I have been accused by at least one reader of treating Pastor Doug Wilson unfairly, and think it is only fair that I dedicate a post to allowing Wilson’s defenders to defend the positions I’ve criticized. Commenter BJ says I have labeled Pastor Wilson “a raging left wing feminist”. I am certain that I have written no such thing, but if I have I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to correct such an obvious misstatement.
More broadly, I would appreciate it if readers would point me to a post where I have either criticized him without specifically quoting what I was criticizing, or where I have misquoted him or misrepresented what he wrote. If you find an example of this, please provide a link to the post along with quotes of what Wilson and I both wrote, along with your explanation. To make the search easier, here is a list of all posts related to Pastor Wilson.
Lastly, I would encourage defenders of Pastor Wilson to point out the times I criticized what he wrote when they feel he was right. For example, if like Wilson you believe it would be morally wrong to pass a law that punished a woman in any way for deliberately killing her unborn child or enlisting someone else to help her do this, please respond in the comments saying something to the effect of “Wilson is right. Such a law would be morally wrong because even after the law was passed, women couldn’t possibly understand that it was wrong unless they are an abortion doctor”. Likewise, if you agree with Wilson after further consideration that it is possible to imagine a scenario say 1,000 years from now where it might be moral to pass such a law, please state so in the comments.
Here are some other examples where you may disagree with me and agree with Wilson:
- You think it was right for Wilson to criticize men who listened to their pastor when their pastor told them they needed to keep mama happy, and you don’t think it was right for me to point out that Pastor Wilson teaches in his book Reforming Marriage that the way to tell if a husband obeys God is if mama is happy.
- You don’t think it was inflammatory when Pastor Wilson titled his post “And Now A Brief Word to the Wife Beaters”, nor do you think it was inflammatory when he compared unhappy wives with abused slaves. But you think it was unfair when I quoted Wilson’s inflammatory comments on American slavery.
- You agree with Wilson in his book How to Exasperate Your Wife that “The wife is to be the ruler or despot of the home.”
- You agree with Wilson that in 1 Cor 7:10 when the Apostle Paul wrote “A wife must not separate from her husband” that this was merely friendly advice, and not pastoral instruction. Specifically, you agree with Wilson when he wrote: That is his apostolic counsel, but it is clear from the context that it is merely advice. If she sees that his generally good advice is not pertinent to her situation, she is left free to leave without being hassled about it by the apostle. So if he would leave you alone in this decision, then so should the elders of your church.
- You agree with Wilson that when women sin sexually, it is because a man has somehow failed them causing them to crave security.
- You agree with Wilson that if a Christian husband is not obeying the word, Christian wives need to follow the example not of Sarah, but Abigail, and “need to learn how to bring things to a head“.
- You agree with Pastor Wilson when he writes regarding a wife denying sex to her husband: The most common way this happens in marriage is that a man does not treat his wife right, they start to quarrel and drift apart, and this naturally includes their sex life…
What would really clear the air (as both you and DW may be mis-stated at times) would be if you both sat down and talked through the issues. I think you might find you have more in common than you realize.
Which of the examples Dalrock gave do you agree with Wilson on, Tmac?
Pingback: An invitation to Pastor Wilson’s defenders. | @the_arv
@TMAC
This is par for the course. I listed 8 specific topics inviting you to defend Wilson’s writing (and invited you to pick your own example too). I additionally invited you to point out where I had failed to quote him, quoted him wrong, or taken him out of context. You can’t. But you are sure I’ve been unfair to Wilson. You don’t want to look at what Wilson publishes, but want to imagine what he would say if we had an informal chat. But what does it matter if he would get it right in an informal chat, given that what he publishes is so frequently wrong?
Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
Go on; take up Dalrock on his challenge if you can, DW partisans! 😉
@ TMAC What if they sit down and discover that their differences are even greater than first realized? Would pastor Wilson be willing to repent of teaching incorrect doctrine, something that Lord Jesus takes rather seriously?
Those who believe that, to be a traditionalist, you must always tear down men, and therefore love Oikos Despota of Past Wilson, should be reminded that he does not like traditional women.
“A fundamentalist woman in a sun bonnet and a gingham dress, who gets a wicker basket to go pick blueberries, so she can bake her man a pie, with a golden crust, the kind he likes, may be a little bit hokey for your tastes, and certainly for mine.”
“Unleashing Your Inner Fundamentalist”, Doug Wilson, Blob and Mablog, August 5, 2009
He mocks traditionalism; what a traditionalist!
