Home » Posts tagged 'Idaho'
Tag Archives: Idaho
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part three)
Tucker Interview
After already publishing parts one and two in this series, Tucker Carlson teased an interview with Douglas Wilson. This is a boon for he and his brand. Immediately Wilson wrote a post to welcome the Tucker audience with links to his numerous ventures. This gives even greater importance to exposure of Wilson. The content of the Tucker trailer also dovetails closely with this series, because Wilson mentions the gospel.
Wilson surprised me with his representation of Christian nationalism (another still ongoing series here, here, and here). It differed from his norm (see my part three). He gave no hope for Christian nationalism in the United States, except through gospel preaching. In many expositions of Christian nationalism, I don’t remember his saying that. Maybe I missed it. Postmillennialists and theonomist-types like Wilson, who envision their bringing in a physical kingdom on earth, don’t usually convey utter hopelessness remedied only by hot gospel preaching.
Perhaps the whole interview (presently behind the Tucker paywall) will reveal more. Wilson sounded good about the gospel, but he left out infant sprinkling and child communion, something he mixes with the gospel. Shouldn’t he urge Tucker’s audience also to sprinkle its infants? It’s important in his vision of Christian nationalism.
Roman Catholicism
Not Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholicism passed down infant sprinkling among many other scriptural perversions. It condemned maybe as many people to Hell as any false doctrine. Protestants continued in a system of false interpretation and doctrine, albeit better than Roman Catholicism, yet still misleading.
Protestants point to the Latin, sola scriptura, scripture alone, as their heritage. Yet, tradition still guides much of Protestantism. Infant baptism isn’t scripture alone and this challenges the Protestant embrace of sola scriptura. Keeping significant aspects of Roman Catholicism, Protestants also point back to the Catholic fathers as theirs too. Wilson has pieced together a patchwork of belief and practice that required the beginning of a new denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Jesse Nigro in The North American Anglican writes in his analysis of Wilson:
[H]is trajectory has led him into the broader pool of “Reformed Catholicism” that Anglicans occupy.
Catholic Church
Nigro was praising Wilson. Protestants fork off the Roman Catholic line or trajectory, not in the succession of New Testament Christianity or true churches, separate from the state church, since Christ. Roman Catholicism and its stepchild Protestantism resembles little the belief and practice of the church of the New Testament. Scott Aniol writes in his review of Wilson’s book, Mere Christendom::
I am aware that Wilson’s church recognizes Roman Catholic baptisms and welcomes them to the Lord’s Table, but this Baptist considers Roman Catholicism a false religion.
In his book, Reformed Is Not Enough, Wilson wrote (pp. 73-74):
The visible church is also Catholic in an earthly sense, meaning that it is no longer confined to one nation, as it was before under the law. The visible Church is composed of anyone in the world who professes (biblically) to believe in the Christian faith. When they make this profession by means of baptism their children are attached with them. The visible church is to be understood as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the household of God, and outside of this Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Baptism and Salvation
Later in his section on sacerdotalism, he writes:
Baptism and salvation are not mechanically or magically linked. But in the ordinary course of life, they are linked, and we are to speak of them as though they are.
Furthermore, Wilson writes (p. 111):
By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect.
Paedocommunion
Wilson and Child Communion
In addition to the heretical practice of infant sprinkling, Wilson endorses and practices child communion, inviting the toddlers to the bread and the cup. Wilson writes:
At the very center of the strong family emphasis that you will find in our churches, you will also find our practice of communing our children at the Lord’s Table. This is unusual in Protestant churches, and in some places it is even controversial. . . . [I]n our churches, the Lord’s Table is not protected with a profession of faith; the Lord’s Table is regarded as a profession of faith.
What do Wilson and others imply by children partaking of the Lord’s Supper? They can partake worthily because they have repented, believed, and received forgiveness of sins. Children who cannot believe, do not have the capacity to do so, are said to make a profession of faith through the Lord’s Table. However, the Lord’s Table is a table of examination. A man examines himself and then eats the bread and drinks the cup.
The Wickedness of Child Communion
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 say:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
So much contradicts clear scripture and biblical teaching with participation of children in the Lord’s Table. Wilson argues that paedocommunion follows paedobaptism, when he writes:
[T]he apostle Paul compares the entire congregation to one loaf of bread (1 Cor. 10:17). And it is our conviction that all who are bread should get bread.
This is a typical turn-of-phrase or rhetorical flourish intended to persuade in some doctrinal or practical position. Wilson sounds interesting, but he’s false. His teaching confuses the gospel. It brings God’s judgment down on unworthy partakers of the table. Finally, it corrupts the true nature of the church. One can truly say that paedocommunion is false worship. It is not an act of faith in God, but man-ordained, human innovation.
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part two)
Over a decade ago I read a book by Douglas Wilson, that described a philosophy for his writing, represented in the title: A Serrated Edge. His and the Moscow, Idaho mood is portrayed by a serrated edge and the use of satire. Let me again announce that I accept Wilsonian written serration. It’s more interesting at least and sometimes more effective writing. Someone else once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Maybe for Wilson, “His pen is equally mighty to a serrated knife.” Many of the targets of Wilson’s writings deserve their serration from his satirical analysis.
