Justifying Faith
I think I was able to follow your argument in “Living faith has no side hustles.” Justifying faith is alive from the moment God gives it as a gift. It rests on Christ and receives Christ alone for justification, being obedient to the Gospel summons to trust in Christ alone for justification. My question is, why is it important to emphasize the livingness and the obedient characteristic of faith? Maybe I missed the original context of the discussion, and I would be glad to understand it. Thank you, especially for modeling glad service to the Lord.
Jake
Jake, the reason for emphasizing this is that some among the Reformed are so “zealous” for their form of sola fide that they reduce faith to a bare assent. And then they attack anyone who defines faith according to the classic notitia, assensus, and fiducia. That last one, trust, is the one that makes them suspicious.
Ad Hominem Christianity
DeYoung, Hicks, and Walden were defended [against] perfectly well by you, but I think there’s a rather pointed issue to address in the attacks. These at face value unrelated critiques are not happening at the same time by coincidence. They are happening because of an uptick in your influence. What is it perhaps that is sparking this interest in your work? Is it that people are flocking to NQN for your writings on Baxterian faith? Is it to dig up a link from 6 years ago where you said “boobie” once? No, its because there is a yearning to fight for genuine Christian living. That’s the topic at hand. That is the influence they are trying to de-legitimize.So as I usually do with ad hominem responses, what happens when we accept the premise? For the sake of argument lets say that you’re heretical about justification. For the sake of argument lets say you do say naughty words you oughtn’t. For the sake of argument let’s even say you obfuscate for sexual abusers. We’re not Catholics. In principle, we’re not to treat church leaders as any more correct than their words merit. However much you may be a Baddy McBadguy of Baddington, it doesn’t effect your correctness or incorrectness on this particular issue, the issue of most significance to your popularity.
Ok, NOW can we promote fighting for Christian living? The answer invariably returns, no. No, you still cannot. As pastors defend the constitutional correctness of altars to Satan on public property in Iowa, they castigate other Christians for treating Christianity as genuinely true. As a rule, ad hominem arguments reveal what your opponents are actually after. This is not a serious attempt to refute the substance of your movement. Its an attempt to manipulate readers into personally disliking you. Its public gossip, and it is a sin. There are prescribed methods in Scripture for dealing with brothers in errancy before taking such measures. I’m going to take a wild leap and guess they did not contact you privately beforehand.
Justin
Justin, thanks for the observation, and for keeping your eye on the ball.
I’m continually baffled at the attempts categorize you and your ministry as heretical, heterodox, cultish, etc. Its like these people have really never read the old books they claim to love so much. I recently attended the G3 conference in Atlanta (I know, I know, please forgive me) where they passed out Law and Gospel by John Colquhoun. I did a quick skim to see how he defined gospel; you know that term you keep denying. And what do you know, he did what you have done many times: define gospel in a general (covenantal) way which requires obedience (imperative) and a specific way which is entirely the work of God (indicative). These people really need to read the books they pass out; what kind of organization unknowingly encourages Christians to have fellowship with Moscow? Additionally, several speakers on one of the panels said their favorite theologian was Jonathan Edwards. Really? I mean, really? Have they ever read The History of the Work of Redemption? Or maybe his defense of justification isn’t good enough for the Truly Reformed today?
What bothers me the most though is that this pattern is so consistent within so-called evangelicalism today. It’s just as Lewis said in the Intro to Incarnation. These accusations condemn the very heroes of the faith they claim to love so much. I worry that our generation is very similar to the Jews of the 1st century: building the tombs of the prophets and not believing what they taught. There seem to be some signs of revival and the recovery of true Christian fellowship. But the current signs make me think we’re not at the bottom of the trough yet. It seems to me we’re in for a very harsh judgment, just as the 1st century Jews were.
So I have 2 questions:
1. Do you think the evangelical mind is at the bottom of the trough yet?
2. How do we recover a more robust view of orthodoxy that doesn’t make enemies out of our friends?
Jackson
Jackson, no, I don’t think we have hit bottom quite yet. And I don’t believe there is any way to recover an orthodoxy that is on fire without massive disruptions in the status quo.
Having read your article ‘Justifying faith has no Side Hustles’, just a couple observations. I grew up blissfully unaware what theology even was, let alone something to be debated. Only as I attended college as a 40-year-old did it become something important, or at least noteworthy. I’m an old country kid who was taught right from wrong and that ‘Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so’. To split the hairs people sometimes split in regards to the topic of this article seems, for ordinary people, a gigantic waste of time. I guess I’m someone who has a bit of a literal view of the Bible. I have enough trouble living what I can clearly see! These debates seem more akin to a couple of kids standing in a playground yelling at each other. How does any of this show the love of God to a dying world? Proclaim Jesus to the lost? I can understand your desire to defend yourself, and I’d support that. What I find more troubling in the greater Church is that we seem to want, not to live in the oneness of spirit Jesus prayed we have, but in all our little fiefdoms. To love one another, while a wonderful goal, seems far off. Forgive me if I just didn’t understand the debate. I do appreciate all your efforts and enjoy your articles. Blessings to you and yours this Christmas season!
Richard
Richard, thanks. Not only would you prefer to read something else, I would certainly prefer to write something else.
“The hand that He gives us for receiving Christ is warm and alive. The disposition to rest in Christ alone is alive. A carcass cannot rest. A carcass cannot receive.” So, would you say that regeneration precedes faith?
grh
grh, yes, I would, if we are using the classic model that Perkins worked out. But that is only a model, and you can’t really put these things on a chronological timeline as measured by a stopwatch. So I would say that everything in accomplished monergistically via union with Christ, and that there regeneration logically precedes faith.