I for one have Dalrock to thank, as 2-3 years ago I would have said that Wilson, while not 100% on target, was better than the Pipers, Chandlers, and so forth.
I have seen enough on Doug now to think that he fits right into the camp with those guys. Wilson has his own idiosyncracies which are a little different than the others, but on the whole fits in.
I envision no takers, Dalrock. Nor would Wilson himself ever debate. SJW’s can’t tolerate the CogDis of being wrong.
If a wife denying sex to her husband isn’t fornication, I don’t know what is.
The problem is many otherwise traditional leaning men want to believe that the leaders they like are not slaves to Satanic immorality.
So they refuse to believe that men like Wilson are servants of feminist ideology.
Dalrock – Where did I say you were “Unfair to Wilson?” I did not ascribe anything derogatory from to you him. I did not accuse you of anything. I merely stated that it would be nice to have you both sit to talk through what you both believe. I would certainly like to give him an opportunity to address YOUR accusations directly. I have read much from him that I appreciate, but (like you) I have seen him say things that were utterly confusing. I think you could really dial down some specifics that he could explain, clarify, or validate. That’s all….
Jason – If that happened, then we could address it at that time. Speculating on hypothetical situations is the devil’s game.
@TMAC
The demand for different specifics when specifics are given is the hallmark of someone who knows he’s lost and wants to deny it. Much like Wilson’s interpretations…
There is Scripture, and there is Heresy. All beliefs are not equal.
Go on; take up Dalrock on his challenge if you can, DW partisans! 😉
They can’t, which is why they always scream like stuck pigs, but never say anything coherent to refute Dalrock’s points. They’re reacting to unpleasant (to them) truths like vampires react to sunlight or snails react to salt.
@TMAC
“If that happened, then we could address it at that time. Speculating on hypothetical situations is the devil’s game.”
“https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/maybe-in-a-thousand-years/”
Sooooooo….
I would also challenge his defenders to answer the following:
Was Wilson right to leave his congregation in the manner he did?
Was he right to sow division into the reformed world?
Is federal vision false theology?
Is Wilson’s denomination a cult?
TMAC says:
November 6, 2018 at 1:26 pm
Nice goalpost move. Try again.
Appropriate that Dalrock would issue this challenge on election day! The problem with career politicians is that too often their goal is not principled government but retaining power. As times and demands change, they must shift their positions until their views all but entirely contradict what they once stood for. Should a critic call them on it, they will explain how they held those contrary positions long ago and have since matured or evolved.
Douglas Wilson is the most obfuscating weasel, and is tied with Andy Stanley in this respect. Douglas Wilson doesn’t agree with anyone. He makes it appear that his fellows agree with him. The dude is a narcissist.
@Dalrock
Please don’t mistake me for some Wilson apologist. I very much like him and agree with him alot, but not on everything. Same for you. I recommend the men in my church read both of you, among others, because you both have value to this conversation. And, whether you agree or not, you are both moving in the same direction toward the same goal, namely trying to restore some sanity to our sex-confused secular West. That was my singular point to the comment.
As an aside, my comment about a raging left wing feminist was based on you saying he believes the same as Oprah about this issue, which is insane (or simply hyperbole on your part). I don’t desire or have the time to do a quote for quote debate, so please forgive me for not engaging at that level. I know you try to be fair and accurate and that is why I read you, but you both are far more together than separate on this issue, and I think the overlap in your readership is pretty strong evidence of that. Perhaps more direct dialogue between you two would be fruitful? I don’t know, perhaps not, but I know it would draw interest if nothing else.
Thanks again for the time.
TMAC
I would certainly like to give him an opportunity to address YOUR accusations directly.
Pastor Doug Wilson has had that opportunity for several years, thanks to Al Gore’s Internet; it is not necessary for Dalrock to go to Moscow to have such a dialog. Curiously, Wilson has chosen to avoid taking the opportunity. He seems averse to directly engaging those who disagree with him. Perhaps you could point this out to him yourself?
A wife denying sex to her husband isn’t fornication. “Sexual immorality” is a novel translation.
His whole denomination and system of belief is confused. Be “fundamentalist” on their ecclesiology, and their doctrine. Yet appear as the world with their fashion. They believe their churches should be externally beautiful, and that we should work to influence the arts. They are a type of dominion-oriented groups. Their post mil theology affects everything they do.
Lexet blog
Is federal vision false theology?
For what it is worth, Pastor Doug Wilson is no longer an adherent of “federal vision”, whatever that is. At least, I think that’s the case. He wrote a meandering essay on his Mablog about it, and I’m still not sure what he meant.
