James White and Douglas Wilson discuss the Federal Vision controversy in the first episode of the Sweater Vest Dialogues. This video is presented by Canon Press.
So it the anti Christ marches for saving babies or some issue you can united you will march with him? Same with Hitler? The devil? The temptating snake? How about when the devil was tempting Jesus? Should you united with him if ask for your hand to overcome world hunger? Or jump off this tower to show your support to stop certain evil in the world? Witchcraft? Culak clan? Ceasar? Bloody Mary? You can happily march with all of them and unite under one common vision? Even though you disagree??? The Anti Christ perform miracles to help the poor and needy and ask the church to join in worship that God will bless the miracles? Or open up so the church can help the people who are healed to be ministered? Is that it???? Doug is very charismatic in his thinking as they also say like with Rick warren. We stand with his purpose vision but we dont agree with everything he says. He still has a lot of good things and we go to the same conference uniting together. And if you do that then what the point in discerment we just join together under the banner of uniting for the common good. Mormons, stanism, Nazi, Islam all unit under the common good. Or if Christian then mormon, Oneness, Catholic, NAR all uniting to stop abortion for example. Is this what its been suggested????? Now with the fundamentalist issue about you cant read outside your camp... I am with Dr James that you should BUT! The Charismatic are doing exactly that reading outside their camp and learning spiritual and look what is happening to them with the NAR and Bethel and Hillsong and all the others in between. They scold you about association and say your just being too fundamental and you need to broaden your horizon and learn! Now lets go to the wokeness happening in the current media... So should Christian watch barbie for entertainment and for edification to learn? Cause if your watching it you be affected whether your just watching it to critique. There is a high risk you can be affected. Now how about weaker Christians? Is this a green light too for them? To tell them just go watch barbie even though its has a hidden woke message? Just watch it cause if you do you can be more informed? In doing so you help these weak Christian see that wokness is nothing bad. Even though you told them becareful they go see it and be sold to a hidden woke message. So there are real big big issues on this that i hope this can be address! I am so worried and confused why Dr James and Doug would want this. After all Dr James is shouting out to fight for truth and is fundamental. This very act will undo them both as they might be impervious to the treachery in woke teachings. But not the avg Christian who are told forgot association just join them if there is common cause. Again this is how the Charismatic has become the seeker sensitive church. Cause association was seen as being too fundamental and as Bill Johnson states that we need to break free! "For decades the Church has been guilty of creating doctrine to justify their lack of power..."
This was excellent. While I've never been a detractor of yours, I haven't been quite clear on some of your beliefs; but now I am fully clear. You did a great job of explaining things, Doug, and I am very encouraged as a result. May God continue to bless the work He is doing in you and through you, to His eternal glory. Peace to you in Christ Jesus, brother.
@@georgealvarado4660 amen, grace to you George, and to Christian Sermon and Audio Books poster, please be careful. Jesus Christ alone saves. It is His faithfulness. The reborn by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone trust only in the faithfulness of Christ. This is not a time to rejoice or to think something excellent is happening. Sadly what is happening right now is that James White is being deceived. "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. " 2 Corinthians 11:4 it is quite sad that Doug Wilson who is a false teacher is tolerated. He adds works to faith and greatly assaults justification by faith alone. He did not repent of Federal Vision and its two-tier justification lies. Doug Wilson did not repent of Federal Vision in his 'no mas' statement, he merely with smooth words deceives people. Praying for James White that God will give him the grace to escape this dangerous snare as well as the heretic Michael Brown who is capturing him. Listen to the 22:10-23m segment. Wilson is pointing to the works instead of Christ Jesus. What does God's word say instead of Doug Wilson, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. " Galatians 2:16
@Custom Made grace to you, this is the sound of Douglas Wilson from your lips. God's word says, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." Douglas Wilson is a false teacher who with smooth words deceives the simple. He has added works to faith and his "no mas" was only a response that said people confused about what he believed and that was merely a subterfuge. Grace to you to repent.
Hey Brother, i also recommend the debatw btween these two, rouching on Baptism, Covenant, and Catholics (Roman Catholics). But the differences are brought out nicely! ~ Solí DÊÔ Gloría!
I'm a Reformed Baptist pastor who has read Doug Wilson's stuff off and on through the last three decades. I've often rejoiced at what he wrote and sometimes, not so much. I admit to having misunderstood him at times; however, this video is very helpful. Thank you for posting this video (a friend recommended it). I appreciate Dr. White's work in this video and rejoice at Doug Wilson's clear articulation of the Gospel.
I've never heard Wilson say anything heretical. I've heard many reformed people speak negatively about him for what i believe were misunderstandings. It's a shame this happened. I think most of them never took the time to really get to the bottom of things, and were too quick to jump on the judgmental bandwagon. They are Berean in theory, but not in practice. Wilson is a good man.
He uses a dialectic theology another words he is a walking contradiction another words this theology they speak out both sides of their mouths it's their network marketing to get into homes and churches and governments
Lol. They called each other the morning before to synchronize! James said, I'm doin the Coogí; Doug said, I'm doin the Dougy -this is what we got ~gotta Love i✝ And no, this is not the new Reformed look... Although, if they threw their bow ties on!!)
More more!! Please... You two guys need to film more discussions... I loved listening to the discussion and I've gained so much from both of you!! What a blessing this is!
