A Plea for Gospel Clarity: Addressing the Errors of Doug Wilson’s Theology

By Joel Duff
December 2024

As a fellow believer in Christ and someone deeply committed to the truth of the Gospel, I write this with a heavy heart. Over the years, I have watched Doug Wilson’s influence grow within certain circles of the church, particularly among those who subscribe to the Reformed faith. His articulate demeanor, sharp wit, and apparent alignment with Reformed traditions have made him a compelling figure. But I must speak plainly: Doug Wilson’s theology, particularly as expressed through his involvement in the Federal Vision movement, is not only erroneous but deeply dangerous. My hope is that this earnest appeal will help those under his influence reconsider his teachings in light of Scripture and the historic Reformed faith.

Doug Wilson’s errors are not minor disagreements over the color of the ecclesiastical wallpaper but foundational departures from the bedrock truths of the Gospel. His teachings—and, let’s be honest, his entire rhetorical empire—are riddled with the kind of errors that would make the Apostle Paul reach for his quill to pen a new letter to the Galatians.

My intent here is not to attack Doug Wilson as a person but to address the serious theological errors he promotes. I know, as you will see, many individuals that admire Wilson and do so because they love the church and want to see it flourish. But, I ask that you consider whether the theology you are embracing through Wilson’s teaching aligns with the Gospel that has been faithfully proclaimed through the ages—a Gospel that centers on Christ’s finished work and excludes our own works entirely from the equation of justification.

The Dangerous Allure of Doug Wilson’s Style

Let us begin by acknowledging what draws people to Wilson. He writes and speaks with the kind of confidence that could sell ice to Eskimos or convince you that “monocovenantalism” is an actual word worth using in polite company. For some, Wilson’s sharp wit and penchant for rhetorical acrobatics are compelling. Others find his swaggering confidence, cloaked in pseudo-reformed terminology, a refreshing antidote to the lukewarmness they perceive in the church today.

But here is the problem: Wilson’s pontifical style often cloaks theological errors in a veneer of intellectual credibility. His writings are peppered with high-sounding terms, obscure references, and a veritable thesaurus of ecclesiastical jargon. While these may impress the casual reader, they often obscure the fact that his arguments rest on faulty exegesis, misrepresentations of Reformed theology, and a subtle but insidious works-based understanding of salvation. It is as if Wilson thinks that if he can obscure the issue with enough clever wordplay, no one will notice the theological shipwreck beneath the surface

My Personal Encounter with Wilson’s Influence

Before I read a single book by Doug Wilson or one of his critics, before I watched hours of YouTube content dissecting his ministry or critiquing his theology, I had already encountered Wilson’s influence firsthand. My opinions about Wilson’s theology and its practical consequences did not form in a vacuum or merely from reading the well-documented critiques of others. They are rooted in my personal experience—observations and interactions spanning decades—that gave me a front-row seat to the effects of Wilson’s teachings on individuals, families, and churches. These experiences not only shaped my views but also gave me the conviction to write this article, hoping to reach those who are under Wilson’s sway or considering following his path.

Witnessing Wilson’s Influence in Churches

More than 25 years ago, I was there at the birth of a church that would later join Wilson’s Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). This church was born out of a split from a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation, largely due to disagreements about the nature and meaning of baptism. At the time, the Federal Vision movement and the New Perspective on Paul were simmering just below the surface, and this church’s direction foreshadowed what would later become the hallmark of Wilson’s theological distinctives. I saw these doctrinal debates fragment a faithful congregation, leaving lasting wounds in its wake.

Since then, I have attended many CREC services, weddings, and other events. In service after service, I observed what can only be described as a profound lack of the Gospel message. Sermons—if they can even be called that—were not expositions of God’s Word or proclamations of the grace of Christ but rather moralistic lessons or “how-to” guides for Christian living. It felt more like a lecture on rule-following than the life-giving message of salvation through faith in Christ alone.

At weddings and other gatherings, I saw the outward culture Wilson’s theology fosters. The attendees often reveled in what they saw as their “Christian freedom,” smoking cigars and drinking with a self-satisfaction that bordered on performative. While there is nothing inherently wrong with either activity, their exuberance seemed less about enjoying the good gifts of God and more about a show of defiance against perceived legalism. It reflected a culture more concerned with asserting their identity and independence than pointing to the sufficiency of Christ.