Is Wilson’s denomination a cult?
Wilson’s denomination is not a denomination. I believe he said that once. But I could be wrong, or may have been confused by his wording.
BJ:
Are most of the examples that Dalrock gives at the top generally understood to be positions that Oprah pushed on her show?
@TMAC
For the record, Wilson teaches things–specifically the eight listed in the OP–that are wrong. You have called them “utterly confusing”, “unexplained”, “unclarified”, and “invalidated”…but they are just wrong. You should at least be honest and say they are wrong.
You also at least fib when you write that some specifics are not dialed down. They are. Right there, just above, are eight dialed-down specifics. And somehow Dalrock and Wilson sitting down over tea is going to make what Wilson taught correct? No. The Word of God says we are to confess our sins, and repent.
BJ
nd, whether you agree or not, you are both moving in the same direction toward the same goal, namely trying to restore some sanity to our sex-confused secular West.
Asserting a fact not in evidence; it is not at all obvious that Doug Wilson is trying to restore any sanity.
As an aside, my comment about a raging left wing feminist was based on you saying he believes the same as Oprah about this issue, which is insane (or simply hyperbole on your part).
If I recall correctly, Dalrock pointed to Wilson’s written words and compared them with Oprah; the agreement between the two was obvious. However Dalrock still did not state that Wilson is “a raging, left wing feminist”. Perhaps you need to read more carefully?
I’m not a DW defender. If he refuses to debate – fine with me. I merely stated that I think it would be good to see someone like Dalrock intelligently discuss the issues so that DW can clarify/respond. There’s nothing unreasonable about that suggestion. If DW refuses to do so, then ok. I doubt Dalrock would refuse the opportunity. I agree that DW is difficult to read and he seems to waffle about things that seem “unwaffleable.” He has, however, said certain things that have at least moved the conversation back away from the Matriarchal cliff at least a little.
Sorry if my initial comment seemed accusatory.
I would like to see a cage match between the Cult of the Dougites and the followers of Jordanetics and its prophet.
In both, there is the suggestion that the man simply cannot be judged by the words he has written for publication. We only have to choose between a personal conversation, not addressing the issues raised above, and without any written record, versus 12 hours of YouTube lectures and in-person paid performances.
Pastor Wilson must first repent of having called Christians who disagree with him “wife beaters”. Otherwise, he should be anathema.
Cane – DW is wrong on certain issues – no question. I’d just like to see Dalrock expose that in a debate so that DW might see the error and change, or double down so others who follow him could have the air cleared. The more people who are exposed to Dalrock the better – no?
Nathan Bruno
I would like to see a cage match between the Cult of the Dougites and the followers of Jordanetics and its prophet.
I’d buy that for a dollar!
@TMAC
“I think it would be good to see someone like Dalrock intelligently discuss the issues so that DW can clarify/respond.”
I lack the words to respond adequately, but I would post a *facepalm* meme here.
vfm7916 – Obviously Dalrock has addressed the issues in his blog. I just know if there was a public debate, a much wider audience might be able to get the full picture in much clearer fashion.
Whoa, that is an apt comparison. Doug’s Disciples are a good parallel to the Boys Cleaning Their Rooms, as both are so attached to their leaders that what the leaders say doesn’t matter.
@Lexet Blog
I am not the recipient of this challenge, but will offer my own answers for reference.
I’m not aware of this incident, and it surprises me that I wouldn’t have come across something on it. Could you provide a link to information on it?
No.
Regarding the remaining two:
I’m only vaguely aware of the criticisms here. I would say he is innocent of the charges until someone proved he was not. Moreover, these questions are outside of my critique of Pastor Wilson’s specific teachings on marriage.
@BJ
That you perceive they are close (“more together”) does not mean they are actually close. It could be.
It could also be that something is wrong with your powers of perception, or your pre-conceived notion of what it means to be “more together”. “More together” than what?
@TMAC
I like that response.
Wilson has strongly signaled that he is incapable of seeing his own error on men and women. He can only deflect, or (more often) claim that he is misunderstood because he’s a hippie; just too much Truth Rebel for the world to handle, man!
The whole “I wish they’d be friends” sentiment is effeminate. Friendship is good. It’s also irrelevant here.
@Cane Caldo
Thanks, again. I could be totally misreading this situation, admittedly, but if I am, I am not alone.