I am so glad I found this video. I am sorry to say that because of certain influences, I had had an allergy to Wilson, but in truth I had never read him or listened to him. I have since repented of this and have not only been enjoying listening to him for his wit and turns of phrase, but I am also being edified by his teaching. Much more than I was edified by some teaching elsewhere. I have always appreciated White's teaching and work, so this was a very excellent video and conversation between these two godly men of the Lord on an important topic and the clarification thereof. Thank you for doing it in order to broach this topic and iron it out. It was very clearly laid out and helpful to the thoughtful and open listener.
Somehow, when I listen to Pastors Wilson and White, I just feel smarter. These guys are the current titans of Evangelical Christianity. As in the 80s when E F Hutton would speak, when Pastors Wilson and White speak, you had better listen as something important is about to be said. May God continue to bless them both mightily!
After two weeks of arguing with the "Christmas is pagan" Arminians left wing of the ignorant church on my RU-vid channel.. it's such a blessing to be refreshed hearing sound polite discussions by two of the churches best workmen. Merry Christmas!!
I really wish we all would stop calling out people, who are suppose to be Chrstians, ignorant..... Especially when it comes to the whole Arminian vs Calvanists. And, not everyone you might consider Arminian hold to ALL Arminian views. Arminians seem to be painted as stupid and Calvanists as superior in knowledge because their views are absolutely right and they are superior theologians. My views do side more with Leighton Flowers teachings on Soteriology BUT I LOVE that the Calvanists and Lutherans call out the WOF, NAR, Health and Wealth, Social Justice heresies.
@@rachelvanzile hello, specifically called the ones on my channel ignorant, which is the most gracious thing that could be said about them. Take a look at the comments in my "Christmas is not pagan" video. You tell me if I was too harsh?
@@FisherOfPeople well, I'm feeling a little ignorant myself right now. A fool answereth before knowing the matter. I stand corrected, please forgive me. Those are legalistic crazy kind of people. Given my background in Pentecostalism I sometimes worry about being that way with people.....that stuff is hard to unlearn. And some people seem to think we don't speak the God given language of English and must speak Hebrew, what's up with that?
@@FisherOfPeople I'll look at your video. My impression of those few I know that hold that view is they're trying really really hard to differ, to stand out by dissing something most people accept. Half the time it seems like they're missing the actual Biblical meaning of the Advent of our Messiah and are just observing that it's become a shallow overly commercialized cultural 'rite' devoid of deeper meaning, THEN they pillory those who actually embrace the deeper Spiritual & Biblical roots as celebrating it unwisely because it may have some pagan antecedent influences. Also recall that JW's, Church of Christ, and I believe Mennonite & Amish all hold this view so all put together that's a sizable number, probably 5-10 million believers who could be the ones arguing with you. My lifelong Brother in Christ holds this view and we settled it by an appeal to conscience that each one of us was trying to honor the LORD by following what they thought Scripture, History & Tradition led us to practice or NOT practice...
Again I say, it is unfair the way Rev. Wilson has been treated in recent years on this particular issue. As far as I can tell, disagreements aside, he is a brother, and a good one. Social media has made us weird.
More like the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. This is absurd. They could make getting out of a paper bag complicated. I love it. They are driving people away. This just shows this religion is a total mess and a total farce.
Here we have together two of my most admired thinkers of America today. They are both fighting the good fight, and I have great respect for their work of bringing Truth to all good thinking people of not only America, but to the whole world. I thank you both and pray for your needs and success in all you put your minds and hands to. God Bless Yunz.
@Ehud's Dagger > It would seem that most of this controversy revolves around folks on all sides who are unwillingly to allow the other person to define their terms... Yes! ...or even to let them finish their train of thought, before refuting... James 1:19-26... "19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God...." But, the *whole context,* from vv. 19 to 26 tells us how we ought to engage with one another and also with the Scriptures. If we just did this, while discussing our positions...
@@cherylm7321 - > Actually, words aren't something we define individually. Agreed, we shouldn't redefine terms / words. We should try to understand people's perspective, though. So, defining terms is very important. It provides context. If somebody says, "I believe X," we should try to understand X in X's own context. We shouldn't put words in their mouth, interpret X our way, misrepresent X, etc. Once we really understand what is meant by X, we take it to the Scriptures and discern if X is true or false. It's more about two-way communication (both sides carefully listening to each other, trying to understand one another in context) and not being pedantic about the definition of each and every word, that is, unless the terms are purposely altered to cloak the truth. For example, when Christians witness to Mormons, we do need to know each other's terms. Mormons do not believe what is taught in the Bible and redefine terms their way. Words like "salvation" or "virgin birth" or "Scripture," etc., have different meanings to each side. Otherwise, we sit there sounding like we agree with each other, when we don't. We need to know their terms, and they need to know biblical terms, before we can effectively communicate the Gospel to Mormons. Redefining terms isn't "correct" or "right" but it's part of actual communication with people. I think this is the point @ehud's dagger was trying to make.
I am a Reformed Presbyterian, and my husband has told me that part of the Federal Vision includes ensconcing the ceremonial law in civil law. This sounds to me like it must be a misunderstanding. I’ve read and heard enough from Rev. Wilson concerning the gospel, to be very doubtful he would like to see the ceremonial law reestablished as civil law.