Child Discipline Qs
No specific post, just confession/seeking counsel. I’ve slacked off on properly disciplining my child (just turned 3), and more times than not, I end up getting angry and yelling at him for disobedience, or inconsistently spanking him. I do not attend a church that actively encourages the kind of child-rearing you recommend, but I am still under conviction about not using the rod and hating my child. How do I effectively repent of this? What steps do I take to rectify it?
Anonymous
Anonymous, you already pinpointed the problem, which is your inconsistency in discipline. So I would encourage you to make two Gal. 6:1 resolutions before God. The first is to discipline consistently according to clearly defined standard, and secondly, not to discipline at all if you are not in a judicious frame of mind.
I’ve been really struggling with how to best discipline my toddlers (2 and 4-yrs-old). At what point—if at all—does corrective discipline by the use of “the rod” (Prov. 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14) turn into the kind of exasperation Paul admonishes against in Eph. 6:4? Thank you,
TR
TR, at the risk of sounding too glib, it becomes exasperation for them when the one wielding the rod is also exasperated. But if you are simply doing what God said to do, remaining calm and cheerful, and you remember how important Gal. 6:1 is in this, the need for discipline is something that kids know how to take in stride.
Further Study for Teachers
What advice would you give to someone who is becoming increasingly convinced of the importance of classical Christian education and wants to explore becoming a teacher in a Christian school? Is there a certificate or program that should be considered?
Aaron
Aaron, two possibilities. You can contact ACCS for information on their conferences, materials and such, and for which schools in ACCS conduct teacher training courses in the summer. Logos School here is Moscow hosts one. And in addition, New St. Andrews has a graduate program in this field, offering an MSt. in classical Christian studies.
Helping Mormons
One of my childhood friends was raised as a Mormon. We’ve recently started a bible study with some other friends. I wonder if he is searching for the Truth. Do you have experience witnessing to Mormons? Any advice?
Thanks,
Joel
Joel, I would recommend this YouTube channel, hosted by my friend Brad Schelke.
Antifragility for the Win
Thanks for the recent Blog and Mablog “NQN Game Film 2023”. One truth in it really resonated with me, and that was Mr. Wilson’s statement about learning to “. . . be anti-fragile” and that anti-fragility is “. . . a survival necessity.” Yes! I recently learned that very truth as a pastor’s wife in Canada during Covid nonsense. Learning to be anti-fragile was a not only a means of survival, but a game-changer for me as a believer. In retrospect, I believe God used it to refine and ready me for future challenges and assignments.
Thank you for your work!
Tarah
Tarah, thank you, and keep it up.
No Spoilers!
Re: American Milk and Honey
I just about fell out of my chair when I read the last paragraph of the Second Breakfast . . . er Second Preface of your new book “American Milk and Honey,” which I heartily commend to all Christendom.
“The key to world evangelization is conversion of the Jews, and the key to the conversion of the Jews is XXXXXXXXX.” (Wilson, American Milk and Honey)
I don’t want to spoil it for people. Wow, and wow again. I did not see that coming, but now that I’ve seen it, I can’t unsee it. Consider my world rocked.
Joe
Joe, thanks very much.
We Really Appreciated It Also
As we wait for Kevin DeYoung’s in-person visit to Moscow (which I hope he does!), Tim Bayly wrote a fine little blurb about the Moscow Mood here. Would it be possible to maybe invite Mr. Bayly as a guest on some Canon talky podcast/video content? Canon and Warhorn are so similar in plain truth-telling that it would be great to see the two of you collaborate more. :)
Thanks!
M
M, thanks. We appreciated that article very much also. It was actually written by David Bayly, Tim’s brother, but it was hosted in Tim’s usual spot.
I have two questions:
1) I have found that there are times in life where it is best to remain silent, and do what needs to be done, in the sense of not adding fuel to a fire. While this is wisdom, how do I, a young man, know when to speak up and say something, and when staying silent is cowardice?
2) Suppose I find myself in a situation where I have affections for a certain young woman, whom I generally only interact with in a church setting. Also, suppose that in this church setting I have responsibilities that take up quite a bit of time. How should I as a general rule, go about interacting with said young woman, one, with those responsibilities, and two, without them?
N
N, in a time when you are not sure whether to speak up, too often a young man is deciding whether to speak up at all, or whether to unload the truck. Try doing neither. Try simply registering dissent, with little or no follow-up explanation. Often that will do the trick. And as far as this young lady is concerned, I would encourage you to take her aside and say, “I would like to ask you out. May I ask you, or should I speak to your father?”
Deception Issues
You may be right on this, but several questions come to mind. #1 why do you insist that the midwives statement was a lie? There are ways that it could have been true. #2 was it Rahab’s lie that should be taken as a sign of her faith? And should we use an immature believer’s (Rahab) action as a reason to justify something that many other scriptures condemn. #3 David did not say he was insane . . . he acted and left the interpretation up to God.
Speaking a lie doesn’t appear to be the same as allowing someone to draw an incorrect conclusion. Lastly, it appears you take quite the liberty in what would be considered “wartime.” This would mean that it would have been right for the midwives to assassinate Pharaoh, for Rahab to have killed the pursuers of the spies, and for David to have slain anyone that was unwilling to hide him from Saul.
