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/daw-nee-yale]

r/Reformed would enjoy this.

/u/Nicene_Nerd