I remember hearing about the evils of Federal Vision a decade ago, I could never figure out what it was supposed to be, but didn't spend much time on it. A year or two ago, I sat down and tried to figure out what it was, and the controversy still didn't make much sense. I read the statement, it seemed ok; a few things I disagreed with, but nothing that stood out as heretical. I looked at the counter-arguments, and it followed the pattern, well the statement is ok, but this one guy in this one book said this one thing that was bad, therefore the whole thing is bad. Then in this video, Doug said that Trinity Foundation wrote an article against the conference, and it all made sense to me. Those guys always seem to go around trying to put down other Christian groups and alleging some apostasy in various people, especially VanTillians for some reason. They aren't as bad as some, but makes sense of the conclusion I had arrived at that the federal vision "controversy" was a bunch of sound and fury and not much more.
I am very ignorant to this whole issue, but what you just wrote reminds me of pulpit & pen. Basically, drum up some supposed controversy without solid backing and repeat ad nauseum.
Hi All, The only comment I have to make about Dr. James White's interview of Pastor Wilson is that it was a respectful interchange of ideas among erudite individuals. Their conversation proves we can all disagree with each other on certain issues in a graceful and polite manner. God Bless Everyone, QP
This was very enlightening! I'd like to thank James White for his amicability and willingness to listen to Doug and get the real story behind the irresponsible accusations made by others who don't understand the issue and refuse to take the time to learn it.
@@MansterBear Awesome. Where did you get your influences from? I started in a Calvary Chapel (Arminian) church and after three years I listened to James White once.
@@harposhizzle I go to a very conservative, sound Assemblies of God church (yes, shocking I know, but some do exist). We don't have people shouting in tongues, or dancing acting crazy, etc. In fact, our pastor teaches tongues should never happen without an interpretation, and that pretty much put an end to tongues about 10+ years ago. I've been at this church literally since I was in nursery. My grandma was the secretary for 25 years, still plays piano in the choir, etc. A little over a year ago I just kept feeling conviction over not reading the Word like I should, recognizing I'd spend hours per week listening to politics, playing video games, watching sports, etc and would barely read my bible or spend time in prayer. I knew I had to change it, and I decided to get a new Bible to kick things off. Between my wife and I we had a few NIVs, she had a super old KJV from one of her grandparents, maybe an NKJV somewhere in a box. So I started searching for info on Bible translations, and learned that KJVOnlyism is a thing. I didn't really have a horse in the race, and I somewhat see the world in an "older is less corrupted" lense anyway, so if it was the truth, then I was going to just go with a KJV. Then I stumbled across this bald guy with a white goatee..... I first saw James White on Wretched Radio with Todd Friel. After that I found his YT channel, watched his 3 hour interview with Steven Anderson, started listening to his podcast, found Apologia Studios, then John MacArthur, then RC Sproul, Paul Washer, etc and the rest is history. So now I'm pretty much reformed in my sotierology, although I don't go to a reformed church. My pastor isn't reformed, but he's not anti-Calvinist either. He jokingly calls himself a 2.5 Point Calvinist. But he is a biblically sound, expositional teacher, so God's sovereignty is just part of his teaching, because it's in the Bible. Plenty of times in our study of the OT we did this year on Wednesday nights, he'd be explaining a passage and end it with "And God is sovereign" as if to pre-empt the "objections" that might come to the plain teaching of God's sovereignty over man in stories like the exodus, or Joseph, etc. I am curious what a reformed church is like, but the only one I know of around here is a PCA church. I wouldn't mind going, but it would be a big shift to paedobaptist. My pastor is in his 20th year, and he plans on going another 10 years or so, so I don't plan on leaving as long as he's there. After that, we'll see what happens. Sorry for the long response. I just feel I have to explain somewhat, because most people here Assemblies of God / Pentecostal and picture people sprinting around the sanctuary, and falling over, and screaming nonsense words. Oh, and FWIW, I ended up going with the ESV.
Doug Wilson with James White, December 14, 2019. “I'm an evangelical. In my book from that era, “Reformed is not Enough” I begin the book with three chapters in a row of 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, that is I do believe in the objectivity of the visible covenant, the objectivity of the visible Church and its 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 person is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit in turn in his heart, if he doesn't have the heart of stone taken away and 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 I attack the people who are just causing our civilization to disintegrate, and many of our evangelical institutions are disintegrating right along with it, as you pointed out, the trolls come out. 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. Now I don't get justified because of how well I'm doing in my sanctification, but... 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; 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 going to finish by human effort”, are you not gonna finish in the flesh? No. And in Romans 1 Paul says that he, quoting Habakkuk - “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.
Doug's answer to Jame's last question Is the definition to "turning the right cheek", has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding protecting your family or self defense and everything to do with verbal abuse and slander. Great picture, thank you James and Doug. Praise God.
Galatians, Please read Matthew 5 again, but more carefully. Jesus said, 'You have heard it said, " An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth... Look at Exodus 21:24. It is physical justice for physical inequities. Absolutely nothing is mentioned in either context about 'verbal' abuse. Please be careful how you handle the word of God, and how you represent Christ. God Bless
Larry Helmuth - if you read the quoted verse "carefully" but start with verse 22 and read in-context you understand that the eye4eye and tooth4tooth is "if" the baby comes out harmed after the pregnant woman got hit by a fight between 2 men and if not then the dude that hit her pays however her husband says to.
