dougwilsonsays.com

Contending for the Faith in Moscow, Idaho

Doug Wilson Says ‘Men Fall Away Because Their Salvation Was Contingent Upon Continued Faithfulness in the Gospel’

| Opinion by Nathan Wells

Salvation Contingent on Faithfulness


“…men fall away because their salvation was contingent upon continued faithfulness in the gospel…”1 — Doug Wilson


OPINION: If our salvation is contingent on something in us, it is not complete, it is not secure. It suggests salvation by faith in Jesus plus something else—in this case, “continued faithfulness.” If salvation is contingent upon us living faithful lives, it presents an enormous problem because it insinuates that the completed work of Christ does not fully save us, but that additional works of “continued faithfulness” are necessary for salvation. This is not the gospel.

Scripture proclaims, “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, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5–7, ESV). Our works are not the reason we are saved. They are also not part of a final justification, considered by God to determine if we were faithful enough to earn salvation. If there is any contingency that is dependent on our works, it is a works-based salvation, even if we say those works are by God’s grace.

Doug argues elsewhere that “works” apprehend “the promises” of God in the same way faith does if we use the “shorthand” of James.2 To Doug, faith and works are the same thing. But this is not the argument of James. He is merely comparing true faith in Jesus, which results in good works, with a false faith that cannot save because it does not truly believe in Jesus.3

Unlike Doug, the Bible is very clear: our works are not the basis for our salvation in Christ. Rather, we are saved “…for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10, ESV). The Bible never teaches that our salvation is contingent on faithfulness, but rather that our faithfulness is evidence that we are truly saved. The Holy Spirit writes: “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (Hebrews 3:14, ESV). The fact that we hold our “confidence firm to the end” is proof that we have come to share in Christ.” Our faithfulness to the end does not cause us to be in Christ, rather it is the result of being in Christ. As John writes: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19, ESV). Confusing the cause with the result is a deadly mistake. Martin Luther’s summary of the gospel is a fitting contrast to what Doug is teaching: “The law says, ‘do this,’ and it is never done. Grace says, ‘believe in this,’ and everything is already done.”4

When I spoke to Doug about this distortion, he indicated that it was just a misunderstanding by those who read him. But I do not believe such a clear distortion of the core of the gospel can be excused as a mere misunderstanding. Rather, for the sake of the gospel, Doug should edit or remove books like “Reformed” Is Not Enough and Against the Church from publication because of the gospel distortions contained within them. His failure in this, after being called out for decades for propagating error,5 indicates to me that Doug does not seem to believe that teaching the gospel with clarity is of utmost importance and that he is not “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, ESV). He cannot simply continue blaming his readers for their lack of understanding. The burden of clarity falls on the messenger (Ezekiel 3:18–19; Matthew 10:27; Acts 20:26–27). If Doug believes he is being misunderstood on core gospel teaching, it is his responsibility to edit his confusing writings.

My prayer is that Doug would see his error—that teaching a works-based salvation is no salvation at all, and that he would bear fruit with repentance by removing or editing his works that distort the gospel and by offering a complete and public apology for leading so many astray.

Want More Context?

Here are some links to other blogs and podcasts dealing with this and other issues in more depth:

https://heidelblog.net/2024/07/what-the-confessional-reformed-churches-have-said-about-doug-wilson/

https://byfaithonline.com/federal-vision-the-issue-for-this-generation/

https://theocast.org/is-doug-wilson-a-false-teacher/

https://heidelblog.net/2017/10/resources-on-the-controversy-over-final-salvation-through-works/

https://heidelblog.net/fv/

https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/03/doug-wilson-the-bad/

https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/10/doug-wilson-the-ugly/

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” is Not Enough, Canon Press, 2002, loc 1679, Kindle Edition. The quote in its full context is: “Chori Seraiah notes the importance of this in questions of apostasy. ‘This does not mean that God is surprised by our actions; by no means. It means that this is how we see things played out in the providential fulfilling of the decrees of God. The means by which men apostatize from the covenant is unfaithfulness. The means by which men persevere in the covenant is faithfulness.’ In other words, to assert that men fall away because their salvation was contingent upon continued faithfulness in the gospel is not to deny the sovereignty of God at all.”

  2. “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.” “Reformed” Is Not Enough, loc 2255, Kindle Edition. See our article on this quote: Doug Wilson Says ‘Promises are Apprehended by Faith’ and Also by ‘Works’

  3. As Douglas Moo writes: “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.

  4. https://bookofconcord.org/other-resources/sources-and-context/heidelberg-disputation/#26

  5. Doug’s teaching has become known as “Federal Vision” and has been widely condemed for many years: “…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

Subscribe for Updates

Get all the latest posts directly in your inbox.