Pastor Wilson's Answers...

Pastor Doug Wilson has graciously answered the questions I posed below on his blog. You can find his answers here. I encourage FV opponents who read the answers to consider them fairly. Tim and I are convinced of Pastor Wilson's integrity, and while we may not agree with him at certain points, we admire his courage and count ourselves (and much of the Reformed world) in his debt in many areas, beginnning with his priceless teaching on marriage, manhood and womanhood.

Comments

[David Wegener]

Dear David and Pastor Wilson:

I've read through Pastor Wilson's statements and want to comment on some of what he said. His statement on baptismal efficiacy doesn't sound Roman Catholic to me and I can't tell if he is on his way to Rome. But it sure does sound Lutheran.

Some Presbyterians do migrate to Rome (e.g., Mr. Hahn, Mr. Howell), but some also migrate to Lutheranism. I don't think he is on a pilgrimage outside the Reformed tradition, but wants to call the Reformed tradition to greater faithfulness.

Now I'm relatively sure FV guys would call me a Baptist who believes in infant baptism or a Baptist hiding within the ranks of ordained Presbyterianism. Perhaps, though see below.

But couldn't I say that Pastor Wilson is a closet Lutheran who adheres to the Westminster Standards? I'm quite sure of his sincerity in holding to Westminster, but his view of the sacraments has a Lutheran spin and perhaps he is trying to adjust his soteriology to fit this view of the sacraments. I'm sure he might say, no adjustment necessary, faithful Lutherans got this correct. (Didn't someone write a comment on this blog that the best statement that they had heard on baptism was a sermon given by a WELS pastor? WELS is short for the conservative Wisconsin Synod of Evangelical Lutherans.)

This whole debate reminds me of two experiences. One was reading the book edited by David Wells, "Reformed Theology in America." My copy is in Africa so I can't check it, but it seems to me the book has sections on The Dutch Tradition, Southern Presbyterianism, Princeton Theology, Neo-Orthodoxy and one more that I forget.

After I read the book I remember thinking that Reformed theology was broader than I had previously thought, even if you throw out neo-orthodoxy for its low view of Scripture. And as I read the Princeton guys (Alexander, Miller, Hodge the father, though probably not the son) on baptism, I find them articulating pretty much what I see Scripture saying. Though I shouldn't really have to say it, I hasten to add that I've never read the southern Presbyterians, just a few bits about them.

The second experience was a debate Phil Henry and I had while working the CBMW booth at an ETS conference in Danvers, Massachusetts. We were a bored, nobody was coming by and so we decided to argue with each other. Somehow we started debating baptism and presumptive regeneration, Phil saying it was a good thing, me saying it was wrong.

Then we got interrupted since Phil had to take Professor George Knight to the airport. Phil invited me along and, true to form (this is one reason why I love him), continued the debate by setting out our two positions for Dr. Knight and asking him which was right.

Mr. Knight said quickly that Phil was holding to the continental Reformed position and I was holding to the English view which was historic Presbyterianism. (Brother Phil, please correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I remember it, with some simplification.) After this, Phil was quiet but I was smiling, maybe too broadly. I think we changed the subject.

Could we simplify this debate and say that it is over who owns conservative Presbyterianism in America? Pastor Wilson and those holding to or sympathetic with the FV say it is the continental Reformed tradition, which sounds Lutheran (at least) to me, while others say it is the early Princetonians and the southern Presbyterians, who sound Baptist to some.

Warm regards,

David Wegener

[Matthew French]

Dear David,

These have been great questions. As soon as I read them I thought to myself, "Yes, that's what I've been wanting to find out." Thank you for asking them in such a clear way.

Now my hope is that we'll get to hear answers from several of the PCA FV proponents. I appreciate Pastor Wilson's response but I already had a pretty good idea how he'd answer. I would really like to read how someone like, say, Mark Horne would respond.

[David Bayly]

Dear David,

So what do you think: was R.C. Sproul Sr. right in saying it's all about justification by faith when the ad interim report came up on the GA floor? Or should we perhaps have divided the issue and dealt only with NPP (or NPP and theoretical positions rather than naming FV teachers)?

Dear Matt,

I'm in agreement with you on this. I thought Pastor Wilson was the most likely FV proponent to respond because he's so generous, but I'm not surprised by anything he said. It is nice to have his response as a baseline and it may lead others to respond as well, but I would be interested to see if other leaders are where he is.

