Reformed is Not Enough
Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant
Douglas Wilson
Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho

Of all the apostles of the new faith, of all the proclaimers of the new gospel, which is no gospel, or good news, at all, but the bad news that our salvation depends on our own works or covenant faithfulness, as they put it, Douglas Wilson is the most dangerous.  While Schlissel and Leithart may be bold and arrogant in asserting their heresies, and while Shepherd may be vague and disingenuous, Wilson takes the prize for being duplicitous and deceitful. It is absolutely stunning to see how skillfully he is able to talk out of both sides of his mouth. For intellectual dishonesty he has to take the gold medal. My apologies for getting right to the ad hominem issues, but anyone who has tried to read and honestly understand this book can understand where I am coming from.

In the Foreword Wilson frankly acknowledges that the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) declared that his teachings and those of Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, and John Barach involved a "fundamental denial of the essence of the Christian gospel in the denial of justification by faith alone," and declared the four to be heretics. As a result of that Wilson goes on to state that this book is, in part, a response to those charges and the book has therefore included "a closer interaction with the teaching of the Westminster Confession than would otherwise have happened." And therein lies part of the problem. Time and again, Wilson quotes the Westminster Standards and accurately expounds what they say. Time and again, he affirms that he is agreement with these statements. Then, just when you think  that this all just a tempest in teapot, and Wilson must really still be orthodox according to Reformed standards, Wilson throws in a caveat. He throws in a big BUT...  And by the time he has outlined the alleged problem with the Confession's position and proposed his solution, it becomes abundantly clear that he doesn't really hold the Westminster position at all. At that point one is tempted to scream and say, "Will the real Douglas Wilson please stand up!" It is at that point, in absolute frustration in fruitless attempts to pin down what Wilson actually believes, that the reader is tempted to engage in ad hominem comments about Wilson's intellectual honesty.

The gist of Wilson's argument that he is truly Reformed is buttressed by more than his attempts to consistently have it both ways and to hold to opinions that seem clearly at odds with what he has just professed. Wilson claims that we have misunderstood the Standards. He states that contemporary understanding of the Standards is based on a modern mindset that has been produced by the Enlightenment. He claims that he is simply recovering what the Reformed actually meant when they wrote the Standards. According to Wilson they had a medieval mindset and from that perspective the Standards need to be interpreted in a radically different way. So Wilson argues for a Reformed and medieval mindset versus a Reformed and Enlightenment one. Now when one thinks of the medieval world and its mindset one naturally conjures up the pre-Reformation status of Europe and Roman Catholic theology. This at least explains one thing, for if one examines Wilson's views and the resultant theology one thing becomes certain. And that one thing is that his theology, or at least his soteriology, is thoroughly medieval. That is, it is reminiscent of Roman Catholicism. It invites us to return to Rome. In fact John Robbins' book Not Reformed at All, which is a refutation of Wilson's Reformed Is Not Enough, is subtitled, Medievalism in "Reformed" Churches.

In what does this medievalism consist? Well Wilson gets right to it. The first chapter is entitled Judas Was a Christian? After mentioning several views of what defines a Christian Wilson argues that the Biblical definition is a person who can be identified as one by say a Muslim; one who can be  identifies as one by objective standards. For Wilson this means one who has been baptized into church membership by an authorized representative of a Christian Church. Judas was circumcised, a member of the Jewish Church, even a member of the Apostolic college, and therefore by objective standards Judas was a Christian. He may have been a bad Christian. He may have apostatized from his faith, but he was a Christian. The next three chapters are spent polishing Wilson's claims to Calvinistic, evangelical, and Reformed credentials respectively.

The seventh chapter is entitled Defining the Covenant. here Wilson again departs significantly from Reformed orthodoxy. He denies there is any Trinitarian Covenant between the members of the Godhead that establishes the plan of salvation. He fails to mention the Covenant of Works and postulates a single covenant of grace that includes ALL the Biblical covenants. This covenant monism destroys the distinction between law and gospel and paves the way for the essence of the Federal Vision, that works are part of our faith, that justification by faith means justification by covenant faithfulness. In this view the statements of Scripture normally accorded to the Covenant of works, such as
this do and thou shalt live are taken to be part of the covenant of grace. Works are now required under the covenant, although these works are generally set forth by less offensive terms such as covenant faithfulness, or an active working faith, etc.