Personal Interactions and Relationships

Over the years, I have interacted with Doug Wilson—though I doubt he would remember me—and I have heard him preach in person. I have also interacted with other CREC leaders and read their writings. What struck me in these encounters was a consistent pattern: the theology they espoused seemed to lack clarity and depth, substituting moralism and cultural engagement for the simple and transformative message of the Gospel.

I have also watched the long-term effects of Wilson’s teachings on individuals and families. My wife and I know members who remain active in CREC churches, and I have seen their children grow up under this influence. Some have embraced Wilson’s vision with zeal, but others have left disillusioned, grappling with spiritual confusion and a faith shaped more by cultural battles than by the person of Christ. Friends of ours have sent their children to Wilson’s New Saint Andrews College in Idaho, and I have seen firsthand the extremes of homeschooling materials and the ideological rigidity that often accompanies his educational approach.

The Broader Consequences

From civic and political engagement to family dynamics and theological beliefs, I have watched how Wilson’s teachings play out in real life. My observations have not been isolated incidents; they have been consistent over time and across contexts. The fruit of Wilson’s theology, as I have seen it, is not the freedom and assurance of the Gospel but a heavy yoke of rule-keeping, an identity rooted in cultural distinctiveness, and an emphasis on external performance.

Why This Matters

This is not a theoretical debate or a mere squabble over theological terminology. The doctrine of justification by faith alone lies at the heart of the Gospel. It is this truth that sets us free—free from the condemnation of the law, free from striving to earn God’s favor, and free to live joyfully and securely in the grace of Christ. When this doctrine is compromised, the Gospel itself is compromised.

Doug Wilson’s theology places believers on a treadmill of performance, where their standing before God is tied to their faithfulness rather than resting entirely on Christ’s righteousness. This creates an environment where assurance is elusive, joy is stifled, and the focus shifts from Christ’s sufficiency to our insufficiency. I have seen firsthand the spiritual damage this theology causes—believers who are unsure of their salvation, burdened by guilt, and endlessly questioning whether they have done enough to remain in God’s covenant.

The Subtle Danger of Wilson’s Influence

One of the reasons Wilson’s teachings are so dangerous is because they are subtle. He uses the language of orthodoxy, quoting from Reformed confessions and emphasizing the importance of obedience and holiness. On the surface, this sounds commendable. After all, who would argue against the necessity of living a godly life? But the danger lies in how he redefines key theological terms. For Wilson, saving faith is not merely trust in Christ’s work; it is faithfulness to the covenant, a concept that inevitably includes our works. This is not the Gospel of grace as taught by Paul, Augustine, Luther, or Calvin. It is a hybrid theology that smuggles works into the equation of justification.

Wilson’s ability to use orthodox language while promoting heterodox ideas has confused many sincere Christians. He is skilled at creating a veneer of biblical fidelity while undermining the very doctrines that are foundational to the Christian faith. This is why it is so crucial to carefully evaluate his teachings, not just by what he claims to affirm but by what he subtly denies.

Dear brothers and sisters, the Gospel is too precious to be muddled by the likes of Doug Wilson and his Federal Vision. Do not trade the glorious freedom of justification by faith alone for a system that leaves you in fear and doubt. Hold fast to Christ, who declared from the cross, “It is finished.”

My prayer is that this appeal will encourage you to cling to the pure Gospel that proclaims, “It is finished.” Christ has done everything necessary for your salvation. Your works—no matter how sincere—can add nothing to what He has accomplished. Rest in that truth, and let nothing steal your joy in the all-sufficient grace of our Savior.

In the following sections, I will explore the specific theological errors in Doug Wilson’s teachings, showing how they deviate from the Gospel and lead believers into confusion and despair. My hope is that this will provide clarity and encouragement to those seeking to understand the truth. Let us press on together, standing firm in the faith once delivered to the saints.

Nothing I say here is a novelty. All of this has been said by concerned Christians before in books, articles, conferences, and videos that I have consumed. I can only hope that my articulation of them and my personal experience touches someone that may not have had the opportunity to hear these concerns before.

