Score One for the Hammer

Two or three months ago, Dean Bekkering posted the following comment on Green Baggins,

What is meant by covenantal loyalty?

Doug Wilson: “Those who obligate themselves under the terms of the covenant law to live by faith but then defiantly refuse to believe are cut away . . . breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works.” “Reformed” Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant (134).

Any comments?
Dean B

Doug Wilson jumped on Dean’s question with this remarkable answer:

Dean B. — I am astonished that (to my knowledge) this is the first time that passage from RINE has come up in this debate. I noticed it a year or so ago when I read through RINE again for some reason. There is a humiliating typo there — “and because of lack of good works” should read “and not because of lack of good works.” My mistake. The way it reads now would present serious problems.

Wilson’s answer, however, immediately caught the attention of two men. First, Sean Gerety,

Doug Wilson writes:

Dean B. — I am astonished that (to my knowledge) this is the first time that passage from RINE has come up in this debate. I noticed it a year or so ago when I read through RINE again for some reason. There is a humiliating typo there — “and because of lack of good works” should read “and not because of lack of good works.” My mistake. The way it reads now would present serious problems.

You claiming to be astonished is astonishing.

In our reply to RINE Dr. Robbins and I cited and commented on this exact passage and nowhere in your review of our book did you once claim your statement was a “humiliating typo.” You took no responsibility for it at all and instead attacked your critics. Not only that, I recently cited this very passage in RINE again here and you made absolutely no mention of any “typo” at all, much less a “humiliating typo,” but instead ridiculed me for not understanding the fundamentals of the faith.

Could it be that this “humiliating typo” is really just an embarrassing assertion which you are now just trying to excuse?

So are your words in RINE a serious problem or not? It seems to me that your original wording which you just realized was in serious error (in spite of your critics bringing this very passage to your attention in the past and on more than one occasion) comports very well with your notion of a conditional covenant which is entered into at baptism and where ongoing faithfulness to “the demands of the covenant” is a prerequisite to “final justification.” Are you going to correct these “serious problems” as well? FWIW I don’t think calling your whole book a typo will work.

So, how are you planning to warn your many readers of RINE about this serious problem and all those who have bought into and have defended the works righteousness you so clearly taught in RINE even as a result of this “typo”?

And, second, Pastor Gary Johnson added to Mr. Gerety’s testimony with these words:

Sean,

I brought this to Doug’s attention shortly after the book RINE came out and got no response.

Which brings us to an exchange earlier today, when Douglas Wilson suddenly felt a compulsion to answer Mr. Gerety, or at least he left that impression, writing,

Sorry to highjack the discussion, but if Sean Gerety is reading this, it has been brought to my attention that I have not yet replied to your assertions about the typo in RINE. You said that you had addressed that in your book — but I can’t find it. Can you give me a page number?

Mr. Gerety, of God’s Hammer, answered Wilson in a heartbeat:

Page 126:

“In Wilson’s scheme, “breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works” (134), and fulfilling the conditions of the covenant occurs by faith and good works.”

Would it be charitable to presume there are many other “humiliating typos” since the above is hardly the only place where you teach salvation by faith and good works?

You should also talk to Pastor Johnson above since he too said he brought this same quote to your attention, I believe he said immediately after your book was first published the book, but you never said anything about it being a typo.

Besides, I provided the same citation in response to you on this blog on at least one occasion in the recent past and you never said anything about it being a “humiliating typo” that you miraculously discovered “over a year ago.”

Not surprising, whoever proofed your book didn’t catch it either since it is hardly out of place per the rest of your teaching on justification and the covenant.

Anyway, please share your response with John and I once you’ve come up with one. Oh, and, BTW, yours is still my favorite review by far.

Of course, Wilson did not answer Mr. Gerety, because he could not answer him. If you do a word search on either “Gerety” or “Robbins” on Wilson’s blog, you will discover that he stopped reviewing Not Reformed At All on page 116, exactly 10 pages before Robbins and Gerety discussed Wilson’s “humiliating typo.”

Of course, these things don’t matter because I don’t believe it was a “typo” anymore than I believe Wilson feels humiliation.