Doug Wilson Says ‘Promises are Apprehended by Faith’ and Also by ‘Works’
“I have argued that promises are apprehended by faith, not faithfulness or fidelity, but, of course, faith in the biblical sense is inseparable from faithfulness. Faith is invisible to the human eye, but faith’s constant companion—faithfulness—is not invisible. Nevertheless, it is faith that receives the promises, overthrows kingdoms, and stops the mouths of lions. If we adopt the shorthand of James, we could say that faithfulness (works) does these things also, but we would be using his shorthand.”1 — Doug Wilson
OPINION: This quote is extracted from “Reformed” is Not Enough, a book Doug wrote in 2002 as “something of a response” to a charge of teaching a heretical works-based salvation, which is now commonly known as Federal Vision.2 Notably, five separate Presbyterian denominations and one seminary have formally condemned the teaching of Federal Vision.3 Doug begins his statement with truth—that the promises of God are apprehended through faith, and not works; but he then contradicts himself by stating that James teaches “that faithfulness (works) does these things also” (The “works” in the sentence is a direct quote from his book, not my personal interpretation of faithfulness). This is a dangerous theological error: we are either saved by grace through faith alone, OR we are saved by that plus other things. It cannot be both, unlike Doug claims.4
James rather declares that we are only saved by faith in Jesus. He contrasts a person who claims to have faith (but does not truly believe) with a person who actually has faith. He instructs that we can recognize the difference between the two by the external manifestation of true faith: good works (James 2:14ff).5 Doug seems to miss the point and conflates faith with good works, rather than clearly stating that works are the result of true faith in Jesus, flowing out of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. And such a mistake is deadly. The Gospel is at stake! There is no room for obscurity when God, through the Holy Spirit, makes it abundantly clear: “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5, ESV). And if you think I am merely misunderstanding Doug, his daughter, Rachel Jankovic, also a published author, has seemingly adopted his unscriptural views. They are often sandwiched in between biblical truth, as are Doug’s various errors, but they can be found in her writings.6
If Doug (and Rachel) truly believe in salvation by grace alone, as they have both stated in other places, without any contribution of our faithfulness (works), then this continued ambiguity is irresponsible, especially for someone who has been accused multiple times of theological error regarding the relationship of faith and works.7 A person correctly stating doctrinal truth in one place does not receive a free pass to teach doctrinal error in another (John 11:49–52). A little leaven leavens the whole lump (Galatians 5:9) and a little poison is lethal.
Two years after publishing “Reformed” is Not Enough, Doug admitted that his redefinitions and unclarity regarding, “justification, Christian, election, salvation, and regeneration” had “caused some to stumble.”8 But to this day, he has failed to remove these errors from his published works. This seems to indicate that he does not consider them serious, which is alarming. When I confronted him over this, it was clear that though he has more recently attempted to distance himself from the label of Federal Vision,9 he continues to firmly hold to the basic tenets of its teaching and still views its “understanding of the objectivity of the covenant to be a theological breakthrough.”10 He has had more than twenty years to clear up this controversy, and yet it continues. Jesus has choice words for those who cause stumbling: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42, NASB95).
My prayer is that Doug will take this warning seriously, bearing fruit in keeping with repentance and pull gospel-distorting books like “Reformed” Is Not Enough from publication, recognize his personal contribution to the spiritual harm of many, and publicly seek forgiveness.
Want More Context?
Here are some links to other blogs and podcasts dealing with this and other issues in more depth:
https://theocast.org/is-doug-wilson-a-false-teacher/
https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/03/doug-wilson-the-bad/
https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/10/doug-wilson-the-ugly/
https://heidelblog.net/2017/10/resources-on-the-controversy-over-final-salvation-through-works/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/course/study-james-moo/
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/learn/institute/nt622-galatians
Footnotes
Footnotes
-
Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” is Not Enough, Canon Press, 2002, loc 2294, Kindle Edition.