Part I: The Core Issues with Federal Vision Theology

Doug Wilson’s theology, particularly as it aligns with the Federal Vision movement, is troubling not because it denies the importance of faith or obedience but because it distorts their proper relationship. The danger lies in the subtle way his teaching reshapes key doctrines, giving the appearance of fidelity to the Gospel while introducing elements that undermine its core truths. I will address the primary theological errors in Wilson’s teachings: his redefinition of saving faith, his implicit endorsement of justification by works, and his mishandling of key biblical texts.

A. Redefinition of Saving Faith

At the heart of Doug Wilson’s theology is a fundamental misunderstanding of what saving faith is. Wilson affirms justification by faith alone, but the faith he describes is not the biblical faith that looks solely to Christ. Instead, he defines faith as something that inherently includes obedience and works. He often uses the term “living faith” to emphasize this connection, but what he means by this phrase departs from the historic Reformed understanding.

Saving faith, as taught in Scripture, is trust in Christ alone for salvation. It is a resting in His finished work, entirely apart from our own efforts. Faith is the means by which we receive the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by grace. It is distinct from the works that flow from it. However, Wilson blends faith and works into a single concept, making obedience part of what faith is rather than a fruit that flows from it. This subtle redefinition is profoundly dangerous because it shifts the focus from Christ’s sufficiency to the believer’s performance.

Wilson’s theology burdens believers with the question: “Have I been faithful enough?” By making obedience part of saving faith, he leads people to look inward, to their own works, for assurance. This directly contradicts the biblical teaching that faith and works, though inseparable in the life of a believer, must never be conflated in the doctrine of justification. True saving faith is the empty hand that receives Christ; it is not the hand that labors to prove itself worthy.

B. Justification by Works in Disguise

One of the most alarming aspects of Wilson’s theology is his implicit endorsement of justification by works. To be clear, Wilson does not openly deny justification by faith alone, but he redefines it in such a way that works are included within faith. This is not justification by faith alone as understood by Paul or the historic Reformed confessions. It is a subtle repackaging of the Galatian heresy.

In Galatians, Paul confronts those who sought to add works to faith as a means of justification. He warns that even a small addition of works nullifies the Gospel: “If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing” (Galatians 2:21). Yet Wilson’s theology makes works—specifically “covenant faithfulness”—a necessary condition for justification. He draws a distinction between different types of works, excluding what he calls “rabbinical works” or “medieval merit theology,” while including other works as essential to faith. This distinction is foreign to Scripture, which categorically excludes all works from justification.

By redefining faith to include works, Wilson effectively makes justification dependent on the believer’s faithfulness. This creates a system where assurance is tied to performance, leading to the very kind of anxiety Paul sought to eradicate in Galatians. The freedom of the Gospel is replaced with the bondage of a works-based system, dressed up in Reformed language but devoid of its liberating truth.

C. Misinterpretation of Key Biblical Passages

Wilson’s theology hinges on his interpretation of certain biblical passages, particularly James 2 and Galatians 5:6. However, his handling of these texts reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of their context and meaning.

James 2:24: “Faith without works is dead”
Wilson often cites James 2:24 to argue that faith inherently includes works. He claims that James teaches justification by works in addition to faith, but this interpretation fails to consider the broader context of Scripture. James is not addressing the basis of our justification before God but the evidence of genuine faith. Paul and James are not at odds; they are addressing different issues. Paul emphasizes that we are justified by faith apart from works (Romans 4:5), while James emphasizes that true faith produces works as its fruit. Wilson’s interpretation collapses this distinction, turning works into a contributing factor to justification.

Galatians 5:6: “Faith working through love”
Another favorite passage of Wilson’s is Galatians 5:6, where Paul speaks of faith working through love. Wilson interprets this as evidence that faith and works are inseparable, but he goes further to argue that works are part of what faith is. This misinterpretation stems from a failure to understand the literary device Paul is using. Faith working through love does not mean faith is works; it means that true faith, once granted, results in a transformed life characterized by love and obedience. Wilson absolutizes this phrase, using it to justify his blending of faith and works in a way that Scripture does not.

Romans 4:4-5: “Not by works, but by faith”
Wilson’s theology is also incompatible with Paul’s teaching in Romans 4, where Abraham’s justification is explicitly tied to his faith, apart from works. Paul argues that justification comes before any act of obedience, as evidenced by Abraham’s justification prior to his circumcision. Wilson’s claim that works are “organically connected” to faith directly contradicts Paul’s clear teaching that faith and works are mutually exclusive in the doctrine of justification.