BJC
BJC, thanks. But God rewarded the midwives for their stand, which seems odd if all they did was explain how hardy the Israelite women were. And James specifically says that it was Rahab’s deception that was the work that justified her faith. And David deliberately misled through his behavior. This only conflicts with other scriptures if we have a preconceived notion of what these other scriptures are saying.
Glad Things Came Around
You probably get this type of message a lot, or I hope you do. In 2016 (possibly ’17), I read a dated article from you (can’t remember the title) in which you discussed men penetrating women and some other stuff. I was triggered by the words, didn’t care to understand the context or the argument, heard you were somehow involved in a heresy called Federal Vision, and I wrote you off entirely. I figured you were just a Mark Driscoll-type, only with a white beard and more articulate. I never heard of Moscow, Idaho. I didn’t know you were a pastor. I only knew you wrote a blog that swirled with controversy. And I thought that you really hated women.
A year or so ago, I heard about a podcast led by men from “Moscow” that claimed Baptists were the cause of transgenderism in America. I don’t know if that was really said. It’s what I heard. Mere hearsay. However, I heard the men were associated with you, and I thought, “yep. That’s on brand.” About the same time, someone recommended my wife and I watch a movie called “Eve in Exile.” We did. We agreed with the ideas and how our culture is working hard to destroy women and families. However, we felt something was off. It was as if the video didn’t show any burden of love for those deceived feminist God-haters. There wasn’t a burden for their salvation. We came away believing that the video wanted us to hate the deceived feminist God-haters, and that we need to war against them or our sons will grow up to be cucks and our daughters will grow up to rule them and the world.
Someone recently sent me Kevin DeYoung’s article about the Moscow Mood. What caught me wasn’t so much his problems with the mood (I thought the problems were bigger!). It was his genuine respect for you, your ministry, and your work. I decided to do some more digging. I sought to find more ammo to reinforce my beliefs that you’re a misogynist, a heretic, and possibly a racist (I heard that accusation too, so I figured I’d discover the evidence somewhere). In fact, I didn’t find any of the sort.
I started with your Indiana University Q&A. I saw your willingness to engage people who adamantly hated you and God. You demonstrated a desire to share the truth, without condescension. I perceived that you blessed them while being cursed. That made me realize that the blogs you write and your polemics are not often aimed at those people, but rather the Christians who coddle, support, and try to win their affections by downplaying sin and calling it “winsome.” I began to make distinctions in your audiences and it was a game changer for how I interpreted your content. I also stopped automatically assuming the worst of your intent.
I’ve since read more blogs and watched more videos. I haven’t read any books yet; I’ve not had time. But, I’m convinced that I was wrong about you, the community God has given you in Moscow, and the work you guys are doing. I’m thankful to be wrong. The gospel is present in your content, much of the vitriol is undeserved, and you represent a humble though unwavering commitment to stand for the truth, in the church and the culture. My biggest change may be my stance on Christian Nationalism. Before, I thought “Christian Nationalism” was what both Republicans and Democrats do when they want to appeal to Christian voters, all the while being no more Christian than Madonna. Now I see it as a genuine effort to see the state and nation submit to Christ. Which is what it ought to do.
The only critical feedback I have is in use of memes. It may be anecdotal and I wouldn’t say it’s a sin, but it’s hard for me to understand why men of God like to share memes about other men of God who believe differently than them. All for laughs and a fight. But there I go guessing intent again. Maybe one day I’ll understand. Today I don’t.
Overall, thank you for what you do. Thank you for your courage. I’ll be praying for you and your ministry. May the truth prevail and may God magnify Christ in you, your family, and in your work.
God speed,
A friend in Fayetteville, NC.
Friend, thank you for writing. Really appreciate it.
You joked on Cross Politic that “a lot of our adversaries are getting a lot of good teaching.”
I just want to tell you that I was one of your adversaries 15 years ago, when the slavery controversy was going down in Cary, NC.
I searched your blog to find more evidence of racism, and I accidentally found the Gospel. I had never heard the Gospel before. It took me by surprise, and I came to Christ in 2008.
So I’m just writing to say that some of your adversaries really DO find the Gospel in your writings.
Thank you for your faithfulness.
Andrew
Andrew, thanks very much for writing in. Really good to hear this kind of thing.
Called to the Ministry?
I could use a bit of advice. As someone who has been in vocational ministry for many years, perhaps you could impart some wisdom to me as someone who is training to enter it.
I’m sure you’ve received other letters from me mentioning it, but I’ve been following what I felt was a rather direct call on my life to preach. (When one has a dream answering a prayer at 12 years old “Lord, what do you want me to do with my life?” and the dream involves Jesus motioning you to a pulpit, I would like to think it’s fairly direct).
However, I admit that I’ve been having some serious second thoughts about it here 16 years later a age 28 and in seminary. I have never considered myself a people person, and I’m not all that good at connecting with people. By experience and by confirmation, I can preach a sermon and I have a knack and passion for Scripture-grounded theology, but I’m not so good at the people and counseling part.
It seems an impossible standard to be a minister. You are expected to be a Renaissance man capable of all manner of feats and inhumanly immaculate virtue. Every little action you do—no matter how innocent or well-intention—will get misconstrued by someone jumping to conclusions or intentionally trying to destroy your life simply because you’re the minister.
I’ve been having to read books on ethical issues in ministry. I agree on having firm and clear boundaries, but a lot of these solutions that people come up with seem to basically make us into unlicensed social workers with a bit of fancy flair rather than servants of the living God and shepherds of a flock.