I look at all of this from the perspective of my ministry position. We have a fairly large number of young families coming to our mid-sized suburban/rural Midwest church. Without fail, there are obvious signs of secular influence on the family dynamics from sex to work to children to a number of other things. Getting them to see how their thoughts are influenced by non-biblical thinking begins to clear things up and the response is generally positive. Both Wilson and Dalrock are resources that I use to aid them in this process.
Not once have I had someone come to me and say anything remotely close to what Dalrock accuses Wilson of. Perhaps the sample size is too small, admittedly, but it is nearly always a look of enlightenment. They both see with a little more clarity that they have been duped by this culture and they need to look more closely at the Bible.
Again, you could be right. I could be setting my men up to practice the marriage that Oprah dreams of, but so far that hasn’t happened, and I suspect it never will.
@Bruce – Please define it then.
My main issue is that you, Dalrock, are clearly under the sway of Arianism. This was prohibited by the Council of Nicaea in 347, so every subsequent decision you make it post hoc in error. For shame.
Just kidding. That’s all I remember from my days as a Christian.
Your blog is great, and if someone has such strong opinions about Doug Wilson then they can start their own blog. WordPress is free.
Is federal vision false theology? No, and if it is, you’ll have to label almost all conservative Anglicans, Lutherans and all RCs and Orthodox heretics, too.
Is Wilson’s denomination a cult? No, but you can join some of his enemies in the PCA where being woke, feminist and even pro-LGBTQ (i.e., the recent Revoice conference) are becoming more popular all of the time. He’s may not be popular here, but he’s about as far to the right and anti-SJW as you can get in the broader Reformed world.
@Cane Caldo
That is my take as well. Likewise the vague insinuation that I’m treating Wilson badly without a specific charge. If we can’t agree, let us at least disagree as men. If I’ve wronged Wilson, please do me the kindness of pointing out specifically where I’ve done so. I don’t know how to lay it out more clearly than I did in the post. We are dealing with what the man has taught and what I have written about his teaching. This isn’t a contest to see who shall be Queen Bee.
@BJ
Thanks for the response.
All we Christian husbands and fathers view this from a ministry perspective.
You realize that you could achieve a similar feat among your congregants with virtually any celebrity pastor and Dalrock, don’t you? Do you know why? Because Dalrock does the work, that’s why, and he never carries water for the secular culture. If he is found to, he confesses it and repents.
Specifically, here, in the eight criticisms above, we can see Wilson carrying water for ungodly attitudes that encourage Christian women to tear down their homes and for Christian men to get out of the way while they do so. Dalrock and Wilson getting along has nothing to do with it.
Now I’m curious: Do you send Christian wives to websites for a biblical perspective and instruction, or do you reliably direct them to their husbands as the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write?
Damn Crackers,
The New Testament generally translates the Greek porneia as fornication. This is Strong’s 4202 and is used as:
I.illicit sexual intercourse
A.adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
B.sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
C.sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
II.metaph. the worship of idols
A.of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
From those usages (definitions?), just how does a wife denying sex to her husband qualify as fornication? It is certainly sin, but I do not see it as fornication. The only remote possibilty I see would be someone considering denial of sex to somehow be worship of idols.
@Cane Caldo
“You realize that you could achieve a similar feat among your congregants with virtually any celebrity pastor and Dalrock.” This is silly.
As I am presently teaching through Titus, I direct the women to submit to their husbands, who I direct to teach them properly in the scriptures, and to follow the guidance of the older women, who I direct to teach them “to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”
@ DC,
Harlotry, whoredom, promiscuity, etc.
@OKRickety – “The only remote possibilty I see would be someone considering denial of sex to somehow be worship of idols.”
Yes, sexual idolatry is exactly it. If the marriage bed is sacred, then “do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time.”
One could say sexual idolatry is the worst form of fornication, other than rape or pederasty.
@BJ
I’m glad to hear it!
It’s actually not silly. We know this because in the past Christians taught what the Bible says concerning family headship. Somehow, now, we ended up here where Wilson, Keller, Mohler (you know I could go on) teach falsely even as they read the Bible aloud. Somehow we went from women wear head coverings as a conspicuous sign of submission–and no church of God had any other practice–to now women don’t wear them because it would be a conspicuous sign of their submission.
A wife denying sex is not fornication. While most modern translations translate ἀποστερεῖτε in 1 Cor 7:5 as “deprive,” (as in “do not deprive one another,”) older translations went with the word “defraud,” as the preferred translation. To defraud is “to cheat, taking away what rightfully belongs to someone else.”
A wife who denies sex is a thief.
