Jump to content
IGNORED

Douglas Wilson Rejects the Federal Vision, Shocks Followers


DomWackTroll

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I don't know, either. 

https://dougwils.com/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html?platform=hootsuite

Facebook comments below. There's an immediate argument over whether Doug is now a heretic, of course. Perry Coghlan replies, “Curiouser and curiouser.” (Oh, do tell us more, Perry!) I’m with Keith Saare, who says, “for the life of me, I have never figured out what Federal Vision is! It's like a different language.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Oh, for the love of little kitties.

Per Doug Wilson's instructions I read that entire pile of verbiage.  He tells people he doesn't believe in some things about Federal Vision (but not which ones) and fails to explain exactly what he does believe.  Too many words and no substance, as usual.

Bottom line, he just turned Auburn Avenue Theology, which I never cared to understand in the first place, into Spaghetti Junction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ Many thanks, I saved it to read later.

Federal Vision was the breaking point with my complex Venn diagram attempting to map the intricacies of Fundamentalist beliefs.   I banged my head against my desk, ripped the 199th revision of the Venn diagram into tiny little pieces, and cried like a baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DomWackTroll said:

Yeah, I don't know, either. 

https://dougwils.com/s16-theology/federal-vision-no-mas.html?platform=hootsuite

Facebook comments below. There's an immediate argument over whether Doug is now a heretic, of course. Perry Coghlan replies, “Curiouser and curiouser.” (Oh, do tell us more, Perry!) I’m with Keith Saare, who says, “for the life of me, I have never figured out what Federal Vision is! It's like a different language.”

 

 

The photo -- Because he's in deep clover? 

These people are so weird. And he is insanely so in a world of insanely so's.

It will be interesting to see how many comment, question, pontificate and agonize. I have never gotten the sense that he's theologically influential except among a relatively small group of mostly ineffectual disciples. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

It will be interesting to see how many comment, question, pontificate and agonize. I have never gotten the sense that he's theologically influential except among a relatively small group of mostly ineffectual disciples. 

I have the impression that Doug Wilson and CREC are a bolt-hole for pastors who have screwed up majorly elsewhere.  Spanky Sproul, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood Federal Vision to start out with, but that's probably because I take the position that the Calvin-following Reformers and their descendants have basically pulled most of their theology out of their (or Calvin's) ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So....these people have long ago ceased making ANY effort to talk to people outside of their circles, haven't they?  No attempts to minister to unbelievers, or those of 'weaker' faith or to people who don't think exactly like them.

Because if you didn't go into that post knowing WTF the federal vision is/was, there was nothing (and I mean nothing, no links, no brief explanation) to clue you in.

Always puts me in mind of when i had to read Sir Walter Scott's "Heart of Midlothean" and the teenage girl can give expositions on all sorts of deep theological stuff but not about the 'basics' which is how she finds herself 'in trouble'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So that I do not float away into generalities here, some of the critics I have in mind who sought to be fair-minded would include men like... [names of various dudes]

Ah. Women who have criticized him are obviously all totally locked out of this "maybe y'all sometimes had a point" apology. Okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

For those who have trouble understanding the Federal Vision (as I do), you might find this article helpful:

https://heidelblog.net/2013/11/for-those-just-tuning-in-what-is-the-federal-vision/

What the hell did I just read? 

Seriously, I have no better idea of what Federal Vision is than when I started reading that. 

It's like they just want to make things more complicated and vague and subtle just to amke sure they can call people heretics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

I have never gotten the sense that he's theologically influential except among a relatively small group of mostly ineffectual disciples. 

He's definitely a legend in his own mind....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Federal Vision was the breaking point with my complex Venn diagram attempting to map the intricacies of Fundamentalist beliefs.   I banged my head against my desk, ripped the 199th revision of the Venn diagram into tiny little pieces, and cried like a baby!

Somehow this brings to mind the Monty Python skit, The All-England Summarize Proust Contest.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

What the hell did I just read? 