I get easily frustrated with the Church and its behavior and how easily Scripture is tossed aside (like with denominations that embrace female elders). I feel like a very disconnected person from my own generation (though I easily recognize many of my own faults. I’ll be the first to confess to the logs in my eyes). At the same time, I’m well aware that Jesus’ forgiveness means that salvation is not about being perfect. A church is a hospital for the soul, not an exclusive club, yet it seems like that perfection is demanded of the minister every second of every day. Even Peter made his serious blunders, and he was the big shot of the disciples.
My dad always had a saying that Christians are the most forgiving and the most cruel because they’re the first to kill their wounded. I always knew that saying to have truth, but I have only recently been learning just how much.
I don’t know that I’m cut out for this line of work. I don’t know if I can lead a life under a magnifying glass exacerbating my every mistake— more-so than my stubborn perfectionism does to myself already.
Is this indication that I mistook my calling and that it lies elsewhere? Am I simply in a Moses situation where I’m questioning my own abilities and ought to just trust God’s judgement on this one? Have I been chasing something that wasn’t actually from God for 16 years? I don’t know what to do with my life otherwise at this point.
Your brother in Christ,
P.S. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and I appreciate your blog and videos. They’ve been a good source of stability for me in crazy times
George
George, first, I would not do or continue to do anything on the basis of the dream. I don’t believe that such a dream obligates you to anything. The question you have concerns the internal call, but I sounds like you have the kind of personality that questions such things easily. If I were you, I would seek out the perspective of five older Christians that you trust (no more than one of them a family member), and ask them if they sense that you have a gift or a call in this area. If they think you do, then continue with your studies—with a resolve to work on those aspects of it that exasperate you.
Satiric Bite
With your common usage of the serrated edge, I was wondering if you were familiar with this essay:
It was written during the big hubbub over ‘winsomeness’ in Reformed evangelical circles, and presents standards for ‘Pascalian’ mockery, which, if employed according to those principles, can be loving. The author draws these criteria for mockery from Blaise Pascal’s defense of pointed ridicule found in his 11th Provincial letter. There are four principles Pascal lays out, and two more the author extrapolates.
First, Charity only speaks the truth. We as Christians should tell no lies about our opponents for rhetorical purposes. Second, except in cases of gross public hypocrisy, ridicule should be restrained to ideas, not people. Third, we should mock only great evil; these devices are not for use in a casual manner or against good things. And fourth: we should always ultimately desire the salvation of those we rebuke.
Two more were extrapolated, though only implied by Pascal. Fifth: to avoid lowly derision, when engaging in ridicule, never punch down, always punch up. Tools such as satire are for bringing down those in high places, not defaming the weak (the Horse and His Boy principle). And lastly, mockery should be used as a last resort against unreasonable foes—only when all other attempts for rational discussion have proven fruitless.
Do you agree with these principles? I think most people agree that as it becomes less feasible for Christians to assume respectability in the public square, satire will become more and more necessary. I think most people would agree as well, that as Christ-followers, we need to have standards as to ensure our mockery is loving, and according to biblical standards. What would you consider to be your standards for how and when to use the serrated edge?
Thanks!
Cooper
Cooper, thank you. I have Pascal’s book Provincial Letters, but had not gotten to it yet. And I was not familiar with the article, so thanks for that. I do agree with the principles as you have summarized them.
An Education Crossroads
I have been deeply impacted by your teaching, blogs, books, and podcasts. I’ve been diving headfirst into many books, essays, podcasts, etc. from you and others on your side of the conversation. Among other things, you have even helped me finally come to understand and embrace postmillennialism. What a joy it is to be on the side of optimism! I am writing to ask for help regarding an education decision for my two kids. My son is currently in the 8th grade and my daughter is in the 7th grade. I just finished your book Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning and am even more convicted that I need to take a look at Classical Christian Education for their secondary grade years.
Both children were enrolled in the government school system until the first school quarter of 2020 when I decided to pull them out to homeschool them. Praise the Lord for this decision. I live in Sarasota, Florida where the schools are overrun with liberal teachers and administrators in a highly conservative county. As in most places, government schools here are a complete mess.
While my wife and I have always been open to private school, our financial situation prevented us from taking a good hard look at that option. Once things got a bit crazy with the COVID nonsense, I decided to pull them from the government schools and teach them myself. My wife and I own and operate a small franchise gym together, which allowed us a bit of flexibility with our work schedules. I have taken on the responsibility of doing all of the school instruction. Teaching is unfortunately not my gift, yet I plod away as best I can. We got involved in a Christian co-op last year. They attended the co-op one day per week last year. This year, they moved to two days per week.
The co-op has been good for giving the kids a social outlet as well as the kids taking subjects that I wouldn’t normally teach them at home. Classes such as art, science, computer programming, etc. They enjoy the co-op very much. However, I’m not thrilled with the quality of the classes which only meet once per week.
I contacted ACCS in order to find an affiliated school near me. Unfortunately, the closest ACCS school is a startup and is an hour away. The ACCS let me know that there are online schools that are ACCS members. I had no idea about this option! The online schools that I have looked into are Logos Online School, Wilson Hill Academy, and Veritas.
My concern is that online school would provide no in-person social interaction with their fellow peers and teachers. From what I understand, the workload and the class meeting days/times would prevent the kids from having time for the co-op classes. My other classical education option is a local private school that is fairly close to our home. It is affiliated with the SCL. It seems to be a decent school, albeit not a Christian one. I can’t say I am very knowledgeable with what the SCL is other than the fact that I have seen you mention it in a Blog and Mablog post or two (“Fault Lines: The Classical Christian Ed Kind” and “A Woke Framing of the Classical Christian School Movement”).