Dalrock,
Now Sheila Wray Gregoire fancies that she and her crew (her daughters at least) are experts on what boys need to know about puberty and the transition to adulthood. They had previously created curriculum for girls on this topic and now, of course, this needs to also be done for boys. This was launched with the post
What We Learned Making the Boy’s Version of The Whole Story
In it, her daughter Rebecca provided such gems as:
She then had the audacity to claim in a comment that “This was just a lighthearted post talking about my experiences.”.
There’s no need to worry about the content though. She writes:
I suppose “a bunch of amazing men” primarily consists of Sheila’s husband, and her two sons-in-law.
How would the Christian world manage without her contributions?
OKRickety: I imagine InsanityBytes (MeMe, or whatever she calls herself these days) will write a glowing praising Sheila’s new curriculum. Is there a section on why men should marry heavily tattooed non-virgins?
@Cane Caldo
You won’t get an argument from me. My whole motivation for going into ministry was to set the teachings of the Bible into the lives of my flock in order to help try and correct the slide. We are a long way away from sanity, but we have to have as many voices as possible. By God’s grace we will make progress.
Thanks for the chat and the thoughts. Much appreciated.
I am a member of a CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches) church. It is not technically a denomination and it is certainly not a cult. I am generally favorably disposed toward Pastor Wilson (not the Federal Vision part) but I find your criticisms of him to be very fair and spot on. Keep up the good work.
[D: Thank you. Welcome.]
The CREC is where former PCA members go because the PCA is getting too liberal, amillennial, futurist, and antinomian. We tend to be very conservative, postmillennial, partial preterist and have a higher view of God’s law. That may be an over-generalization but that’s how I got here and I don’t think I’m alone.
MKT,
I think I have seen InsanityBytes complain that other Christian women don’t seem to want to associate with her (I wonder why), except those few who are part of her little “mutual admiration society”. Maybe because, for example, she recently posted criticizing Michelle Lesley, one of the better women bloggers that I know of?
Sheila would have to modify it for children, but she has put the core principles in her post I Didn’t Really Care if My Sons-in-Law Were Debt-Free, Tattoo-Free Virgins.
Haven’t read the responses yet, so this may duplicate someone else’s response. I appreciate the response from AR in the previous thread:
Dalrock has not portrayed Wilson as a devil, he has pointed out errors in Wilson’s thinking and writing. That’ what men do. That’s how men debate.
It’s not the person. It’s the soundness (or lack of) of the argument. One of the greatest strengths of the internet when it is done right.
This comment has nothing to do with Dalrock or Wilson. It has to do with reading comprehension:
1 Corinthians 7:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): …
All of the bolded words are from not I, but the Lord.
According to Paul, who is it that says a wife must not …?
According to Paul, who is it that says but if she does …?
Hint: the same person says both things.
There are no words in the Bible that say separation or divorce will keep you out of heaven. But there are words that say adultry will keep you out of heaven. And there are words that say divorce and remarriage creates adultry.
Properly read, God’s words spoken through Paul were intended to create a safeguard against committing adultry. God has made it clear that he hates divorce. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that separation or divorce will keep you out of heaven. At the moment, I cannot recall that God says anywhere in the Bible that he hates adultry. But there are several spots where the Bible says adultry WILL keep you out of heaven, and that divorce and remarriage (with maybe an exception) creates adultry. (Obviously, proper repentance modifies this point.)
It is not the separation or divorce that will cause God to reject us at the Judgement Seat. It is the adultry. God’s warning, spoken through Paul, is against the adultry. God’s desire is for the wife to stay put and not leave. But if she does – the warning that follows is the warning that counts at the Judgement Seat.
That this is debated at all shows that there is an agenda at work beyond simply teaching what God actually says through the Bible. This particular passage is very clear, as it is bounded by Paul saying this is what God says, and this other is what I say.
There. is. no. question. about. this.
You can smell the feminism in Doug Wilson’s ”Corduroy Pillow” article referenced by Dalrock:
”And the view about the mothers, taken as a class, is that they have been fraudulently manipulated into a form of negligent manslaughter. That kind of problem is best answered with information — ultrasounds and more. This is why pro-lifers for decades have offered support, information, care, and medical services to mothers. The laws have been aimed at doctors who were after the blood money. And in the main, this has been a very effective and reasonable distinction”.
So there you have it. Junior, you’re going to die, but don’t be mad at mommy because she ”doesn’t know what she’s doing” – and Pastor Wilson thinks this is ” a very reasonable and effective distinction”.