@@larryhelmuth691 jews were applying civil punishments in a personal fashion. Not going to the proper facet to deal with injustice. Eye for eye tooth for tooth was a civil sanction, jews were applying it in personal vengeance. Taking justice into their own hands. If those verses weren't addressed to individuals but to a civil magistrate, I think the content would be extremely different. Self defense has always been biblical though, not a civil sanction
Love my brothers even though each of them are “cheeky” in their own way. The one quips about warmer weather and the other has a bouncy,breathy, giddiness over wordplay and I would give both of them a “holy kiss” and would want both of them as companions if facing imprisonments. What beautiful songs of worship in harmony would be heard from the darkness.
On the portion at the end of this discussion related to "reading outside your camp," I am reminded at RC Sproul who often mentioned the fact that he only attended liberal schools of theology and yet was still able to come to a conservative evangelical theology. He also mentioned that he could take from many theologians who were skeptics against conservative theological positions and put together an orthodox. work. He said he'd have to be very selective. But he could draw from the real expertise to get proper positions on key issues.
The Federal Vision conversation, more than any in are age, has become an occasion for the "Truly Reformed" to engage in vigorous navel-gazing rather than join the Church of Christ in marching upon the gates of Hell.
I don't know why everyone says "Oh, Doug Wilson is slick. Of course he will affirm classic reformed theology, but out of the other side of his mouth he will deny it."
Finally!! Hallelujah 🙌 very surprised James kept it together, praise God..you could feel he was on the back foot at the start, but, couldn't you just hear him going, "ohhhhh rightttt" lol 😂, getting clarity, listening instead of judgement, lol 😂 🙌 hallelujah 🙌 finally some maturing going on.. 👍
I have only been exposed to White through his many videos with Doug, and at conferences in Moscow, and have never seen any hint of not "keeping it together". seems a gracious man to me
@@alsteiner7602Yeah, agreed. I've seen accusations like this made against White before, but it is usually from anticalvinists who have no counterargument against his use of scripture and so are only left with name calling, thus they project their wounded pride and arrogance back onto White.
Great discussion! Thank you for having such a candid conversation! The only thing I disagree with Pastor Wilson is the dislike of "covenant of works". The Westminster Confession of Faith uses covenant of works and defines what it is and how it contrasts with covenant of grace. As long as we have a biblical understanding of what the terms are, I don't think it's going to be confusing.
As a reformed Anglican I can fully agree with Wilson on his “Amber Ale” position… and I think Cranmer would agree. We are justified by Grace alone through Faith alone. Yes we have the sacraments but I don’t believe the sacraments play role in regeneration or salvation. I see my theology much closer to Wilson’s Westminster Presbyterianism than to the Roman church and I would say the same thing about the “Oatmeal Stout” people. There is not quite the difference that Wilson makes it out to be here.
I love Dr White's willingness to go in depth on all kinds of issues and debate so many people who have different views than he does. My only critique would be the way he smugly dismisses infant baptism but never has anyone to speak about it from a non-Calvinist viewpoint. He's debated with other Calvinists but Calvinists who believe in what they call "paedobaptism" are not the same as discussing it with a confessional Lutheran or even an Anglican. Every time I hear him, and other Calvinists like Dr Wilson glibly dismiss infant baptism it's clear that they're not looking at a true sacramental understanding of baptism. He can't really claim to be a theological descendant of Luther if he's not at least willing to hear it defended from a confessional Lutheran perspective.
I'm not sure a solid covenental Westminster Confession holding Reformed Christian would give all that different an answer to the Anglican or Lutheran once all the language differences are unpacked. The biggest difference seems to me to be best explained in WCF 27.2 where Reformed Christian's have a habit of speaking in terms of the thing signified and Lutherans in terms of the sign. Neither Calvin nor Reformed Christians are Zwinglists (though Lutherans seem to forget that), and Lutherans in speaking of the sacrament arent claiming that the mere human ceremony where they get wet is the thing causing regeneration, as if baptism were purely a man thing and not a work of God. If there is an important distinction that ought to be made, it keeps gets lost when people are too quick to divide over semantics.
Somehow people like Doug get lumped in a category that they don’t belong. If you really listen to him mostly what he says is stuff of a believer that is doing his best to explain complex things. There are many people that will attack him wrongly while promoting unbiblical teachings by addition or subtraction. You can tell the fruit of a teacher typically by listening more to see what they say. He has fruit.
Yes, they (evanjellycals) agree, "but they have boards, mortgages, complications". LOL. Just have to call out "wimpy"on those folks. Doug's explanation of his view of justification and sanctification is perfectly Reformed, Westminsterian, and biblical in every way! Why do people still accuse this man and treat him like a pariah? I can't think of any more robustly reformed man alive today. It's ridiculous.
Is there a video/audio of the so-called "sitting on couches that are on fire"? I believe that Doug would have survived the fiery furnace by God's grace but not sure if THAT video exists...
Haha, by god's grace we won't have to find out. But yes you can watch the No Quarter November 2018 trailer here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W0ITIMjWHP8.html and the NQN 2019 trailer here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rpz7IuVsPpc.html
There is no context for this video. The discussion starts off talking about some event or show down or article that put Doug in a hot seat, but what exactly happened?
Doug Wilson was part of a conference a long time ago and the title of it was “federal vision.” They emphasized covenantal continuity and the objectivity of the covenant and the sacraments. Lots of “reformed” people took issue with the way they worded some things and with the fact that they affirmed the passive obedience of Christ and questioned His active obedience being applied to us. Some people out there have taken it too far from what I hear but most of the controversy consists of many reformed pastors being offended by basic reformed teaching straight out of the confessions due to their own ignorance of the subjects. I would recommend listing to the videos about federal vision on the “Reformation Red Pill” channel. That’s basically where I figured out what was really going on. I think one was just called federal vision and the other one was titled something like “is Doug Wilson a heretic?” Pretty interesting conversations.