If FV theology is led and broadly defined by Pastor Wilson, then while I don't agree with aspects of it, I'm not alarmed by it. I'm concerned at points, but not alarmed. But I've felt this ever since reading Reformed Is Not Enough and his answers to the CREC presbytery questions.

David:

Do you feel continental Reformed thought differs sufficiently from classic Presbyterianism to warrant the action taken against it of by the GA earlier this month? If we love Luther but dislike Lutheranism, do you think they're closer to Luther or Lutheranism?

Love,

David

[Chris Atkins]

David Bayly:

Well done, brother. I think you have struck a tremendous blow for the discourse about FV in the wake of the GA's actions. Keep it up!

[David Bayly]

Dear Chris,

Thanks, brother, but remember that while discourse is one thing, power is another. Tim and I have tended to choose discourse over power but we're realists enough to understand that in the aggregation of discourse into power strange and unpleasant things tend to occur. I'm afraid discourse has coalesced into power in the PCA when it comes to FV thought. And probably the same has occurred within the CREC--or soon will. But our trust is in the Lord...

Yours in Christ,

David

[Sean Gerety]

Evidently it's just me, but my impression was that Wilson artfully dodged all the questions and didn't really answer any directly. I saw a lot of bobbin' and weavin.' It was like listening to a Republican Senator explain why he was going to vote for Bush's amnesty bill. ;)

[Dave H.]

Sean,

In my experience reading blogs and such, many of the times that Wilson gets accused of 'bobbing and weaving' is when he is trying to answer a nuanced question. He answers it in a nuanced way and then people start accusing him of not offering a cut and dry answer. With as many years of pastoral counseling under his belt as Wilson has, I'm fairly certain he is well acquainted with helpful qualifications that need to be made in most situations to prevent someone from over-correcting our of one ditch over into the other ditch.

If you asked a seasoned parent a parenting question, in most instances the answer would probably start with a qualifying, "well, that depends on..." Would you accuse them of 'bobbing and weaving' in their response?

And, if you still believe that he's 'artfully dodging' with his answers, it might be more constructive if you provided the instances you are referring to, or the reasons why.

Impressions can be dangerous things.

[Sean Gerety]

Dave,

Fair enough, here is an example of what I mean. Wilson writes:

“The efficacy for blessing does not rest in baptism by itself. The Word must accompany the rite, and the Word must be believed, first by the parents and congregation, and then by the children as they are nurtured in their faith. Now, when parents have true evangelical, God-given faith in this, they are using the tools God gave them to establish their children in that same faith, growing them up into it . . . I do not want their parents to presume that they are regenerate [i.e., their baptized infants], hands behind the head, feet on the coffee table. I want them to believe that they are regenerate.”

This sounds almost, well, sound. Not only that, he wraps-up his “answer” to this question with the Scriptural declaration; “Let God be true and every man a liar.” Who can argue with that! The problem is Wilson routinely seems to favor a form of sacerdotalism. I think he has done so here again too. Of course, the nuances in his response that you applaud gives him some wiggle room against this charge, don't you agree?

[Pastor Trey Austin]

In other words, Mr. Gerety can't prove the charge from what he actually said, but he's sure, no matter what he said, that it *MUST* be unsound, because, after all, it *IS* Douglas Wilson we're talking about, and i *KNOW* he's a closet Roman; it must be in there somewhere!

Yes, you can't argue with that kind of reasoning. Really. You just *CAN'T*.

[Keith]

I don't want to sound like a heretic, and I used to think that I was interested in theology, but I just can't work up any passion over this whole issue. Can anyone tell my why it's not just a "how many angels can stand on a pinhead" kind of problem?

[Mark Priestap]

Very very helpful David... both David's actually. The bit about continental vs. English is very enlightening.

I have a couple of questions relating to this that are sincere - I'm asking in order to understand, not to teach.

Question:
Is the presumptive faith argument essentially between those that expect NO faith in their children after they get baptized vs. those who expect that their children PROBABLY have faith following the sacrament? I'm assuming in the question that faith comes by hearing the Word preached.

Question2: Is it necessary for those who HEAR the Word to be able to understand or to be of sound mind? If so, is it really possible for a mentally retarded person to REALLY believe?

Question3: Does God require that those who physically hear the Word (or read it) have full comprehension in order to create in them a heart of flesh? The book of Acts may imply the necessity of hearing in our native tongue, but what about those who can't understand anything at all?