It is not. After the confirmation of pregnancy comes the decision to ”keep my baby” or ”get rid of it”. That second decision, from planning the visit to the clinic to going there to undergoing the procedure, is premeditated.
If the world is to be evangelised before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, it will not be done with hand-wringing, cop-outs, manipulative language or other disingenuous devices of which St Paul had said, ”We have renounced underhanded means”. it will not be done by professing pastors being teddy bears when it comes to calling half of humanity – women – to account.
Pingback: An invitation to Pastor Wilson’s defenders. | Reaction Times
“A fundamentalist woman in a sun bonnet and a gingham dress, who gets a wicker basket to go pick blueberries, so she can bake her man a pie, with a golden crust, the kind he likes, may be a little bit hokey for your tastes, and certainly for mine.”
A wise man would put a ring on her finger before the blueberry pie crust hit room temperature.
what Dalrock accuses Wilson of.
Accuses? More like documents. If he documented incorrectly, then it is fair to correct that.
There are no words in the Bible that say separation or divorce will keep you out of heaven.
I do vaguely recall some Dude in the Bible saying “what God has joined, let no man tear asunder,” but I could be misremembering. I would think that this Dude would not look favorably upon tearing apart what God has joined. Just a guess.
I understand Dalrock’s clear call to find errors in his analysis of Wilson’s writings. But I also understand the reason someone might call for a discussion between Dalrock and Wilson on apparent points of disagreement. What follows are some reasons why I think that.
Upthread, someone stated: There is Scripture, and there is Heresy.
False setup.
The quote is a true statement. The error is in thinking that we have the ability to spot the heresy.
1. Primary reality: what is.
2. Secondary reality: what is perceived.
3. Tertiary reality: problems caused by the discrepancy between Primary and Secondary reality.
None of us responds to what is. We all respond to what is perceived. There is no other way. We only have our five senses with which to take in information and our brain to make sense of it. Those regenerated by God have the Holy Spirit. But that brings the discussion too close to the “Personal Jesus” argument, and I’m trying to stay general here.
We can very easily see that what we think someone else meant does not square with what we think the Bible means, and so we lable their thought “heresy”. But we don’t, really. We only lable what we perceive that they meant as heresy. None of us can know exactly what the Bible means, and exactly what another person meant by what they said, that we can be completely accurate at labeling what they said “heresy”.
For support, see the scriptures that talk about us being spiritually dead until we are regenerated by God, so the unregenerate cannot understand/perceive spiritual things; God saying that man looks on the outside (what we perceives) but God looks on the inside (what the person actually meant); Jesus saying that he intentionally confused some of his listeners in the New Testament; Jesus saying that no man can come to Jesus unless God draws them; and no one can say that Jesus is Lord without the help of the Holy Spirit.
Pertaining to the Bible and what others write: We can all see what it says. We don’t all agree on what it means. Therefore, the best any of use can say is this:
There is Scripture, and there is what we think it means, and there is heresy.
And, unless the Holy Spirit helps us, we can only speculate that God agrees with our conclusion that something is heresy.
The whole point of Jesus saying that man looks on the outside but God looks on the inside is to caution us against relying too heavily on our believing that our own perceptions cannot be wrong. The Bible also makes the point that it is not what we do, it is what God is going to hold us accountable for. Consider that, of the group Moses lead out of Egypt, those under the age of 20 were allowed to live while the rest died – even though all sinned. Consider Paul’s admonition that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Of him to whom much is given, much shall be required – the assumption being that less will be requried from thos given less. If God holds different folks accountable for different levels of behavior, then salvation truely is not a one size fits all. (For the sake of brevity, I am leaving out a multitude of scriptures that speak to this point.) It is not the behavior. It is what God holds us accountable for. And God is going to have different standards of accountability for different folks.
Therefore, “you don’t believe like I do, therefore one of us isn’t going to get past the Judgement Seat” is not necessarily a true statement. Understanding that should lead to humility, not arrogance.
Even when we are focusing on the validity of the arguments, and not on the person, the truth spoken above still complicates the issue. Two people, truely living by faith, but each holding different opinions on things: the Bible makes the case that both are likely to get the “well done thou good and faithful servant” treatment at the Judgement Seat. Understanding that should lead to humility, not arrogance.
FYI, I just went through the spam filter for the last 7 days. I didn’t see any legitimate comments related to this post, but found and restored one from Tom Lemke on Incentives Matter and two from YS on (I think) Whose job is it to keep mama happy?