This is in response to "theendisnear17"s comment (see below) [TheEndIsNear17 Thankfully Wilson is not. Because if he was, I would want no Part of Christianity. But thankfully the Apostles as Well as Jesus didn't act like him.] What a strange and terribly hardhearted comment. If you are accusing Paster Wilson of not being a Christian, my response to that would be repent for we are forbidden to judge another's salvation. As for wanting no part of Christianity if it includes the likes of Pastor Wilson, I say repent again for Christianity is not based on any human's approval but wholly on the Word of God as revealed in His Scriptures. God chooses who is elect, in accordance with His good mercies and grace, and not in accordance with the likes and dislikes of any man. Brother, please read the Bible prayerfully and seek solid mentoring at your local church. May God grant you clarity and mercy.
23 minutes in, where you say some would justify nervousness on this point; that scares me. So, by the act of physical baptism they are no longer Totally Depraved? They are able to Repent, Trust, and Faithfully Obey CHRIST? How can you affirm those things and also that statement?
So, at around 5:55 he goes into Federal Vision to give some back story. One needs a dictionary of modern professing church buzzwords to decipher between all the nuance in doctrine!
Refreshing conversation, I didn't hear anything I could disagree with. I live in a rural area where these topics are seldom discussed. If you're not a pre-tribulation Baptist, Pentecostal (sometimes combined.... Bapticostal), or a mushy Arminian Methodist, well you're apostate if you are Calvinist. Bapticostals don't want you if you're a partial predarist and full Calvanist, they believe you decide on acceptance of Christ. So that leaves Methodist who tolerate Calvanist in their midst because they don't like to debate them.
For a “branch” to not “bare fruit” implies, what? Deadness? I understand that in this passage, an equally interesting aspect (may be, as I’m not up on the Greek) on the wording of “cut off” is “held up” (as when a branch is lying on the ground it cannot bare fruit)… but I’m open to correction
Lawrence Stanley that’s what all paedo-Baptists believe. I recently went from credo to paedo and I’d be happy to explain how it works if you’re curious.
@@RossLeavitt I'm familiar with the issue, I just don't agree with it. When this topic comes up, I normally point people to the debate between Dr.'s John MacArthur and RC Sproul... The debate was decided the instant both men agreed that paedobaptism cannot be found anywhere in scripture.
Lawrence Stanley I don’t think that’s what the debate was. What they agreed on is that Scripture doesn’t display an infant being baptized. Nor does it show a shunning children from it. What it does show is children being commanded to give the sign of God’s covenant.
@@TheBlackDoctor21 Would you please show me in scripture children being commanded to give the sign of God's covenant? And we're not talking about circumcision, we're talking about the New Covenant. If children are commanded to give the sign of the new covenant, why then do we not see it taking place in the New Testament a single time?
Lawrence Stanley You ask me where it’s found, but attempt to take away the evidence. God commands Abraham to give the sign of Faith and His Covenant to children in Genesis 17. With it comes the promise that God would be our God and our children’s God. That promise is repeated in Acts 2. The command to give children the sign has not been rescinded. Only the sign has. The reason we don’t see an explicit infant baptism is because we don’t need to. God has given us other evidences that children of believers are in the New Covenant. Sproul’s argument was that Baptists use a flawed hermeneutic to make their case. I wasn’t trying to argue infant baptism with you, but to simply say that the debate with MacArthur and Sproul was not as open and shut as you claimed (not necessarily in those words).
There was nothing outside of Middle Main Stream Calvinism here. I was hoping to hear something about where Federal Vision brings something new or different or interesting to the table. It was still interesting though,
This was the 3rd time watching this and it was even more helpful then the previous two times (I'm slow). But I will challenge Mr Wilson's understanding of John 15:2. I am in the midst of preparations to teach on John 15-21, for adult Bible study at my church. And quite frankly, this verse has troubled me most of my 27 years as a Christian; both in terms of what it at first look appears to say, and how if it does say that, its utterly inconsistent with the rest of the chapter, and I'd say Scripture. There are heavyweights such as Calvin, Sproul, Ryle, and Begg who interpret 15:2 as Mr Wilson does. Consequently this added to tremendous weight I already felt. Thankfully, there are others who see it differently then these greats; James Montgomery Boice, DA Carson are examples. The verse itself hinges on the words takes away. If this is the proper translation, then while it would still create great tension with the rest of the text, I'm not sure it could be reconciled. Thankfully, there is a better translation ( consistent with the meaning of the words). "Lifts up" would be that translation. I'll leave you to Boices and Carsons individual commentaries on John to hear their arguments. They do not agree in the details, but do in the conclusion. I will say though, that there is nowhere else in the text where being in Christ results in fruitlessness, much less being cut from Him.
Was the terms of the covenant Adam had to live by merely obedience? Because if you think deeper, to obey you need to take seriously, and to take seriously, you need to consider the one uttering the command (the word) good and truthful. And isn't that what is expected of us in the New Covenant as well. In each case we're supposed to take the word (command, promises, terms, truthfulness) seriously and implicitly recognize and trust it/Him. Jesus is the personification of and the embodiment of the word. In the doing of all this there is "obedience".
