After posting my previous two blog messages on Doug Wilson’s explanation of his Reformed or Calvinistic theology, I searched a bit more to see if I could find a more succinct exposition of his theological views, and I found the above video which seems to fit the description. To give a detailed response to all of his arguments would be too tedious to attempt; but luckily it is not necessary to do that in order to refute his entire argument. At around 12:30 minutes into the video he says the following:
“The picture is complicated for us somewhat because we have to keep track of two different kinds of liberty. The first is a creaturely liberty, the freedom to go right or left. Adam had this kind of liberty before the Fall, and he had it after the Fall. You exercise this kind of liberty countless times every day, with every decision you make: left or right, chocolate or vanilla, this playlist or that one. The second kind of liberty, moral liberty, the freedom to do the right thing, is a liberty that we lost in the Fall. We don’t have to reconcile the sovereignty of God with this kind of liberty, because we actually don’t have this kind of liberty. The scriptures describe us as spiritually dead, in Ephesians 2:1-2. We are spiritual slaves, Romans 6:20. We have no liberty in this realm. When God intervenes in our lives to save us, this is not an instance where we have to harmonize his actions with our liberty; his actions are what bring us into a moral liberty that we did not have before. To illustrate the two different kinds of liberty, if an unregenerate man is walking around in a liquor store, deciding how he is going to get drunk that night, he is exercising his creaturely liberty, he is free to choose vodka, or gin or bourbon, or another liquor store. This is the left-right kind of liberty. What he is not free to do is to choose righteousness. Whatever he decides to do apart from Christ, it will be sinful, even if he decides not to get drunk that night. Apart from Christ, his decision will be a self-righteous one. He does not have any moral freedom unless and until Christ saves him [unilaterally and unconditionally]. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty has to be understood at both of these levels, when it comes to creaturely liberty. Part of our ‘Calvinism’ is to insist that God’s sovereignty is fully consistent with our freedom as responsible agents.”
One thing to be borne in mind before discussing this passage, is that what he means by God’s “sovereignty” is the complete predestination and predetermination of all things by God from the beginning, including all the thoughts, feelings, desires, actions, motivations, and inclinations of man (good or bad). He rules out, excludes, any other possible definition for the “sovereignty” of God. But his main argument in the above statement is that it is impossible for an “unregenerate” person to be or do what is good, what is moral, ethical, or right in the sight of God—purely out of a good conscience—which doesn’t agree with scripture or experience. That is sufficient to completely discredit his entire argument. Both scripture as well as experience tells us that that assumption is not correct. First, from scripture:
Romans 2:
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew [or Christian] first, and also of the Gentile [pagan];
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew [or Christian] first, and also to the Gentile [pagan]:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles [pagans], which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
According to these words, one does not need to be a believing Christian—a “regenerate” person, according to his theological thinking—to do what is good and right in the sight of God; and be approved, and be saved. The Gentiles, the pagans, who do not have the Law, but who out of a good conscience do what is in the Law—meaning that they do what is good and right in their lives—act as if they already have the Law written in their hearts; and they will be saved. The Bible even provides us with a good example of that, the case of Cornelius: He was not a Christian when he was visited by an angel of God, telling him that his good deeds and righteous acts had been observed and approved by God; and he was favored to receive this angelic visitation. He was a Roman centurion and a pagan at the time:
Acts 10:
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man [according to his pagan tradition], and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway [according to his pagan tradition].
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
In response to that Peter was moved to say:
Acts 10:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation [and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
He was approved of by God for his righteous deeds as a pagan, long before he had become a Christian. “No respecter of persons” means that God does not discriminate, he does not have “favorites”. He treats all men alike, on an equal basis (regardless of their religious affiliations); and applies the same standard of justice, of right and wrong, to all. He condemns the wicked for their wickedness—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc.; and he blesses the righteous for their righteousness—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc. That completely discredits Doug Wilson’s arguments in that video from start to finish; there is no need to add more. The parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) provides us with yet another good example. And according to the teachings of Jesus in Luke 12:47-48, being a believing Christian does not guarantee that one will always do what is right either. The only difference is that a believer who does what is wrong will receive a greater punishment, than an unbeliever who commits the same wrong! Experience also negates Doug’s theory. There are many non-Christian nations in the world who are, and historically have been very moral and ethical, Japan being a good example. Moral norms of right and wrong exist in all societies and cultures, including non-Christian ones; and the citizens of those cultures generally abide by those norms. All of that discredits Doug Wilson’s Calvinistic theology completely, on a grand scale, with nothing of it remaining.
No comments:
Post a Comment