@c matt: what God has joined, let no man tear asunder,
Two thoughts (don’t respond; just think about)
1. What creates a union of which God says “what God has joined, let no man tear assunder? It would only be those unions to which your quote applies. Does it make any sense to think that God will join together one who totally accepts God’s authority over his life with another who totally rejects God’s authority over his life? In reality, the unions to which that quote apply are a lot less than most think.
2. I said There are no words in the Bible that say separation or divorce will keep you out of heaven. But there are words that say adultry will keep you out of heaven. And there are words that say divorce and remarriage creates adultry.
Matt – does what you quoted say that tearing assunder will keep one out of heaven? We already know that God hates divorce. But my point in my post above stands: there is no language for separation or divorce in the Bible like there is for adultry. We accept that God hates divorce. But the warning in 1 Corinthians 7 is meant to keep folks away from adultry, not away from separation or divorce. The Bible language says that adultry will keep you out of heaven. There are no such words for separation or divorce. The focus is on the adultry, not the leaving.
BJ,
You should seek out and talk with some Christian men who have been messed over by divorce, by women who still claim to be Christians and have happy smiles at church.
My own story would probably open your eyes quite a bit. Feel free to write me. I don’t check this email frequently, but I do at times and I would be glad to discuss many of these things from a Scriptural perspective.
It has torn my life apart and I am someone firmly committed to God. All the enablement has completely destroyed many others.
I need to write more, but check out my latest blog entry for something that hit me about most church leadership:
https://billsmithvision.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/loneliness-and-the-older-single-man/
I am convinced that those in church leadership don’t face the issues so they don’t even see them. I face another year alone with no church really giving a hoot. Sure, some will claim to care, but that boils down to “come to services, tithe like a good trooper, come to a small once a week short men’s meeting.” The church no longer connects people.
My wife might not have taken her actions if anyone had ever confronted her, but too many church leaders are far too passive or focus on false “safety” issues (from threats that don’t exist) to stand up to female rebellion.
What would you do if a woman was coming to your church that had a husband who was rough around the edges (clean, just not an extrovert) and claimed he was “abusing her” emotionally? What if she made other things up? Would you ever seek to help find out if she was really seeing things right or would you assume she needed to be safe at all costs first of all?
I bet the latter, if you are like 99% of preachers out there, even those claiming to teach “verse-by-verse”.
Do you teach mutual submission from Ephesians? Have you ever taught 1 Pet 3:1-6 exclusively for women?
@BillyS
You have me pinned wrong. I have several men in similar situations in our church. So…
I would love to talk. I don’t know how to find your email. Forgive me.
“@BillyS
I would love to talk. I don’t know how to find your email. Forgive me.”
Just hover over his name “BillyS” and you’ll see it on the bottom left of the screen. At least that’s how it works on my laptop.
Commenter BJ says I have labeled Pastor Wilson “a raging left wing feminist”.
The typical cuckservative cannot even begin to grasp than a Republican could be anything other than opposed to ‘feminism’, even if the cuckservatives in question agree with 99% of feminism.
That is why even RS McCain is merely purple pill. Sure, he bashes the bluehaired fatties, but is nowhere near even beginning to observe that Republican women are anything other than staunchly against feminism. He also has no problem with any laws around divorce and custody.
The typical Republican has no problem with misandry (and often actively promotes it). They just have a problem with a few screeching bluehaired fatties, who they believe represent the extent of ‘feminism’.
Wilson backers are “effeminate” …that is, ‘soft’ on scripture, and align themselves with adulterers, extortioners, idolaters, thieves, etc in 1 Cor 6:9+ …as, of course, Wilson.
They worship women, and not the Word of God.
Wilson simply suffers from evangelical arrogance. I’ve known men like him. They have a gaggle of weaker men that follow them around. They proffer a notion, the weak followers will proclaim “we understand teacher, you mean its like this and this and like that”, to which Wilson and all those that are evangelically arrogant will replay using words that tease out doubt, that show that the pedestrian crowd of weak men following only get it enough to form the fringe of the hanger on crowd, where they can continue to almost understand the morsels he leaves for them.
These men, oddly correlated to men who simultaneously jingle pocket change while rising up and down on their toes. They have indeed a hippie ish ness which can either mean they also have a blue collar bent, works.with.the.hands.he.does kinda aura. Or the opposite; doesn’t do those things but sure likes to have a cool drink outta the cistern ya know.
Tolerated them when I did prison ministry. They tend to be grouped in those kinds of ministries, rehab ministries, recovery type outreaches, so forth, where they try AMOGing the weak and addicted, um, as a form of treatment dontcha know.
