“A universal atonement means that Christ merely makes salvation possible and thus it denies that His death actually saves. The Bible, however, declares that Christ delivered (Heb. 2:15), reconciled (Rom. 5:10), redeemed and ransomed (Gal. 3:13), and justified His people “by his blood” (Rom. 5:9). If Jesus paid the price for everybody head for head and some perish in Hell, then His atonement does not save all—or even most of those—for whom it was made. How can Christ be “satisfied” in His atonement (Isa. 53:10), if millions perish for whom He shed His blood? Then too Christ’s death is not substitutionary, for if He took the punishment of the reprobate, why are they judged? If some for whom Christ died go to Hell, then God punishes their sins twice, once on Christ and once on them. Is this consistent with the infinite justice and righteousness of God? How can some whom Christ reconciled, and for whom there is no condemnation (Rom. 8:34), dwell forever in Hell?”

Read article

Despite statements by Wilson that are heretical, because of Wilson’s deceptive tongue and often orthodox-sounding words there are some who think Wilson is not a dangerous wolf.

However, even if Wilson didn’t make a single heretical statement (of course, he has made plenty), he would still be a wolf since he actively promotes his fellow Federal Vision members along with their soul-damning heresies.  Those whom Wilson promotes in the  Federal Vision can at times be much more overt than Wilson in their heretical teachings.

Brian Schwertley notes,

“While Wilson in his subtle equivocations and statements that are orthodox may appear to be better than some of his theological partners in heresy (e.g., Rich Lusk), he in reality must be rejected as a heretic because:

“(1) Despite his moderate tone, he comes to virtually all the same conclusions as Lusk and Wilkins. (2) He is in full support of the movement which is at its core heretical and deadly. Canon Press publishes the most radical of opinions and New St. Andrew’s College employs Peter Leithart whose writings on the church, worship and the sacraments are radically unorthodox. If a man supports a heretical movement with his money, writing, publishing, lectures, etc then that man is a dangerous heretic.”

From footnote 20 in Brian Schwertley, The Gospel Crisis in the OPC and PCA (Brian Schwertley, 2006)

An example of how Wilson actively supports and endorses the Federal Vision movement is his signing of the joint FV statement.

If Wilson is theologically orthodox, then why does he not condemn his fellow FV members as dangerous wolves?  We does he form alliances with them?

Wilson ’s Cannon Press actively promotes both Federal Vision proponents and the Federal Vision heresy in general.  For instance,

1) The book “The Baptized Body” by radical Federal Vision proponent Peter Leithart which teaches baptismal regeneration, a soul-damning heresy.

2) The book “The Liturgy Trap” by radical Federal Vision proponent James Jordan about worship.  Jordan is known for his antinomian views of worship.

3) The book “Paedofaith” by radical Federal Vision proponent Rich Lusk.

4) The audio set “Great Deliverance: The Life of Justification,” where Wilson joins forces with radical Federal Vision proponents Peter Leithart and Rich Lusk to promote the heretical Federal Vision view of justification.

5) The CD “The Federal Vision: Light or Dark” where Doug Wilson joins forces with radical Federal Vision proponent Rich Lusk to defend the Federal Vision heresy.

6) The CD set “Douglas Wilson on the Federal Vision Controversy.”

7) A special edition of Credenda/Agenda where Doug Wilson and radical Federal Vision proponent Peter Leithart defend the Federal Vision heresy.

8) The CD set “Discussion of the Federal Vision” where Doug Wilson promotes the Federal Vision heresy.

9) The book “The Case for Covenantal Communion” where Doug Wilson teams up with Federal Vision proponents to advocate paedocommunion.

(Posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5)

Blogs for staying informed about the Federal Vision Heresy:

Johannes Weslianus
God’s Hammer

Related Links:

Is the Federal Vision Heresy?
Refutation of the Federal Vision on Galatians

Recommended resources exposing Wilson’s dangerous views:

1. Blog: God’s Hammer (several posts on Wilson can be found via a keyword search)

2. John M. Otis, Danger in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision (Corpus Christi, TX: Triumphant Publications, 2005)

3. Guy Prentiss Waters,  The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006)

4. John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety, Not Reformed At All: Medievalism in “Reformed” Churches (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004)
A response and refutation of Wilson’s Reformed is not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant.

“Search the scriptures,” John 5:39; Acts 17:11. Do not take upon trust new lights from any man, be he never so eminent for parts or for grace, but to the law and the testimony.

