One of the moderators over at the Puritan Board, Meg Thomas, writes concerning Lane Keister’s pastoral assurance that Douglas Wilson is A-OK, if only a little ambiguous, on the question of justification:
Why anyone should ever have to answer charges from Gerety is more than I can understand!
Of course no one has to answer to Gerety for anything. Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ will require an answer however, even if not to me.
What this moderator at the Puritan Board fails to grasp is that if Keister is correct, and Wilson is in fact sound concerning the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls, not only are Gerety and Robbins and a host of other FV critics in serious need of repentance for writing that Wilson outright denies the biblical doctrine of justification, but Puritan Board owner and administrator, Dr. Matthew McMahon, is in need of some serious and public repentance as well.
Dr. McMahon offers the following assessment of Doug Wilson’s deadly and damnable position on some key Christian doctrines, not least of which is justification:
To summarize Wilson’s heretical position:
1. He redefines “Christian” to include anyone “in covenant” with God.
2. He redefines the church invisible and visible as historical and eschatological, overthrowing the ordo salutis and the historia salutis and confusing justification with glorification.
3. He believes in corporate justification which overthrows individual justification and redefines covenant inclusion by baptism instead of faith.
4. He believes in sacerdotalism, and believes the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches baptismal regeneration (which it does not) and overthrows justification by faith alone.
5. He denies that church discipline is of the esse of the church, but the bene esse of the church.
6. He believes baptism is efficacious for salvation (baptism saves, kept in his context) apart from faith.
7. He believes good works are the grounds by which one may have assurance of salvation specifically seen in accepting baptism without question. Baptism is then assurance (assurance by works).
8. He believes that faithfulness to the covenant is justifying (which is his corporate justification).
9. He affirms that the New Perspective’s “corporate justification” theology is true.
I’ve highlighted some of the key conclusive points for Meg’s benefit. How can someone “overthrow the doctrine of justification by faith alone” yet still affirm this same doctrine? Will moderator Meg be calling for the repentance of Dr. McMahon for offering the above conclusions to his review of Reformed is Not Enough? Or does moderator Meg not recognize that Keister’s and McMahon’s reviews of RINE are mutually exclusive? In words even a moderator of Puritan Board can understand; they both can’t be right.
Seems that the moderators over at the Puritan Board are once again on the wrong side of a key issue and have sided with an open enemy in a central battle over the Christian faith. At least their owner/administrator still understands the doctrine of justification is not a doctrine open for compromise and redefinition, even if his own moderators disagree.