Like Wilson or not, he posted this on a recent blog. It’s one of the finest moments in TV history, and would make everyone from radical feminists to self-proclaimed conservative complimentarians hysterical if they saw it. If you can’t watch the whole thing, just watch the first minute and last 2-3 minutes.
Why is it so hard to understand that feminists or leftists hating someone doesn’t make them any good? Just because the leftists aren’t on their side doesn’t mean they’re not on the leftists’ side. We’ve learned this about Republicans; in general, despite being viciously attacked by the left, they’re mostly on the same side with them.
Wilson teaches wrong doctrine that leads people astray. Dalrock posted many examples above. What good is it that he teaches something different than what the feminists and leftists are teaching if what he’s teaching is wrong?
So what if Wilson is slightly closer to being right than they are? We have the truth already. We don’t need to grope around in the dark. It’s like saying we should encourage neopaganism because the Romans’ religion, at its best, was better than atheist nihilism. If that was the best we had, fine, but it’s not.
He’s a teacher. The standard is different. If a regular guy is off a bit, but does the best he can, that only affects his immediate family. People who profess to be teachers but teach clearly wrong doctrine are snakes, even if they’re right some of the time.
What kind of BS is that, Wilson linking to that video? Wilson would call that man an abusive monster if he were real.
Only theoretical, imaginary men can actually assert their leadership. If a real man threatened his wife that way in order to take control of his household, Wilson would be first in line to help her file for divorce for his abusive ways.
The man talks out of both sides of his mouth, it’s what he does. He asserts that something is good, then tears down anyone who tries to do it. Just give it up, Wilson defenders. A person who says the right thing one day and the wrong thing another day isn’t a good guy groping toward a better understanding. He’s a snake and a liar. He’s giving people just a bit of the truth to keep them hooked, so they’ll swallow the lies and false doctrine.
@BillyS
Got it. I sent the email.
@MKT
Thanks for the help. Preciate it.
Lastly, I would encourage defenders of Pastor Wilson to point out the times I criticized what he wrote when they feel he was right.
I never know when I think he was right or wrong, because by the time I get to the end of the essay I don’t know what he was trying to tell me at all.
We have the truth already? Who is this we you speak of? What is this truth you speak of? After reading this blog for many months (probably years), it is clear that the readers disagree about many items of doctrinal importance. Examples are the validity of Sola Scriptura, the importance of the Tradition and the Magisterium, and acceptable reasons for divorce. I expect there are many other examples.
If readers here don’t agree on the truth of these matters, how can “we have the truth already”?
Although I think I am closer to knowing the truth than most (and almost everyone else here probably thinks the same of themselves 🙂 ), I try to focus on the areas where we agree and learn from others and perhaps even help others.
Like I said, Wilson doesn’t want anyone to know what he is saying. If one were to perfectly state his opinion back to him he would duck and weave to make it seem that they didn’t really know what he said. Its a shtick.
BJ
Wilson doesn’t need more understanding from his critics, he needs to stop writing stupid things. He must be surrounded by yes men or many of these things wouldn’t make it into print. Wilson should expose himself and his ideas to such a critic in his own life or he should
…read enough Dalrock that he develops a little voice of Dalrock in his own head that he has to contend with before publishing.
Of course I am right OKR! I would change my views if I wasn’t!
Though I am a bit more accepting of others being stupid as I get older, at least when they don’t always force that on others like a specific JS is fond of doing here.
Kjv labels the term used as fornication. However, the Greek word, porneia, is an umbrella term for sexual deviancy. Strongs dictionary G4202
That’s an absolute lie, but I don’t blame you. Wilson’s “renunciation” is a renunciation of what he labeled as federal vision. You need to carefully read Wilson’s words on the matter. He is a snake, and is fluent in double speak
And also, when denominations say they aren’t a denomination, that does not make them nondenominational. It makes them the group that takes a stand against other denominations. He has a creed and doctrine. There is a name for his affiliated churches. It is heavily regulated by Wilson.
There is no point other than your entertainment. DW bloviates and obfuscates. He writes and speaks for a living. He is a Sith Lord in double speak
Pingback: Sure his theology is bad, but he has great taste in TV! | Dalrock
Gregoire writes:
“That being said, virginity is not the be all and end all. And, in fact, ultimately virginity means nothing. It’s just a pile of horse manure.”
She needs the taste slapped out of her mouth.
Pingback: Challenge not accepted. | Dalrock