Strict Adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism
Douglas Wilson and his posse in Moscow, Idaho get attention with the style or mood of their writing and other operations. A focus on mood neglects serious problems, most notably their confusion on the gospel. Wilson and Moscow are strong adherents to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which says this (Article 28):
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ . . . . to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.
Furthermore, the WCF says (Article 28) that “by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants).” That is all salvific language applied to baptism. Wilson takes this very seriously in his view and preaching of salvation.
John Calvin, the Protestant and Reformed Forefather
Calvin’s Institutes
From what I read of Wilson, he does not believe that baptism guarantees future salvation for the one baptized. Neither does any Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics would say faith is necessary for salvation. They would reject “faith alone.” To clarify his position, Wilson wrote: “Baptism is an effectual means of salvation to worthy receivers.” John Calvin, whose theology Wilson follows, wrote (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4):
God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism.
Calvin’s “Antidote” to the Council of Trent
Calvin also published (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5th Session):
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made . . . by baptism . . . the guilt is effaced [and] it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
In the same publication Calvin continued:
We, too [as do the Catholics], acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary—that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient.
Wilson doesn’t distinguish himself from the teaching of his spiritual father, Calvin.
Thomas Ross’s Statement
Thomas Ross wrote in his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized?:
Those who think that infant baptism was the instrument of their receiving forgiveness, those who think that they received the sacrament as confirmation and evidence that they were already regenerated in the womb, and those who think they had water applied to them in infancy as evidence that they were certain to be regenerated in the future unless they consciously rejected the “sacrament” and its efficacy are underneath a terrible spiritual delusion. They will certainly be damned unless they recognize that their unbiblical religious ceremony did nothing beneficial for them, admit they are still lost, and then repent and believe the gospel.
With the Protestant or Reformed Catholics, this very serious problem relates to what Paul writes about adding circumcision to grace in Galatians 5:1-6. The Protestant or Reformed Catholics see infant sprinkling as New Testament circumcision. This does not proceed from the Bible, but from allegorization of scripture and tradition.
Galatians
The Galatians added circumcision to grace, which was enough for Paul to say in Galatians 5:2-4:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
No one should come close to what the Galatians did. Paul uses very strong language, saying, “Christ shall profit you nothing” and more. This is how they perverted the gospel to the degree that Paul wrote in 1:6-9 that it was “another gospel.” Those who preached it, he said, “let them be accursed.”
Infant Sprinkling and John Gill
Wilson wrote a defense on infant sprinkling, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God. He wrote: “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism” (p. 9). And yet, not one verse in scripture mentions infant baptism or sprinkling. Consider what 17th century English Baptist preacher or pastor John Gill wrote about infant sprinkling:
The Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain;
I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive luster and purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and superstition.
Cultural Stands Don’t Undo These Problems
Wilson may take a position closer to the Protestant or Reformed Catholics than his contemporary Reformed fellows do. He could argue that he is more consistent than them with the doctrine and practice. I respect the teaching of Wilson on many cultural issues. He helps on cultural and social ones. These are attractive to many evangelicals and even professing Baptists, their not hearing this in their own churches. Those, however, cannot undo the problems with the unscriptural doctrine I’m addressing. However, the Moscow troubles don’t end with infant sprinkling.
More to Come
Douglas Wilson: “I Am Not A Separatist”
The Moscow Mood
One landscape of the evangelical internet blew up recently when evangelical reformed (Presbyterian?) Kevin DeYoung, leader in The Gospel Coalition, wrote a scathing article against Douglas Wilson and his Christian enterprise in Moscow, Idaho. He entitled it: “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood.” Now Wilson has answered him with an article at his blog: “My Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung.” Many already have written posts on this highly visible skirmish.
I’m not going to give my assessment on this public conflict. I have a leaning in this intramural fracas, but I choose to center my attention on Wilson, because of something he wrote in his article:
I am a fundamentalist, in that I believe the fundamentals with all my heart. But I am not a cultural fundamentalist, and I am not a schismatic or separatist.
Wilson says, “I am not a . . . separatist.” Historically, fundamentalists are at least separatists, unless someone wants to redefine fundamentalism. Usually in the technical aspects of designation or labelling, removing separation makes Wilson maybe a “conservative evangelical.” Some would argue with even that because of the Federal Vision issue for Wilson. To put the doctrine of Federal Vision (FV) in shorthand, someone wrote last week:
The FV holds that all who are baptized are objectively part of the covenant of grace.
Federal Vision and Wilson
It’s thick, but you might read the article in which that sentence occurred to try to understand the issue. The authors entitled the article: “On Justification, Doug Wilson, And The Moscow Doctrine.” The same post reads in the conclusion:
As we witness and lament the waning of Christianity’s influence in American public life, Doug Wilson’s rhetoric has galvanized conservative and Reformed-minded Christians who, at the very least, are hungry for a vision of the future that has a strong Christian influence on the culture. Some have left faithful and orthodox churches for churches more aligned with “the Moscow mood,” while failing to discern the real danger of “the Moscow doctrine,” especially with respect to FV and its erroneous doctrine of justification.