However, the heart of Wilson's medievalism is reserved for Chapter 11, Baptism Now saves. Wilson's view s that Baptism makes a person a Christian. He persistently argues a marriage analogy to press his point. He states that  a marriage ceremony makes a man a husband...period. The man may be unfaithful, and he may never live up to his marriage vows. Nonetheless, he remains a husband, though perhaps a poor one. In the same sense he believes that baptism makes one a Christian. I watched a debate (on a DVD) between James White and Wilson on this issue. The topic was Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ? with Wilson arguing the affirmative. The debate was disappointing for various reasons, chiefly that James White, as a Reformed Baptist (A somewhat oxymoron, as if the Reformed faith can be reduced to simply the five points of Calvinist soteriology, and doesn't include Presbyterian church order, covenant theology, and a host of other doctrines contained in Reformed confessions.) simply lacked the theological tools to deal with Wilson's errors. Additionally the brotherliness, humor, and collegiality that characterized a debate over the very heart of the gospel, reduced it to an interesting intellectual exercise rather than a defense of the faith against a soul destroying corruption of the gospel. I was disgusted and appalled. But Wilson clearly believes that Baptism makes one a Christian. Roman Catholics, his professed brothers would agree. Wilson goes on to flirt with baptismal regeneration, a doctrine he claims to oppose, concluding the chapter with the statement, "By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect. (Emphasis is Wilson's)"

To support all this, in another chapter, Wilson argues against the distinction set forth in the Westminster confession between the visible and invisible church. The former being all those who credibly profess Christianity and their children, the latter being the whole body of the elect. Wilson will have none of this. There is only one church and water baptism makes one a member...period. Again Rome would agree. She sees herself as that church. Wilson wants an objective covenant. No subjective thoughts about whether a person is really regenerate, really a Christian, and really a member of the true church for which Christ died. Baptism makes one a Christian...period. Baptism makes one a member of the one and only church...period. The problem with all this that even Wilson is compelled to wrestle with, is that a lot of Christians will be lost. A lot of church members will spend eternity in hell. And without the distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism, without the distinction between the visible and invisible church, this means that people who really were saved will be lost. It means that those who really were numbered with the elect can lose their election. It means that the salvation offered in Wilson's new gospel is a dubious article that does not necessarily save. This is no gospel at all.

Defining Christians as any who are baptized, and defining water baptism as that which makes a man a Christian Wilson is well on the way to his cherished medieval mindset, which turns out to be suspiciously akin to the medieval mindset of the Roman Catholic Church. Add to that his covenant monism that conflates works and faith, so that the former are included in the latter, he has arrived at the Roman Catholic view that justification is by faith and works. His medievalism is apparent as well as the fact that he is not Reformed at all!

Of all the well known advocates of these new and novel views, whether they be called the Auburn Avenue Theology of the Federal Vision, Wilson is probably the one who is most concerned with maintaining a reputation for being orthodox and Reformed. He labors to that end consistently throughout this book. He even included an appendix where he separates himself from the views that are generally subsumed under the heading, The New Perspective on Paul. In that he emulates Richard Gaffin, who, while he has consistently defended all the promoters of this new theology, such as Norman Shepherd and John Kinnaird, has also written against the New Perspective. However, Wilson cannot have it both ways. After all the protestations of Reformed orthodoxy, and after all the professions of his agreement with specific statements of the Confession, the views he sets forth in this book are clearly neither Confessional nor Reformed. They are medieval; they are Romish; and since they strike at the very heart of the gospel, they are heretical. Wilson's slippery defense of them only makes him all the more dangerous. Except for those who want to study his errors directly from the horse's mouth, I cannot recommend this book. One is far better off reading John Robbins' able and insightful refutation of it, Not Reformed at All. There, instead of confusing double-talk, one will receive a brilliant analysis of what Wilson is really teaching. A bold and Biblical defense of the faith is more edifying and instructive than immersing oneself in the deceptive ruminations of a false teacher, for that is what Wilson has become.