Seriously, I have no better idea of what Federal Vision is than when I started reading that. 

Compared to every other article I've ever read about the Federal Vision, that one's crystal clear. So what does that tell you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So that I do not float away into generalities here," says Doug, after many, many generalities flutter weightlessly by.

Too late!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anjulibai said:

What the hell did I just read? 

Seriously, I have no better idea of what Federal Vision is than when I started reading that. 

It's like they just want to make things more complicated and vague and subtle just to amke sure they can call people heretics. 

I think (and I just skimmed it...) it's a debate over saved by faith, works, or faith plus works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DomWackTroll said:

Compared to every other article I've ever read about the Federal Vision, that one's crystal clear. So what does that tell you? 

I think it's Occams razor.  Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

My assumption (both single and simple) is that it is all complete bull shit wrapped up in a lot of fancy words.  I'm going with that. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@anjulibai I'm with you.  I read it - and re-read the first couple of paragraphs a few times, but nope, I can understand the individual words, but cannot for the life of me parse the actual understanding.  I have no clue at all what they're talking about, and wow, it really seems like they don't care about trying to make it clear, because if you're godly you'll understand, if not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, older than allosaurs said:

"So that I do not float away into generalities here," says Doug, after many, many generalities flutter weightlessly by.

Too late!

It's that word-smithy thing, but my impression is that he's just doing some house cleaning and hasn't changed his theology at all. Peter Leithart rates a passive/aggressive drive by, so there's that.  

Quote

 To take one example, Peter Leithart’s “end of Protestantism” project is going someplace where I am simply uninterested in going. Unlike some of his critics, I do not believe he is going to Rome, but I do believe it is a project, and it does have a destination. That destination is not mine. It is hard to reconcile his “end of Protestantism” project with my “Protestantism forever” approach.

There are apologies that are nonapologies, and this and that, but it's apparent that he wants to name HIS OWN THEOLOGY with a name of his own choosing and not live under the umbrella shadow of Federal Vision, because Doug Wilson, special ecclesiastical snowflake. 

 

8 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I think (and I just skimmed it...) it's a debate over saved by faith, works, or faith plus works.

My impression as well.  But how did it get so insanely complicated? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Howl said:

 

My impression as well.  But how did it get so insanely complicated? 

Because Calvinists aren't happy unless they are proving they're uber-intellectual by confusing their issue w/ to many $5 words to convey 2 bit ideas?

 


(Man, the Apostle Paul would totally fit in with them, sewing tents and swearing at people...Let alone the canon Jesus.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Howl said:

It's that word-smithy thing, but my impression is that he's just doing some house cleaning and hasn't changed his theology at all. Peter Leithart rates a passive/aggressive drive by, so there's that.  

Yes, our Dougie has never quite felt the same love for brother Peter since he apologized publicly for believing and enabling Jamin Wight, sexual predator and wife choker.

There are apologies that are nonapologies, and this and that, but it's apparent that he wants to name HIS OWN THEOLOGY with a name of his own choosing and not live under the umbrella shadow of Federal Vision, because Doug Wilson, special ecclesiastical snowflake. 

I think so, too. I took my first look at his blog in a few blessed months recently, and it seems to have shed many of the old crew of commenters. The ones who are still at it seem more interested in MRA and white supremacy topics than in theology. Maybe he wants to get back to hermeneutics and away from current events for awhile--more syllables!

 

My impression as well.  But how did it get so insanely complicated? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

Compared to every other article I've ever read about the Federal Vision, that one's crystal clear. So what does that tell you? 

This is how I feel:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who was born into a minor (aren't they all) Calvinist sect and weaned onto a steady diet of Reformed doctrinal minutiae, I've come to the conclusion that Reformed 'scholars' are fairly similar to sterotypical upper level bureaucrats.  They're simply generating red tape to justify their own existences and keep themselves employed.

Jesus had something pointed to say about people straining out gnats but swallowing  camels. I suspect those sentiments might apply here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.