Perhaps these aren't necessarily baptism questions, but they do relate to the question of faith in infants. Any thoughts? The one scripture I can think of is where John the Baptist believed while in his mothers womb. Obviously that was an exception to the rule, but it does show that infants CAN be given faith within the bounds of reality.

Pardon me if ya'll have covered this already.

Mark

[Sean Gerety]

I hardly think Pastor Trey is worth the effort since he thinks applying logic to Scripture or to refute his favorite doctrine (like the so-called desire of God to save those He foreordained to destruction) is a sign of "rationalism" and if "rationalism," "hyper-calvinism" can't be far behind. Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!

However, to humor him, and perhaps for the benefit of others (and just for a fun exercise), here is Wilson again:

“The efficacy for blessing does not rest in baptism by itself. The Word must accompany the rite, and the Word must be believed, first by the parents and congregation, and then by the children as they are nurtured in their faith. Now, when parents have true evangelical, God-given faith in this, they are using the tools God gave them to establish their children in that same faith, growing them up into it . . . I do not want their parents to presume that they are regenerate [i.e., their baptized infants], hands behind the head, feet on the coffee table. I want them to believe that they are regenerate.”

Even per the above Wilson wants parents (in this case his own children) to believe their children are regenerate. Why? Because their children were baptized and he (Wilson) spoke the words of institution accompanied by the Word. How does Wilson know his grandchildren are regenerate? I don't see that he does. He basically is commanding assent to the idea that infants he baptizes are regenerate, not because God says they are, but because he says so (I'm assuming, of course, that Wilson isn't claiming some kind of private revelation). The rite was done correctly therefore the magic happened, the child is regenerate.

Now that IS a benefit I think even David Bayly’s baptized children might in fact be deprived of. I don’t know David Bayly or his children in the slightest and only stumbled on this blog via a link from Lane’s site, but my guess is David doesn’t think the combination of water and the word makes one a Christian. Speaking for myself, I thought belief alone did that? I can only surmise from Trey's snide remarks that perhaps doesn't agree?

Regardless, what if Wilson’s children dutifully obey their father and believe with all their heart that their baptized children are regenerate. Now, suppose that per Wilson's scheme of salvation, little Willie doesn’t preserver in faithful obedience to the (unspecified) demands of Wilson’s conditional covenant and Wilson someday presides over little Willie’s excommunication. Was he instructing his children to believe a lie when he baptized their children? What was it about the combination of water and the Word that makes someone regenerate and a Christian?

Being a master of nuance and an expert spinner of paradoxes, I think Wilson could easily equivocate his way out of any mess a pew-on like me might put in his way. Besides, there is always Trey to give him cover. Yet, per RINE Wilson maintains; "a Christian is anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an authorized representative of the Christian church." As John Robbins and I observed in our response to Wilson:

__________________

“Clearly Wilson cannot distinguish a sign of the covenant from the covenant the sign represents. As a consequence, in Wilson's theology everyone from Judas Iscariot to the pope to the Apostle John is a "visible saint, a Christian." But baptism no more makes a person a Christian than dressing an ape makes it a man.

Baptism is always "efficacious," Wilson says: "This consecration really happens [in baptism]. God really does it. His people are genuinely set apart; a visible difference is placed between them and the world. By means of baptism, baptism by *water,* grace and salvation is conferred on the elect" (107, emphasis in the original).

Now, this sentence sounds almost Biblical, but we must remember that Wilson has already redefined "elect." Wilson writes that everyone baptized is a "saint," a "Christian," and "elect." It is important to keep in mind that in Wilson's medieval theology, all terms are redefined: The elect are not those whom God has chosen for salvation, and who will be "finally" saved, but those who have been baptized. As John Barach proclaimed at the Auburn Conference in his lecture, "Covenant and Election:" "Who are the elect? This is as visible and obvious as your church membership roll...." The elect in this scheme come in two flavors: the "covenantally elect" and the "specially (or decretally) elect." Once again, the Covenant of Grace is emptied of its Biblical meaning by these men who claim to uphold the covenant. In the Moscow theology what makes a person a Christian is not the divine propositions believed, but holy water, which "confers grace and salvation."
________________

Now if Wilson was as straight forward in his answer as was John Barach above, I don’t think there would be any question where both these men end up.