Herein lies my dilemma. I could enroll my kids at the in-person SCL classical school, or an online ACCS Classical Christian school. Which is the better option? With the online school, they would get a Christian education as well as classical. While the local private classical school is classical, it is not overtly Christian. I don’t know if they are woke at that school, but reading your posts about the possibility of wokeness creeping in sometime in the future does prickle my ears a bit.
If you recommend the online ACCS option, which school do you think is best? I realize that Logos Online School is not directly affiliated with Logos School. But if the principles are the same, I’d likely lean in that direction first. Will you provide some guidance?
I am grateful to you and all of the folks at Canon Press for providing such wonderful materials that continue to bless me. I pray that what I learn will exude from me and into the lives of my family and friends.
Sola Deo Gloria,
Michael
Michael, I obviously cannot know all the variables, but from what you describe, I would recommend Logos Online. It is a good option.
Desire Unto Death
Can a Christian have homosexual desires? Homosexual desire is a clear sign of an unfit mind (Rom 1:28). And an unfit mind is a clear evidence of God’s wrath upon that person (1:18; cf. 1:28). So, my theory, a Christian cannot be given over by God in wrath to an unfit mind, and therefore cannot have such desires. And so if someone has homosexual desires, they are not saved. Agree? If no, why not?
Peter
Peter, the issue should not be framed as “having a desire,” which is too close to having an identity that is wrapped up in such a desire. Our identity should be in Christ. But if we ask whether a true Christian can be tempted to sin, the answer is of course. And that includes temptation to sin in a homosexual way. Our response to such things should be to mortify our members which are on the earth (Col. 3:5).
Devotional Reading for Couples?
Do you have any recommendations of what books I can read with my wife apart from the Bible for family devotion. She doesn’t like you very much, so I decided to stop listening to Christ Church videos until God sanctifies her some more.
P
P, here are a couple recommendations. Be Thou My Vision is a devotional that Nancy and I have used before, and we are just now finishing up Refreshment for the Soul, a devotional based on the writings of Richard Sibbes, which has been very good.
Calvinism Stuff
To the honourable Reverend Wilson, sad to see NQN go, but it was a fruitful month for all involved. I rejoice in simply being able to witness it all.
I had a particular (and perhaps unoriginal) question regarding soteriology. Though the churches I fellowship with and doctrines they have taught me are by no means Arminian, neither are they Calvinistic. They are something ‘in between’. As a result, I have begun to study the tenets of Calvinism, if for no other purpose than to understand what I have been taught, by comparison. I have read “Easy Chairs, Hard Words” but I had hoped you might gracious enough respond to my query (Phil. 3:1).
For many, (including myself), one common critique of Calvinism can be stated this way: How does God hold man accountable for what he cannot fix? In other words, the tension between His sovereignty and the responsibility of Man. I am currently reading through the soteriological section of “Elemental Theology” by Emery Bancroft, in which, he affirms that all the necessary components for salvation have their origin in God, yet he says the following about Faith: “Faith, though divine in origin, is secured through the use of means.” The means being the rightly ordered response of a man upon hearing the Gospel. As far as it goes, this would appear to absolve the tension, but what say you? Is this theological tension the mysterious element of the Gospel that we can’t answer or is that a different facet of this vital doctrine?
Much thanks for your time and ministry,
Jonathan
Jonathan, no, I don’t think that really does resolve the tension. If one man is saved and another is not, and the difference between them is that the first man had a rightly ordered response, which he contributed, then the difference between the men is not the good pleasure of God, but rather the good sense of the man who was saved. And that provides a ground for boasting, which Paul wants to exclude. And with regard to your first question, I would simply note that it is the same question that Paul would provoke through his articulation of the gospel. The answer is found in the relation of the Creator to the creation, but in the meantime, it is important to note that Calvinism generates the same objection that Pauline theology does, and Arminianism does not.
Getting It Plugged In
I had a thought (rare, but it happens once in a while) in reading your response to KDY where he asks if he could find a month of posts on the loveliness of Christ, Reformed soteriology, and the like. I’d like to offer a response to this quandary as a plain-Jane reader of B&M. I love those high works he speaks of but so infrequently observe the men writing them walking out the conclusions of their stated truths. I read of the loveliness and majesty of God in Christ and wonder how our Christian cultural leaders who wrote of it aren’t tearing their clothes in the cultural square because of the juxtaposition of the beauty and the decay. I’m a military man and I understand that the force and violence we bring on our enemies should be all the greater because of the fact that we have something beautiful and noble to contend for. (Okay, okay. We used to have that anyway.) I look out on the American Church and nobody seems to understand this concept at all. Makes me wonder if we’re all just a bunch of spiritual pacifists.
Thank you for being the rare breed of Christian man who brings the high mountain air of truth down into the gas swamps of our culture. (Oh, and thanks for also writing of those elements too—e.g. all your books.)
Tim
Tim, thank you very much.
A Real Dilemma
In the letter I’m responding to from 12/5/2023 a writer asked about folks not wanting to drive an extra ten to fifteen minutes to a Church that better fit their theology.