People should ask what the Wilson doctrine of salvation is. Is it confused? Are paedobaptists such as Wilson preaching a true gospel? In a google supplied definition of the belief of paedobaptism, I can’t say WIlson would disagree:
Inherent in this view is the thinking that baptism is only rightly given to those who are regenerate, but that in light of God’s covenant promises, children of Christian parents may be presumed to be regenerate from birth, and thereby worthy recipients of the sign of the covenant.
Wilson says he is a fundamentalist and defines it as believing “the fundamentals,” whatever those may be. What are “the fundamentals” for someone associating with Federal Vision? Perhaps Wilson read an accusation of fundamentalism in DeYoung’s post. The words “fundamentalist” or “separatist” or even “schismatic” do not occur in DeYoung’s article anywhere.
Fundamentalism and Separation
I am pinpointing the language of Wilson, “I am not a . . . separatist,” perhaps Wilson equaling “schismatic” to “separatist.” True churches, which are true New Testament churches, are separatist. All true churches are separatist churches. Yet, Wilson proclaims, he is not a separatist. Even though he is a fundamentalist, he says, he carves off “cultural fundamentalist.” These are loaded words that Wilson does not define. What does it take to be a “cultural fundamentalist.” Wouldn’t someone be a “cultural fundamentalist” today if he opposed same sex marriage and supported delineated male and female roles.
Wilson argues for the patriarchy even greater or more strict than complementarianism. This is cultural. He criticizes complementarians as too soft or squishy. He defends “toxic masculinity.” He wrote last month:
God has determined that men should occupy the positions of leadership in each of the basic governments that He has established among men. These governments would be those of our civic life (Is. 3:12), our life together in the church (1 Tim. 2:12), and in the family (1 Cor. 11:3). In the first place, He appointed men to take glad and sacrificial responsibility in these areas, and by men, I mean males. In addition to that, He required the males that He placed in these positions of authority and responsibility to act like men, and not simply males.
The distinction, it seems now, between complementarianism and patriarchy is that the former applies only to marriage and the latter to every institution in the world, as represented by Wilson in the above paragraph. If Wilson is a fundamentalist, he’s also a cultural fundamentalist.
Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism
Wilson can’t be a fundamentalist, because separation is a sine qua non of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists separate over belief and practice. They separate over fundamentals, whether doctrinal or cultural. A historian of fundamentalism, Kevin Bauder, covers this in his article: “The Idea of Fundamentalism.” You aren’t a fundamentalist unless you separate over your fundamentals.
Fundamentalism is a movement that began in early twentieth century United States with institutional separation. The Britannica entry on “Christian fundamentalism,” describing Carl McIntyre, says:
He argued that fundamentalists must not only denounce modernist deviations from traditional Christian beliefs but also separate themselves from all heresy and apostasy. This position entailed the condemnation of conservatives who chose to remain in fellowship with more liberal members of their denominations.
Later the article on Christian Fundamentalism restates this foundational characteristic of fundamentalism:
By the 1980s fundamentalists had rebuilt all the institutional structures that had been lost when they separated from the older denominations.
The Bible Requires Separatism
Be Ye Holy
The Bible teaches separatism all the way through. God separated Adam and Eve from the Garden. He separated Noah and his family from the rest of the world. He separated the nation Israel from all the surrounding nations. Separation verses abound all over the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). God by nature is holy and holiness is separation. God says to His people, “Be ye holy as I am holy.” He is saying, “Be ye separate as I am separate.”
Wilson defines separatists as both “schismatics” and “cultural fundamentalists,” differentiating from himself. He gives no explanation for that, apparently thinking everyone reading “just knows already.” Of the unscriptural belief and practice of Wilson and his institutions in Moscow, Idaho, I reject his lack of separatism, both from the world and from false doctrine and practice. To explain the catholicity of Douglas Wilson, he advocated for this statement on such:
On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.
Catholic or Not Catholic
When he says he is not a separatist, ecclesiastically he means he is catholic. He doesn’t like what he sees going on, but he’s not going to separate over it. He’ll sit behind the keyboard and fire away, but that won’t stop him from staying together in a spirit of ecumenism with false doctrine and practice.
I thought Wilson’s statement on fundamentalism and separation to be a good teaching moment. As many readers know, I do not consider myself a “fundamentalist.” I without apology say, “I am a separatist.” God requires separation. Those who obey scriptural teaching on separation are separatists. Wilson says, ‘I am not one of those.’
Salvation and Separation
2 Corinthians 6:17-18 say:
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Jesus said in John 8:44, “Ye are of your Father the devil.” Someone must leave the one family, Satan’s, to join the new family, something shown in Galatians 3 and 4. The Lord says, “I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you,” and who does He say this is for? Those who come out from among them and be ye separate. Wilson says, “I am not a separatist.” Okay. According to scripture, what does that mean for the ultimate outcome for Wilson?
Recent Comments