“What does this definition accomplish? Several things. First, Wilson's definition falsely identifies ritual baptism as the distinguishing characteristic of Christians. There is no Scriptural support for this whatsoever . . . According to Wilson's definition, it is not belief of the Gospel that distinguishes Christians from non-Christians, but having undergone a sacramental rite. Second, Wilson's definition gives "authorized representatives of the Christian church" a monopoly on making Christians. This is sacerdotalism, an Antichristian system in which "authorized representatives of the Christian church" are mediators between God and man. (Later in his book Wilson will discuss sacerdotalism, which he hopelessly confuses with sacramentalism.) Using Wilson's definition of "Christian," only "authorized representatives of the Christian church" can make Christians. One cannot become a Christian by direct action of the Holy Spirit on one's mind. That, Wilson says scornfully, is "refried gnosticism" in which the Holy Spirit uses an "invisible conduit from God to man" to save people (86). One cannot become a Christian while conversing with a neighbor or friend about the Gospel, or even while listening to a sermon. The ritual action of an "authorized representative of the Christian church" is required to become a Christian. Third, because Wilson apparently includes within the "Christian church" any organization that claims the name -- remember, he says it makes no difference if a profession is sincere or hypocritical -- he includes under that rubric such organizations as the Roman Catholic Church-State, the various Orthodox Catholic cults, and Liberal Protestant sects that practice "trinitarian baptism."

There is more, but you get the picture. The problem is with all

[Sean Gerety]

That should have been "persevere in faithful obedience" above. Just didn't want Trey to accuse me of comparing baptized children with jam. ;)

[Sean Gerety]

Apologies to the blog host. I left off my final paragraph (too bad there's not an edit function on these things). The whole paragraph should read:

There is more, but you get the picture. The problem is with all this is that Fver’s like Wilson surround their views with enough vagaries that they pull out "the plausible deniability - get out of jail free card” every time they’re called on virtually anything. No matter what they write, no matter how many vote on a report denouncing their doctrines as aberrant and deadly, they claim to have never really said what their critics say they said and that nobody understands them.

[David Gray]

Sean,

Perhaps you should refrain from discussing ideas you don't understand.

[Sean Gerety]

See what I mean.

[Dave H.]

Sean,

>>>
He basically is commanding assent to the idea that infants he baptizes are regenerate, not because God says they are, but because he says so (I'm assuming, of course, that Wilson isn't claiming some kind of private revelation). The rite was done correctly therefore the magic happened, the child is regenerate.
>>>

Just a quick response. I think Wilson would argue that the faith he is speaking of is in God's promise. Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac, but God had also told him that he would have innumerable descendants. Likewise, when we baptize our children, we should believe in faith (based upon God's promise) that God will keep his promise.

Also, if you're actually up for actually understanding the FV position on baptism, elect, etc.(which I'm not sure you are, given what seems like a less than charitable interpretation of Wilson) you should seriously look into getting a copy of Peter Leitharts 'The Baptized Body'. Even if you end up disagreeing with him in parts, at least you can say where and why and at least show a little goodwill by going to the effort of reading the book. I've read it and was impressed by the clarity and comprehensive nature of his discussion, so I think it would a very helpful book for both sides of the issue to read.

[Sean Gerety]

Thanks Dave for the recommendation. Against Christianity is first on my list from Leithart.

Also, I never suggested that God doesn't keep his promises. We know that He does. However, God has made no promise to every baptized infant any more than he made a promise to all circumcised children of Abraham. God said he would establish His covenant, which is unilateral, sovereign and unconditional, not with Ishmael, but with Isaac who was not yet born.

Paul writes: "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: 'At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son' " (Romans 9:8-9). Paul draws an antithesis between the children of God and the children of the flesh, who are not the children of promise or of God: "These are not the children of God." Those whom the Jews think are the children of God are not.

It seems clear to me, and this is being very charitable, Wilson, Wilkins and the rest of the FV men make the same categorical error that the Jews made and who Paul answers in Romans.

No parent has any warrant to believe that all their children are regenerate by virtue being baptized by a so-called "authorized representative of the church." It is certainly the proper and biblical hope of parents that their children are or will be regenerated by God's sovereign grace, but it is a lie to say baptism "confers grace and salvation" on all recipients.

Regardless, and just so I'm clear, you have no problem whatsoever with a Pastor asserting that all baptized infants are *regenerate* by virtue of the water of baptism and the Word?