We have only one Church option in our small community of 50 people. It is a Church made of former Mennonites that left their denomination when it went liberal decades ago and is now non-denominational. The Church is the “largest” Church in the area, about 20 people including my family. The Church has no statement of faith, or governing documents, but is solid on most cultural issues. They still practice foot-washing, it’s full of strong marriages (One couple just celebrated almost 70 years (yes you read that right) of marriage and faithfulness to this same Church), but the Church is Arminian, Dispensational, etc. My wife and I form a part of the core of the Church where she sings and I teach occasionally. She also teaches young children during Bible week in the summer.
Recently a new CREC Church formed about an hour and fifteen minutes South of us over a few mountain passes. It is Presbyterian, but as a CREC Church my family’s 1689 views align closely to theirs.
To attend this new CREC Church would mean abandoning our current Church to a slow death as most members are 70+ years old. It would soon mean the total shuttering of the Church, and as a postmillennialist, to lose such a Church would be the snuffing out of the last visible presence of Christ’s Kingdom on Earth in our little community.
I am of the opinion that my family should plant our flag and make our stand against the cultural tidal wave with the imperfect Arminian Church and pour our efforts into it, to the point that I will preach and teach, even single-handed if I must, in the coming decades. Perhaps one day I can change the doctrine to a more perfect one. My wife is of the opinion that the CREC Church is a better fit, and would lead to our children having a more solid understanding of theology, and eschatology. On the other hand I don’t want to abandon my brothers and sisters in our current Church. I want this community claimed by Christ which requires a Church in the community. I believe my wife and I both have good points, but I am torn.
Short of some random out-of-the-blue heresy that makes it clear we need to leave our current Church, what should I do as the head of my household?
God Bless, in Christ’s Love,
Rachki
Rachki, on the assumption that the church has a body of elders, I would sit down with them and share your dilemma. They can see the demographic reality. You would love to stay and over time help lead the church in a different doctrinal direction over time. Would they be good with that? If so, great. But if it were to mean conflict and fighting, you don’t want that. The alternative would be moving to the CREC church. From what you describe, it seems to me that this is the more likely option.
Those Who Are Not Geniuses Need the Rules
“There was a time when architects designed residential homes with the golden ratio in mind when sizing the first floor windows with the second floor windows. That ratio (1 to 1.618) is particularly pleasing to the human eye, which we know because God used it everywhere. And He appears to have used it with a considerable amount of abandon.”
This is one of those areas where experts and masters had reasons for abandoning standards under specific circumstances, and society then thought there were no more standards. Frank Lloyd Wright essentially ushered in modern architecture, and his beautiful creations largely abandon the golden ratio in favor of experiential beauty—i.e. you turn a corner and everything is arranged just so, with a window at eye level perfectly framing a gorgeous tree, and then you face a different direction and everything in that direction is perfect as well, in a different way.
Unfortunately, very few people are Frank Lloyd Wright—only one, I think. As a society we probably need to not only bring back the lines to color in, but also try to figure out the right set of guidelines for when it’s worth attempting to color outside the lines.
Ian
Ian, very good observation.
Clarification
Thanks for your work. I have greatly profited from many of your books, articles, and podcasts.
I just had a question that needs clarifying: I was unsure what you meant by ‘White Horse Inn’ in this article.
Would you mind clarifying what you meant?
James
James, the polite interaction with Nadia Bolz-Weber was published by Modern Reformation, a magazine associated with Michael Horton, who is editor-in-chief. Michael Horton also has a radio show called The White Horse Inn. I believe that your problem was caused by me not being clear.
A Heartbreaker
I was hoping you could help me. You see, I am a young Christian man, I’ve been married to my wife for just over a year. We go to a local biblically-sound church, and we both entered our marriage as zealous Christians. Unfortunately we got off to a rough start in some aspects of our marriage and my wife felt hurt by me and hurt by God for letting that happen, the issue has all been resolved since, but another grave problem has arisen.
On our first anniversary my wife told me that she doesn’t know if she believes in God anymore, he has, in her words, started deconstructing, and has even cursed God in her heart, I am heartbroken, and don’t know where I went wrong.
She feels God is not good and is inconsistent, she says that it was evil of God to create creatures capable of immense suffering and willing some to suffer and others to suffer eternally in hell.
One of the passages she stresses on is “2 Samuel 12:11,” she says that a God that raises up a man to rape a group of women who had nothing to do with David’s sin is an evil God. What would you answer to that, because so far nothing I’ve tried has been sufficient for her?
Also aside from that, could you give me some advice on what to do? Our first baby boy was born only a few weeks ago and I am getting worried about where our life is heading, we had such great plans to raise up godly children for the kingdom and now I don’t even know how that will play out.
Your ministry has been such a great help in my personal walk with Jesus, I am hoping that you could help me now.
Thank You,
Dan
Dan, I would seek out pastoral counseling now. As you go into that counseling, I would assume that the “rough start” you had in your marriage is still a big player in all of this. The big question there is whether you actually hurt your wife in a way that God would define as sin, or whether she simply felt hurt. Whatever that was needs to be resolved and sorted out, because it sounds to me as though her problems with the faith are emotional, and not intellectual, and probably a carry-over from your rough start. The intellectual answer to her problem is simple—if God is evil, then there is no God. If there is no God, then Absalom can take as many women as he wants, whether or not they had anything to do with anything. They are all dead now anyhow. If she hears that, but is still distraught, her problem is with what you did, and not with what God did.