When I think of Fundamentalism, I think 1) Inerrancy, 2) Creationism, 3) Taking the text literally unless there are clear textual cues that it's meant figuratively. Can someone please explain the difference between Fundamentalists and White & Wilson?
37:22 This doesn't work with respect to the Galatians, since Paul affirms they had received the Spirit upon hearing with faith, then he affirms it again "You ran well" and asks "Who hindered you from obeying the truth?" So, he knows they were obeying the truth, and received the Spirit thereby, and yet they were now "hindered" from that obedience, and they were "deserting God" and "severed from Christ".
Do an interview/debate with R Scott Clark. White is deficient for this task because he is a Baptist, and thus doesn’t understand orthodox Presbyterian theology to begin with. How will he know if you fall within its bounds or not?
just because someone is a baptist doesnt mean they dont understand Presbyterian. Clark has proven time and again he isnt interested in conversation by his misrepresentations.
Doug has offered to debate with Clark on multiple occasions - and the offer still stands. He even offers to pay for any flight expenses, etc should he wish to do so in person. Clark, instead, has chosen to maintain slanderous ignorance instead of seeking understanding and clarification. This interview is about as clear a refutation of Clark's nonsensical accusations as one could imagine.
@@christophersmith7412 Yes. Clark's excuse for refusing to do so is similar to the reasons that Climate Change apologists and Omn-Darwinist give for abstaining from debates with so-called "Deniars" and ID scientists. Namely that to do so would somehow give credence to crazed outliers. It is a somewhat effective ploy, of course. Easy to escape embarrassing defeats when one refuses to fight.
I think Doug Wilson is very right that the further Federal Vision people sound Catholic because they are more Augustinian. That’s why I am Catholic. Augustine was right about both grace and the sacraments.
This is described by the term 'limited atonement' or 'directed atonement' Christ died for the elect. If He didn't die for just the elect then all would be saved. I.e., Universalism
A couple things are worth noting. First, it's an odd use of "rejoice when they persecute you" to consider it persecution when Christians see problems with some of your theology and actions. Persecution is unbelievers attacking you because you believe in Christ, not Christians having issue with some of your choices. Second, deciding not to call it "federal vision" anymore (and apparently deciding not to give it a name at all) isn't at all the same thing as saying the belief system doesn't exist anymore. Excellent analysis (with good links) here: heidelblog.net/2019/07/has-doug-wilson-really-changed-his-mind-about-the-federal-vision/
Seriously, you are really going to recommend an article by R. Scott Clark? The man whose whole life revolves around attacking Wilson. Clark is far from objective when it comes to these matters. Oh, and by the way, not many have been persecuted simply because they believe in Christ. Most persecution against Christians occurs as a result of non-Christians hating the implications of a Christian’s belief in Christ.
So, many covenants, but all of them are fulfilled by faith alone. :) In some sense, the "covenant" of all the covenants is faith. For Adam, for Jesus, for us. Jesus did it perfectly.
"But in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him", Acts 10:35. Those who hold the truth in unrighteousness cannot be justified by Christ, as Romans 2:16.
So the Presbyterian believes in the Westminster Confession of Faith that says God decrees all things that come to pass, so they also believe God brings people into His church halfway but doesn’t save them? That’s a warped view of God. It almost sounds like the Presbyterian would side with John Calvin’s doctrine of evanescent faith where God grants a level of faith to a person so that they believe they are saved and actually produce fruit, but then God rips that faith away arbitrarily so the person falls away and are judged harsher because of it. 🤔
I think you're not quite understanding what's being said. There are apostate people in the church. They aren't "halfway" regenerate. They may look like believers but are still very much unbelievers: * Parable of the Sower and the Four Soils: Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23; Mark 4:3-8, 14-20; Luke 8:5-8, 11-15 * Parable of the Wheat and the Tares: Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 Jesus and the Apostles constantly told us to beware of false believers, prophets, and teachers: * Matthew 7:15, 19-25 * Ephesians 4:14, 15 * 2 Peter 2:1-22 * Jude * 1 Timothy 4 * Romans 16:17-20 * 1 John 2:19 * (many others)
Mike Hoskins But you’re conveniently leaving out what the Reformed doctrines teach about God determining all things that come to pass and also total depravity (total inability). The unsaved people inside the church for a long period of time who actually produce fruit is a category of people that contradicts total inability, and that’s why John Calvin had to create his doctrine of evanescent faith. He was consistent. You can’t just randomly decided to divorce doctrines from one another. And the Bible speaks harshly about false teachers that bring heresies into the church. It doesn’t speak much about just a general churchgoer that spends decades in the church, is involved and produces fruit, and just walks away. That’s a major conflation.
KJ B - what kind of fruit do these people produce? The kind of fruit in keeping with repentance? Actually, no. Their fruit is false. God does not reward them on Judgement Day. Again, Jesus talks about the four kinds of soil. He doesn't set time limits on things. Only the good soil sees 30, 60, and 100-fold fruit. The others simply don't produce fruit, even if it looks like green growth on the outside. Again, the parable of the wheat and the tares... While growing up, tares look IDENTICAL to wheat. However, at harvest time, the tares are obvious...they stand straight up. The wheat, however are so full of "fruit" that they bow. Jesus does not set time limits on the types of soils. He also lets the tares sit side by side with the wheat until harvest. So, nobody halfway regenerates. Phonies may be phonies their whole lives. Otherwise, show me Scriptures that prove a halfway regeneration. These phony believers are still totally unable and are totally depraved.