When Doug refers to the “shorthand of James”, I believe he is referring to using words in the same context and meaning that James uses them, and that he believes James would equate faith with works–that they both accomplish the same “things” (”receives the promises, overthrows kingdoms, and stops the mouths of lions”). ↩ -
Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” is Not Enough, Canon Press, 2002, loc 58-112, Kindle Edition. “On June 22, 2002, Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS declared that certain teachings at a pastors’ conference presented by Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach and, as the Victorians would have put it, the present writer, involved a ‘fundamental denial of the essence of the Christian Gospel in the denial of justification by faith alone.’ Consequently, the four of us were declared to be heretics.” For a definition of Federal Vision see: https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478 ↩
-
“…the teachings of the Federal Vision herein reviewed and critiqued seriously undermine the testimony of the Gospel and are substantially at odds with the Christian gospel…if Wilson is going to be clear of heresy he must renounce his errors and confusion and truly affirm the historic protestant doctrine of justification by means of faith alone apart from works of any kind – including the work of baptism!” - The Reformed Church in the United States: https://web.archive.org/web/20240509165428/https://rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RCUS-Position-Federal-Vision-2006f.pdf “…the ‘New Perspectives on Paul’, and the ‘Federal Vision’, are in conflict with the teaching of Scripture and as such they are unacceptable.” - Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church: https://web.archive.org/web/20221006145752/http://arpchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Minutes-of-Synod-2009-Web.pdf
“That the General Assembly recommend that presbyteries, sessions, and pastors be proactive in addressing teaching of the New Perspective on Paul and of the Federal Vision and other like teachings that compromise the purity of the gospel.” - Orthodox Presbyterian Church: https://web.archive.org/web/20220524152347/https://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
“Our concern is that some of those who are baptized will simply presume on God’s grace, ‘continuing in the covenant’ without ‘apostatizing’ but also without justifying faith (cf. Matthew 22:1-14)” - The Presbyterian Church in America: https://web.archive.org/web/20231211234041/https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/studies/07-fvreport.pdf
“By the standard of biblical and confessional teaching, this reformulation of the doctrine of justification by FV writers stands condemned.” - United Reformed Churches in North America https://web.archive.org/web/20240430083758/https://www.urcna.org/urcna/StudyCommittees/FederalVision/Federal_Vision_Study_Committee_Report.pdf “…we humbly but resolutely stand against the theological errors now current, propagated by certain teachings of what has become known as the Federal Vision” - Mid America Reformed Seminary https://web.archive.org/web/20231207134042/https://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/errors.pdf ↩ -
This quote is from his chapter on “Covenant Succession” and the promises he refers to relate to salvation. ↩
-
“Critical to understanding the argument of the section and integrating it successfully into a broader biblical perspective is the recognition that James is not arguing that works must be added to faith. His point, rather, is that genuine biblical faith will inevitably be characterized by works. Trying to add works to a bogus faith is an exercise in futility, for only by ‘accepting the implanted word’ (1:21) and experiencing the inner transformation that it brings can one produce works pleasing to God. James, in a sense, proposes for us in these verses a ‘test’ by which we determine the genuineness of faith: deeds of obedience to the will of God.” Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2000), 120. ↩
-
One clear example: When responding to controversy over her book, Rachel first states the truth that we do not earn our salvation through obedience, but then wrongly equates obedience with faith as her father does: “I do not believe that we earn our salvation with obedience (or with anything), but we do express our salvation through obedience. Faith is a gift. Obedience is a gift. Having faith is obedience, because we are told to have it. Obedience is faith because it is an expression of it. Real faith and obedience go hand in hand.” https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2131235583610432&set=p.2131235583610432&rdid=nNT2UZ0pEizP7DGQ&share_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fshare%2Fssd8SYiGLeTmvgti%2F See also: https://mereliberty.com/book-reviews/rachel-jankovic-wrong-identity/ and https://twunroll.com/article/1328448130375815168 ↩
-
“…the teachings of the Federal Vision herein reviewed and critiqued seriously undermine the testimony of the Gospel and are substantially at odds with the Christian gospel…if Wilson is going to be clear of heresy he must renounce his errors and confusion and truly affirm the historic protestant doctrine of justification by means of faith alone apart from works of any kind – including the work of baptism!” - The Reformed Church in the United States: https://web.archive.org/web/20240509165428/https://rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RCUS-Position-Federal-Vision-2006f.pdf “…the ‘New Perspectives on Paul’, and the ‘Federal Vision’, are in conflict with the teaching of Scripture and as such they are unacceptable.” - Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church: https://web.archive.org/web/20221006145752/http://arpchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Minutes-of-Synod-2009-Web.pdf
“That the General Assembly recommend that presbyteries, sessions, and pastors be proactive in addressing teaching of the New Perspective on Paul and of the Federal Vision and other like teachings that compromise the purity of the gospel.” - Orthodox Presbyterian Church: https://web.archive.org/web/20220524152347/https://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
“Our concern is that some of those who are baptized will simply presume on God’s grace, ‘continuing in the covenant’ without ‘apostatizing’ but also without justifying faith (cf. Matthew 22:1-14)” - The Presbyterian Church in America: https://web.archive.org/web/20231211234041/https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/studies/07-fvreport.pdf
“By the standard of biblical and confessional teaching, this reformulation of the doctrine of justification by FV writers stands condemned.” - United Reformed Churches in North America https://web.archive.org/web/20240430083758/https://www.urcna.org/urcna/StudyCommittees/FederalVision/Federal_Vision_Study_Committee_Report.pdf “…we humbly but resolutely stand against the theological errors now current, propagated by certain teachings of what has become known as the Federal Vision” - Mid America Reformed Seminary https://web.archive.org/web/20231207134042/https://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/errors.pdf ↩ -
Question 2: “It seems like one result of Federal Vision is blurred definitions of terms that were once clear and thus comforting. Terms such as justification, Christian, election, salvation, and regeneration seem now to be used in ways that are unknown, unclear and discomforting. Are you concerned that you may have contributed to this loss of certitude and comfort, and thus caused some to stumble?” Wilson’s Answer: “Yes, I would have to say so.”
Source Appendix E in Minutes of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Presbytery of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, October 13–15, 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20231129180132/https://crechurches.org/documents/minutes/2004crec.pdf ↩ -
https://heidelblog.net/2019/07/has-doug-wilson-really-changed-his-mind-about-the-federal-vision/ ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, Against the Church, Canon Press, 2013, p. 54, Kindle Edition. He also wrote in the same book: “What I have written in this book [Against the Church] does not represent in any way a ‘walking back’ of what I argued there [in “Reformed” Is Not Enough]. Rather, it is a straightforward application of it.” ↩