In the reply to Kevin De Young – https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/novembers-done-kevin-deyoung.html – Kevin is treated as an honourable opponent who meant well and wrote honestly about his concerns. However, in https://dougwils.com/the-church/living-faith-has-no-side-hustles.html and in the reply to Justin’s letter above, Kevin is seen as part of a targeted and sneakily co-ordinated attack which is insincere, having a different true motive from the actual contents of the critiques (the real motive is “we must be stopped”, a sinful “attempt to manipulate readers into personally disliking you”). Which of these two is it? One way to harmonise this is that Pastor Wilson changed his view… Read more »
A coordinated attack doesn’t need to be coordinated by the one doing the attacking. It is pretty easy to fathom that the coordinated aspect of the attack is coming from people pressuring KDY to write something. Something similar happened where I live, a pastor was going to participate in a conference that DW had been invited to and a group of loud people started attacking such pastor and demanding he explain himself for doing such a naughty thing as being in proximity to DW, which he ended up doing and launching similar attacks to those of KDY, even though this… Read more »
> “It is pretty easy to fathom that the coordinated aspect of the attack is coming from people pressuring KDY to write something.” Oh come on. 1 Corinthians 13 hasn’t been abolished yet, and the biblical standard of 2 or 3 witnesses for allegations of a deliberate and malicious plot is not satisfied by hand-waving claims to a personal gift of discernment that removes the need for actual evidence. Let’s keep a sense of proportion. KDY thinks that the tone of DW’s blog often hinders rather than helps the cause. I suggest an alternative thesis to the explanation that this… Read more »
For what its worth David, I also wrote a letter last week which was not published that agreed with certain elements of De Young’s piece with examples. I also don’t think the attack is “coordinated” in the sense that people got together and talked about it. Rather, they were individually impelled to act by the same motivation. 5 journalists might write anti-Trump hit pieces on the same day, each either varying levels of accuracy and intellectual legitimacy. Those with higher levels of intellectual legitimacy should be treated as such. That doesn’t mean that, in many cases, the 5 journalists might… Read more »
Justin, I find it interesting when the same old, discredited examples pop up all at the same time. Yes, five journalists might write stories about the same subject, but if they were truly independently reporting, the words and points would be obviously different. In what is going on in Moscow, the examples and most of the rhetoric is the same.
Just a thought about what is going on.
Dave and Justin, I appreciate your insight. When I saw Justin’s use of the word “coordinated” this scenario came to mind: 2 or 3 times a year I will forward one of Pastor Wilson’s Blog posts to a few friends, maybe once a year to my pastor. I’ll usually say something like; “this really made me think” or “this hits on what were were talking about the other day.” Nearly always one is from NQN. I’m picturing an evangelical 6 Degrees from Kevin that encouraged KDY and others to comment on this wave on NQN interest. Perhaps they read my… Read more »
“In what is going on in Moscow, the examples and most of the rhetoric is the same.” Well Moscow makes a more challenging target than Donald Trump. There are only so many issues upon which you could make any kind of an objection at all. I was trying though to clear up the perceived contradiction David was concerned about in first calling Kevin’s piece respectful, and later appearing to agree with me in calling the criticism improper. A statement can be appropriate in one sense and inappropriate in another sense. In my unpublished letter, I agreed to the premise that… Read more »
well stated
For those wondering about enrolling their children in Logos Online School: I have been a full-time diploma track student there. To attend LOS is possibly the best decision I ever made. I was homeschooled through 7th grade. There is plenty of social interaction in LOS, what with student-run clubs you can join (baking, music, newspaper, etc) and also there is a lot of talking in the chat all during class (Zoom’s set-up enables the students to quietly converse in the public messaging system – the teacher is supervising). The teachers are well-versed in their fields, fun, and excellent Christians. The… Read more »
Thanks for the feedback. It made me look seriously at it as an option for my four, particularly with the state of Alaska’s homeschool programs likely picking up much of the tab.
Michael, as the parent of a Logos Online School student, I can’t recommend the school highly enough. My daughter’s classes are excellent. I praise God that she has this caliber of teachers in spite of our geographic location. Each of my daughter’s teachers loves Christ, loves their field, and loves their students and it really comes through in their teaching. Not only are the teachers and classes fantastic but the administrative staff is so helpful. (The office is open next week if you would like to speak to someone. They will be closed during the week of Christmas.) Now to… Read more »
Responding to the first letter from Jake above. Jake, the thing we need to think about is that it seems to be always ever the case that Doug is so misunderstood. In other words, there have been many who have been opposed to the teachings of Doug on things like justification, but when these folks go on to explain their grievances, it always seems to be that Doug will insist that he is saying the same exact thing his opponents are saying, and Doug claims to agree with them whole heartily. If this is the case, then it seems that… Read more »
“If this is the case, then it seems that Doug could simply say that he is in agreement with those who are making these points, and there must be some misunderstanding. However, as we can see in Doug’s response to you, there is a little more to it. This seems to clearly demonstrate, that Doug is not in total agreement with his opponents as he likes to make out. Either Doug is saying the same thing as his opponents, or he is not. Where is the confusion? “ False dichotomy. One does not need to *simply* say they agree OR disagree… Read more »
Justin, Like Doug, you have simply created a “word salad”. On the one hand Doug seems to want to insist that he and his opponents are on the same page. However, on the other hand the problem with his opponents is, they are “suspicious” when one brings “trust” into the equation. This certainly seems to demonstrate they are not at all one the same page and are at odds with each other in some sense. So then, allow us to do the math in this way. I think you, I, and Doug will agree that our justification is by faith… Read more »