Mike Hoskins I’m at work and can explain what I’m saying better after work. I don’t want to rush a reply. But the fact remains that even John Calvin saw this problem and the inconsistencies and contradictions. The actual, true definition of total inability as the Calvinist defines it cannot possibly have people inside the church for multiple years producing fruit. You can call that fruit fake all you want, but that’s strictly your opinion.
@@kjb1547 > I’m at work and can explain what I’m saying better after work. I don’t want to rush a reply. Sounds great, looking forward to it! > But the fact remains that even John Calvin saw this problem and the inconsistencies and contradictions. The actual, true definition of total inability as the Calvinist defines it cannot possibly have people inside the church for multiple years producing fruit. No man-made doctrine is 100% perfect or complete, even the WCF or the LBCF1689. There will always be holes, inconsistencies, and blind-spots. Take anything concerning eschatology or modes of baptism, for instance... Even so, we do our best, based on what Scripture says. Even then, with our best human efforts, our interpretations will fail, somewhere. In humility, we pray, go back to the Scriptures, let the Bible guide our theology, and compare our interpretations to several other trustworthy people, rinse and repeat... If Calvin has to admit that he's perplexed on something, then that ought to tell us to be careful about being super dogmatic on peripheral issues that are raised. It certainly does NOT negate all the Scriptures that say "no one seeks God at any time" and "we were dead in our sins and trespasses," and "our righteousness is as filthy rags," or "they have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one"....and we are "born in sin." We also do know that Scripture teaches that "salvation belongs to the Lord," is "not of human will," "does not depend on human will or exertion," and so on. He "elects," "predestines," "calls," "wills," "draws," "saves," "chooses," gives faith, gives grace, regenerates, sanctifies, glorifies, justifies. Jesus is called the "author" and the "finisher" of our faith - Hebrews 12:2. Nowhere does the Bible teach the sinner's prayer, or tell you to raise your hand, or come down the aisle, join a church, get baptized, or ask Jesus to come into your heart, to become saved. Works have nothing to do with it. When you read about sin, we are the subject. When you read about salvation, God is the subject. We do respond with repentance and faith and obedience after God has done the work. We do preach and teach the Gospel to others, so perhaps they may be saved by God. Salvation is all of God and not of man (5 solas.) > You can call that fruit fake all you want, but that’s strictly your opinion. We can both say the same thing to each other: "that's strictly your opinion." Again, as a five-point Calvinist (Reformed Baptist,) myself, I don't base my theology on every word spoken by Calvin. I yield to Scripture, both first and last. (Calvin was an amazing theologian, and I wish I knew 1/10 as much as he did, but he's not an absolutely perfect one.) I see nothing in Scripture that indicates that fake fruit is always found out after a short amount of time. What I DO see, in Scripture, is that sometimes we may find out in this lifetime (strongly hinted at in the Parable of the Soils and in people like Judas and Demas.) Other times, we may only find out at "Harvest" time (seems to be explicitly stated in Parable of the Wheat and the Tares and especially in Matthew 7:21-23.) It's not what Calvin says, but what does Scripture say to this? If in Scripture we find a possible/actual issue in our theology, we must humbly correct it! ...and we should always be humble enough to seek other trustworthy sources, to see if our beliefs are plausible... Some theology is simpler (Law and Gospel -- repent of your sins and believe in Jesus.) Other theology is harder (eschatology, for instance.) Also, just because one point of theology is imperfect, doesn't mean to "throw out the baby with the bathwater." If it's 99% good, perhaps some humble, modest refinement is in order.
Oh, do shut up. Doug came to believe that wine is indeed that which is served in communion. But he understands perfectly that others might have a weak conscience, or allergies, etc. In other words, Wilson knows the difference between gnats, camels, legalists, and fussers.
@@MrChestertonian do you believe that believing children are to partake in the Lord's Supper? If so, serving them alcohol would be a sin. And what about believers in Saudi Arabia?
I’ve been save almost 2 years to the day exactly. I cannot tell you how terrified I am to be one of those who never got the root of the matter. EDIT: however I do know I would pass James’ inquisition
I wish I could have had one of these men as my pastors. Maybe I’d have remained an evangelical. I don’t believe (32:40, mainly) what they do anymore, but I still value their commentary very much.
Rhuanjl Nah, I’m Eastern Orthodox now. I was Chrismated just this morning, actually. I finally found a group of young Christians who were actually trying their best to live the right way and who welcomed me with open arms into their lives as a brother. In every Evangelical Church I’ve ever been a member of (which is a lot, as I grew up in the SBC and have a degree from an evangelical seminary), I’ve never had what I have now in Orthodoxy. The biggest problem I had within “Big Eva” was joining a Church, becoming friendly with people my age, but the young people in the Church never actually becoming my “real friends”. The Churches I was apart of were usually founded by a particular group of families who’d known each other for years, they’d let you into their circles but wouldn’t ever fully embrace you. I had Church friends, like one would have work friends or school friends or something like that, but I never actually had close friends who I’d met at Church. That cycle repeated itself multiple times in my life. If I ever did become good friends with people in the Church, it was because we had negative interests in common (drinking, drugs, women, partying, etc.). I just never fit in the culture of evangelicalism, I was always either too rough around the edges or I didn’t act or behave in the way that standard upper middle class evangelicals expected me to, even though I come from money I never acted like it or thought it made me better than anyone. Trust me when I say that I did not want to become Eastern Orthodox, I just wanted to be able to keep my faith in tact and hopefully find some people who were honestly trying to live the Christian life along the way. I don’t think I’d be a Christian anymore had I not found Orthodoxy, the hypocrisy, cliques and stringent class gentrification in evangelicalism almost destroyed my faith. Orthodoxy isn’t perfect, I know that for sure, but the problems I had in evangelicalism that were destroying my faith just aren’t present at all. I know you didn’t ask for a life story, but I assume someone reading this will call me an “apostate” or something like that. Anyway, God bless you and I’d hope you’d pray for me, God knows I’m in need of it.