The upshot of all is that we ought to hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, and be steadfast, and even immovable in the truth, and not to give place to the adversaries, no, not for an hour, Gal. 2:4-5.

I do not mean pertinacity in the least error, nor a vain presumptuous overweening conceit of our knowledge, to make us despise any light which others may give us from scripture. Pertinacity is an evil upon the one hand, and to be too tenacious of our own opinions; but that [Gk.] kenotas [emptiness] and [Gk.] kouphotas [lightness], that levity, inconstancy, wavering, skepticism, is an evil upon the other hand. “Be not soon shaken in mind,” etc., 2 Thess. 2:2.

And this is the epidemical disease of the sectaries of this time, which I have now been labouring to cure. Their word is yea and nay, and not unlike to that which Sallust objected to Cicero, that he said one thing sitting, another thing standing. Yet it may be sometimes observed, that those who are the greatest skeptics and Pyrrhonians in reference to the common and received tenets are the most pertinacious and tenacious in tenets invented by themselves.

I have read it observed of Socinus, that as he set at nought fathers, councils, and the whole current of ancient and modern interpreters of scripture, so vain glory made him to maintain stiffly and tenaciously any opinion or invention of his own, as if he had been infallible.

This can be seen in this audio debate between Schlissel and John Otis.    (Pay attention to Schlissel’s comments from the 27:00 mark onward.)

Schlissel blatantly denies the law/Gospel distinction.  He wrote,

The very idea of a first, second, and third use of the law is illegal and unbiblical. It demands that the law conform to what we want from it, and if it doesn’t do so then we will have none of it. But the law itself is to be our life.   “This is your life,” God says. “In the law I have given you atonement. In the law I have given you promises of forgiveness. In the law I have given you the way to live. In the law I have given you the key to life. In the law you will find grace abounding to the chief of sinners.”

We turn it around and say, “No, we will have none of this! That’s law as opposed to Gospel.”

Steve Schlissel, “Auburn Pastors Conference 2002—Covenant Series: Covenant Reading” (January 2002), p. 11.

Thus in his denial of the law/Gospel distinction, Schlissel holds that faith and works are one and the same.  He writes,

“Nothing in the Bible teaches a kind of faith that does not obey.  Obedience and faith are the same thing, biblically speaking.  To submit to God’s Word is what it means to believe.  To believe is to obey.”

Steve Schlissel, “A New Way of Seeing,” pp. 26-27.  Cited in John M. Otis, Danger in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision (Corpus Christi, TX: Triumphant Publications, 2005), pp. 315, 316.

In his denial of biblical saving faith, we should not be surprised that Schlissel considers the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism “little,” and wants to reverse the Reformation.  While on the Chalcedon Foundation’s podcast, Schlissel commented,

We need to grow past some of the Reformational antitheses that make us think that Catholics are the doom of the world, and not Christian, and the antichrist, and so on.   We need to recognize when Christian Catholics are doing something as Christian Catholics, they ought to be encouraged.  … The time for us now does not give us the luxury of nitpicking these little differences but rather to encourage the light everywhere we see it to become a flame, and to start blazing.

Law and Liberty Vol. 8–”The Present and Future State of America,” Part 3 with Steve Schlissel (2 of 2) (This is said at the 16:18 mark)

In denying the distinction between law and Gospel, Schlissel denies the Gospel.  In the book of Galatians, the Apostle Paul distinguishes between law and Gospel:

“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?  Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?” (Galatians 3:1-4)

The Apostle Paul teaches that those who rely on works for salvation cannot be saved (Galatians 5:1-4).  And he even curses those who equate the Gospel with the law (Galatians 1:6-9).

Related Links:

Is the Federal Vision Heresy?
Refutation of the Federal Vision on Galatians
Beware of Doug Wilson

Recommended resources exposing and refuting the Federal Vision:

1. Facebook Page: Theonomists against the Federal Vision

2. Blog: Johannes Weslianus

3. Blog: God’s Hammer

4. Book: John M. Otis, Danger in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision (Corpus Christi, TX: Triumphant Publications, 2005)

5. Book: Guy Prentiss Waters,  The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006)

6. Book: John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety, Not Reformed At All: Medievalism in “Reformed” Churches (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004)
(A response and refutation of Wilson’s Reformed is not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant.)

View written version

See also the written version, which is more thorough.