Someone wrote in asking if Pastor Doug Wilson would be willing to debate the theologian R. Scott Clark, professor of Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California over the Federal Vision theology. Scott Clark is a critic of the Federal Vision.
Filed Under
Ask Doug, Debates, Resources, Theology
Tags
debate Doug Wilson Federal Vision FV PCA R Scott Clark Scott Clark URC Westminster Seminary
Share this post
Tweet this!
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Stumble it
Subscribe by RSS
Douglas Wilson’s Blog
12 Comments
A perspective:
I’m a Reformed Baptist, so I’m quite sure that makes me a “non-FV” guy. However, I enjoy listening to Doug’s sermons and reading his books. I think Doug is wrong on some issues and some of them are serious issues (I don’t want to minimize them). However, I regard him as my brother and certainly not a heretic. He’s Reformed in the most basic sense. Is he TR-TR-TR? Probably not. Then again, I don’t think he’s pretending to be. And there is probably a mix of how he follows the Reformed tradition: As any sound Christian, he recognizes that even the greatest of traditions need clarifications and sometimes corrections. The controversy of course centers around what parts can be changed/clarified.
Do I think there are some highly concerning aspects to FV? Yes. Do I believe it is in error? Yes. Do I think there needs to be a conversation? Yes. In light of the need for more legitimate conversation, R. Scott Clark, who is obviously loudly speaking on this issue, should take up Doug’s challenge. At least if he (Clark) wants to have credibility.
Somehow I highly doubt that R. Scott Clark will respond positively to this. But he could surprise everybody!!!
P.S. Since Doug is post-mil….I’m quite sure he believes he’ll get up to the mic with Clark today and then of course Sean Gerety tomorrow. It’s what they call Puritan Hope 😉
My question would be why RS Clark is afraid of such a debate?
R. Scott Clark probably believes that the debate has already been settled by other ecclesiastical studies, reports and synods. But on the other hand, he keeps blogging in such a way that one might think he’s still in the battle. This would be a good debate, provided there were some good parameters.
Doug Wilson, like all Federal Visionists and New Perspectives on Paul advocates, is a blatant heretic and is no brother. He is a false prophet. The reason John Piper can invite Doug Wilson to the Desiring God Conference is that Piper is himself an advocate of the incipient Arminianism of the New Perspectives on Paul, which Piper imbibed from Daniel Fuller while Piper was a student at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Go figure.
Charlie
Charlie, thanks for letting us know. However, it seems that every examination he’s undergone has found him orthodox. Yet people (like yourself) still make accusations. Hence the desire for a debate to clear things in people’s minds.
I’m guessing you would use the same language to describe Jeff Meyers, a signer of the Joint FV statement? In his case your statement would be in opposition the careful examination of the MO Presbytery of the PCA, for they recently cleared him of the charges brought against him.
If you have questions about Doug Wilson’s orthodoxy, feel free to ask direct questions on Ask Doug. In fact, you may find that many have been answered already.
Blessings,
Daniel
FV Fun has, I believe, hit the nail on the head.
As for the whole FV thing, I am still learning, but one thing that troubles me is that virtually every critic I have read has done little more than demonstrate that they have not actually engaged with the FV work honestly, and that is terribly frustrating. When someone is unable or unwilling to represent an opposing view as fairly and positively as possible, it only hurts their own position in my mind. When i read Clark, for instance, seemingly misrepresenting FV positions or resorting to analogous name calling as in the Jonestown post, i cannot help but wonder why he can’t calmly and rationally and honestly defeat the view that he sees as such an obvious heresy. Obvious heresies should be able to be shown so obviously.
Anyways, i doubt it will happen, and I think FV Fun is correct that Clark will point to ecclesiastical reports and so forth. Of course, I would be just as interested in having the “ecclesiastical report” guys do an open debate. From what I have read, the “reporters” have not necessarily been as honest and fair as they should have either. We’ll see though. Maybe Clark will agree to debate.
Charlie J. Ray, you are very annoying person and that’s not a personal attack on you, but I’ve read your other post on other sites from time to time. Your comments don’t really seem to helpful in any kind of theological process of debate or dialog. Have you ever thought about getting a college degree?
Blessings,
Lee
Daniel, I think that Charlie was being sarcastic. I may be wrong.
Good word Frudoc. I had similar thoughts when I actually started reading and listening to the FV guys. Seems like a lot of these “heresy hunters” are afraid of a public debate.
***Daniel- Good point about Jeff Meyers.
Charlie-
“The reason John Piper can invite Doug Wilson to the Desiring God Conference is that Piper is himself an advocate of the incipient Arminianism of the New Perspectives on Paul, which Piper imbibed from Daniel Fuller while Piper was a student at Fuller Theological Seminary.”
Huh? Though I am no “Piperite” I would be interested in seeing where you get you info. from? I think Piper’s public correspondance with N.T. Wright would lead readers to think otherwise.
AJ, I’ve seen Charlie on other blogs. I’m afraid he’s not…
@ AJ & Daniel
I don’t think Charlie is being sarcastic, either.
I think this is a Charlie Ray Wauchula, a fellow who calls himself ReasonableChristian on Facebook and who considers John Piper to be an Arminian and a Papist. He seems to base it on a diatribe against Piper’s book Future Grace by a guy called John W. Robbins at The Trinity Foundation (found here http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113) who clearly did not understand it and made accusations that I view as unsubstantiated. Robbins was a strong libertarian and Chief of Staff for Ron Paul, was editor of the Freeman Magazine and involved with the Heritage Foundation and the Templeton Foundation. Ph. D. in philosophy from Johns Hopkins. Quite a distinguished guy but did not understand John Piper.
@ Peter The site linked in the preceding paragraph is where Charlie gets his views on Piper and Fuller’s influence. Piper and Fuller are not in full agreement in all areas and the guilt by association is unwarranted as is so much else in Charlie’s perspective.
I had a fruitless discussion with Charlie in which he accused me of being an Arminian and a Papist as well ~ I am neither but am rather a Reformed Baptist much like John Piper. Charlie calls himself a Reformed Anglican who began his Christian life as a Pentecostal and his website can be found here:
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2010/10/trinity-foundation-pied-piper.html
Sorry, that’s Charlie Ray from Wauchula.
@ Lee
Going to college won’t help Charlie. He already has a Master of Divinity from Asbury Theological Seminary,