Werd Nnam Hello! I’m sorry to hear what you’ve faced in evangelical churches. Where did you go to seminary? I can tell you that what you said above is definitely not unfair. There ARE a lot of churches like what you described. And as we are sinners, there is a lot of sin in churches. Think of the cultural, racial, and socioeconomic divisions that happened in the early church - WITH the apostles present to address such things. Even Peter and Barnabas gave into the “hypocrisy” at one time before Paul rebuked them. But at the same time - I think that it’s a shallow view of the church if you think that accepting/loving/embracing friends is what a church is about and what should keep you at a church. Leaving a church because you don’t have friend (or joining a church because you do) is not the right way to view “the church.” Paul did not tell the gentile Christians in Galatia to leave and form a different church, one where they accept each other. Rather, he rebuked the church. Likewise, Paul rebuked the church for its factions and cliques in 1 Corinthians, and James does the same for their economic prejudice. What is important about the church is the people of God forming a body despite every reason not to be. Follow the argument in Ephesians, for example, where Paul talks about the two (Jews and Gentiles) becoming 1. The idea is radical - but it’s what we have in Jesus. The idea there is that DESPITE the differences, we must strive to love each other and THAT is a powerful message, not only to the watching world, but to the heavenly authorities. The church (especially its local expression) is the place in which we gather and demonstrate to one another how it is to follow Jesus even in the midst of people’s sins against us. It is not because someone loves me that I love them back. Rather, it is because of the GOSPEL that I can love them even when they do me evil. The reason to stay at any church is not whether the people are nice or there are people your age who you are good friends with. That sounds a lot like the “older” families who were good friend. And that certainly isn’t a reason to be a Christian. The reason to be part of a local church is because it protects and proclaims the GOSPEL through the regular administrations of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s table, the careful and truthful preaching of the Word, and that it holds its members accountable through love and prayer. That’s what you should look for in a church and why you should be at any church. Evangelicalism as an “ism” is far from perfect. But the core of evangelicalism (as an “ism”) is about the centrality of core beliefs. How that plays out at the local level varies. SBC believes (and I think rightly) in the autonomy of the local body. Rather than leaving evangelicalism completely, I would suggest finding a local body that upholds what it means to truly be a church.
I've listened to some of Wilson's blog posts (read aloud on youtube) and I've also listened to plenty of white nationalist discussions on youtube and... Wilson's blog posts sound more extreme and belligerent to me lol So no wonder he gets criticism and "trolls"
No matter how well spoken 'covenant theology' makes God into a liar that doesn't keep His promises to Israel and makes a logical draw to the question, "Why would He keep His promise to me then?" A literal view of Biblical meaning, a 'dispensational' framework brings the clearest understanding.
No, we'd reject replacement theology too. The Bible distinguishes between national Israel and the true Israel, and seems to say that the there will be some future restoration of the nation of Israel as well. More on this: www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-church-and-israel-in-the-new-testament/
This is just a reform Calvinist Rick Warren, This guy uses more metaphors and analogies to prove his point rather than scripture then Rick Warren , literally my wife was playing this in the background and I thought it was Rick Warren explaining his peace plan unbelievable the NAR is now in the reform movement wow no wonder James white likes Michael brown.
Doug says he read a ton of reconstruction books back in the day, He never shares his views on them on the subject. But we know where his heart is I will use scripture now instead of an analogy or a metaphor Matt.12:34...For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
As one might expect, allowing Pastor Wilson to explain his position clears away a ton of the smoke and shade thrown about by his opponents. Great conversation, gentlemen.
The things he says in this conversation contradict what he has said in his books. The things he says in this conversation do not reveal the specific teachings of the Federal Vision. Doug Wilson changes the meaning of words so it sounds like he's saying what the Westminster Confession teaches. When he says "Faith", he means "works" and when he says "law" he means "gospel". A deep dive must be done apart from isolated interviews that provide an opportunity to say the right things in order to sound orthodox.
I am brand new to Doug Wilson. I don't know what all the fuss is about. There was not one thing he said here that I disagreed with. It was 100% orthodox
Awwwww such a cute ending haha. Doug is so gracious and gentle. I just don't understand how so many Reformed folk attack him and even condemn his soul. It makes no sense. He has clarified his views over and over for more than 15 years!!
After about ten years break from the Federal Vision I can confirm that Douglas Wilson still has the same theology now that he had then. He is a Calvinist evangelical plain and simple.
I'm so glad I watched this. It really helped clear up any misconceptions I had. I will say, the hyper criticism of Christians from other Christians, has been really discouraging. I just pray for us as Christians to be more patient and charitable to one another. After all, we are all united to Christ.