It’s not about man-made math formulas and cliches, though. If you look at God’s Word, there are many warnings of apostasy for those who’d like to cling to “once saved always saved” but continue to be enslaved to sin. Hebrews 10 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much… Read more »
While I really appreciate the Bible verses, none of these verses nullify the fact that our justification is by faith alone, which is what the conversation is about. Unless of course, you are under the impression that something else has to be added to faith in order for us to be justified? If this is the case, then we simply disagree, and I think Doug would disagree as well, in that I take it that Doug is not under the impression that we are justified by anything other than faith. This is not an argument concerning “once saved, always saved”.… Read more »
You say, “It’s no surprise you then jump in the political bed with sodomites, child murderers and other God haters when commenting on current political and social issues. God’s law is a “hellhole,” but globo-homo secular “democracy” like this isn’t”. I am not sure where I “commented on current political and social issues”? You tell me? Saying that, “infusing, and or enforcing the Mosaic law into our civil law would be a hellhole” is not “commenting on current political and social issues”. Next, like a lot of folks, you attempt to change the narrative in order to support your agenda.… Read more »
You declared that I created word salad, and then delivered a lengthy rebuttal that in no way addresses a single concept I had expressed. I was not defending Doug’s conceptualization of faith. Frankly, I don’t care. The absolute most you could prove is that he is wrong on the issue, which is fine by me, someone under no obligation to listen to him on any topic in which he is incorrect. What I was defending against was the implication that he is *by definition* being dishonest or disingenuous simply by both agreeing on the whole but disagreeing in part. As… Read more »
Justin, I did not “deliver a lengthy rebuttal” against anything you said. Rather, as you say, I “in no way addressed a single concept you had expressed”. There was a reason I did not address what you had to say, and that is because it has nothing to do with the conversation. Either Doug agrees with his critics, disagrees with his critics, or as you say there may be measuring agreements, and or disagreements. Well, as we look at the letter above, Doug claims to word “trust” has something to do with it. This is the matter I am wanting to… Read more »
To clarify your question (if I may): are you disagreeing that faith is constituted of (at least) the three elements of knowledge, assent, and trust? Because I think Wilson’s argument (and that of those of us who find it persuasive) is that these things are not added to faith in the sense of “faith plus works”, but are simply logical corollaries of the faith itself. If part of the definition of a man is that he is rational, then to say that men must think is not to impose some special additional qualification. If trust is a necessary part of… Read more »
Farinata I am really not interested here in having a debate concerning works and faith. Said differently, while I am reformed and believe we are justified by faith alone apart from works, I have no problem with folks on the other side of the equation. We have reformed folks, and we have the Arminian folks and I understand the position the Arminian folks hold. My problem is the fact that Doug always seems to somehow be misunderstood. As an example, Federal Vision was concerned with the relationship between obedience and faith, which is exactly what we are talking about here.… Read more »
Pastor Wilson has plainly stated (in various places) that he was in meaningful, thorough agreement with the best-formulated statements of what his critics claimed to believe. He did not claim that there was some particular word, phrase, concept, or nuance in his explanations that they could meaningfully differ with or object to in good faith. The reason for this is that he does not believe these critics were arguing in good faith. When he says that they were suspicious of “fiducia”, he doesn’t mean that they necessarily disagree either with him or with the magisterial Reformers about the threefold nature… Read more »
You say, “Pastor Wilson has plainly stated (in various places) that he was in meaningful, thorough agreement with the best-formulated statements of what his critics claimed to believe”. Okay? Well, if we are talking about Doug’s critics, then we are referring to those who have some sort of disagreement with him. Does this mean that Doug agrees to the criticism? In other words, does Doug agree when they claim him to be in error? Or, is Doug simply saying that he, and his critics are saying the same thing, and there simply must be some sort of misunderstanding? You go… Read more »
the position Doug holds was condemned by most reformed Churches Well, no, not really. Several (perhaps all?) of those condemnations were fairly specific in what parts of the overall FV theology they opposed, and those parts, as I understand it, were specifically not the ones Doug Wilson supported. When I dug into this some time ago, I found an awful lot of blatant misrepresentations on the part of Doug Wilson’s critics, and quite a lot of very abstruse argumentation on both sides that I was not well equipped to parse. So I don’t really know for sure who’s right. I… Read more »
Nathan, I have not concluded Doug to be “a slippery heretic”. What I have concluded is, Doug seems to be always ever so misunderstood. I have concluded that Doug was a major player in Federal Vision. I have concluded that Federal Vision was condemned by most all reformed Churches. I have concluded that Doug authored an article entitled “Federal Vision No Mas” in which Doug explained that he no longer wanted to identify with FV, but he did not recant anything at all. I have a pretty good idea Federal Vision was a means to an end. What do I… Read more »
My impression is that you are just interested in making proclamations on various topics. I will only observe that if you kick out the Christian Nationalists, you will have to get by with a much attenuated church, historically speaking. Sure, maybe you’re right and the wisdom of Christianity throughout the ages is in error; maybe it’s just a coincidence that the idea of a Church that avoids politics arises just at the same time as the Enlightenment idea of the atomistic individual beneath a totalizing state. But it is also possible that your own conclusions are conditioned responses, rather than… Read more »
No Spoilers! Joe, I read the same sentence and had same feelings. I agree completely with Pastor Doug’s incite.
Dan. I would suggest you ask your wife to read “The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis.
It is not from a Calvinistic perspective as it uses the “free will” defense to answer the question, but it is a really good place to start with someone who needs that question answered.