The Black List – “Reformed” is Not Enough

Innovation and originality in theology are the parents of all heresy. Douglas Wilson in his book, “Reformed” is Not Enough demonstrates this subtly but effectively. To the untrained eye his arguments may sound cohesive, helpful and clarifying. To the trained eye his arguments are heretical, and his work demonstrates his theological and historical ignorance. If it were that Wilson was the first to propagate false doctrine in the related arena of justification, effectual calling, and other standards, then it may be that writers, such as this writer, would take a far more lenient approach to helping Wilson correct his exegetical and historical fallacies. Unfortunately, Wilson is not the first, and he is simply following along, albeit more conservatively mind you, from predecessors who have belabored a new perspective on Paul’s theology. Wilson attempts to bypass this accusation through agreeing with historical formulations, and men like Martin Luther, but fails to do so in joining the New Perspective on one of its key points in a corporate covenantal justification (which will be discussed later)[1] and blatantly disagreeing with Luther at the same time.

This paper is a brief consideration of the information in “”Reformed” is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant (Canon Press, Moscow: ID, 2002.)” by Douglas Wilson. It is this writer’s opinion that Wilson has crossed the line from error to heresy based on conceptions propagated at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference with three others—John Barach, Steve Schlissel and Steve Wilkins, as well as clarifying marks made here in his new book. These four men have been “labeled” the Auburn Four as a result of that conference. Wilson admits in his foreword that he began writing this book before the accusations to him and his colleagues came about by the Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS in June of 2002. So he has included thoughts about the clarification of his opinion in later chapter (which happen to be some of the most blatant denials of orthodox doctrine in the book.) rather than earlier ones.