In summary, Doug Wilson’s theology presents a distorted view of saving faith and justification, one that subtly reintroduces works into the Gospel equation. By redefining faith to include obedience, Wilson undermines the assurance and freedom that come from trusting in Christ’s finished work alone. His misinterpretation of Scripture further confuses believers, leading them to rely on their own performance rather than resting securely in the grace of God.

These errors are not minor differences in emphasis or perspective; they strike at the very heart of the Gospel. A Gospel that is even slightly dependent on our works is no Gospel at all.

Part II: Wilson’s Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology

Doug Wilson’s theology is not only problematic in its teaching on faith and justification but also in its views on the church and sacraments. His ecclesiology and sacramental theology blur important distinctions and lead to confusion about the nature of salvation and the role of the church. These errors are closely tied to the Federal Vision movement’s emphasis on covenantalism, which redefines the relationship between the believer, the church, and salvation. Here I will address two significant areas of concern: Wilson’s conflation of the church and salvation and his sacramental theology, which bears troubling similarities to Roman Catholicism.

A. Conflation of the Church and Salvation

Doug Wilson’s ecclesiology effectively equates membership in the visible church with salvation. He teaches that baptism places an individual into covenant with God, which he equates with union with Christ. This view leads to the conclusion that being “in covenant” grants all the benefits of salvation, including justification and sanctification. While Wilson allows for the possibility of apostasy, where a covenant member falls away and is ultimately lost, his theology suggests that salvation is contingent on remaining faithful to the covenant. This creates a framework where salvation is tied to one’s relationship to the visible church and one’s covenant faithfulness within it.

Monocovenantalism: A Distortion of Biblical Covenants
A key issue underlying Wilson’s ecclesiology is his monocovenantal framework, which treats the entire Bible as a single, overarching covenant. This approach collapses the distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, as well as the distinction between law and gospel. In Wilson’s system, law and gospel are blended together under the banner of “covenant faithfulness.” The result is a theology where obedience to God’s commands is seen as part of what it means to be “faithful” to the covenant, rather than a response to the grace of the gospel.

This blending of law and gospel is not only unbiblical but pastorally harmful. By failing to distinguish between God’s demands under the law and His promises in the gospel, Wilson leaves believers unsure of their standing before God. This confusion is reflected in the language of those influenced by his theology: “Have I been faithful enough to the covenant?” The emphasis shifts from trusting in Christ’s finished work to evaluating one’s own faithfulness—a subtle but devastating distortion of the Gospel.

Union with Christ Misapplied
Wilson’s theology also redefines what it means to be united to Christ. In traditional Reformed theology, union with Christ is a spiritual reality accomplished by the Holy Spirit, whereby believers are joined to Christ in His death, resurrection, and life. It is the basis for justification, sanctification, and glorification, and it is inseparable from saving faith. However, Wilson ties union with Christ directly to participation in the visible church and its sacraments. By doing so, he implies that those who are baptized into the church are, by definition, united to Christ and recipients of all the blessings of salvation.

This view undermines the biblical distinction between the visible and invisible church. While the visible church includes all who profess faith and their children, the invisible church consists of the elect—those who truly believe and are saved. Wilson collapses this distinction, creating a theology where outward participation in the church is equated with inward spiritual realities. This not only misrepresents Scripture but also leads to a false assurance for some and unnecessary anxiety for others.

B. Sacramental Theology: A Step Toward Sacerdotalism

Doug Wilson’s sacramental theology amplifies the problems in his ecclesiology by attributing a level of efficacy to the sacraments that borders on Roman Catholic sacramentalism. While he does not fully embrace the doctrine of ex opere operato (the idea that sacraments confer grace automatically by the act itself), his teachings come dangerously close to this view. In Wilson’s theology, the sacraments are not merely signs and seals of God’s promises but are viewed as instrumental in conveying salvation.

Baptism as Covenant Entrance and Union with Christ
For Wilson, baptism is more than a sign of God’s covenantal promises; it is the means by which a person is brought into covenant with God and united to Christ. He argues that baptism confers all the blessings of salvation, including justification, sanctification, and adoption, upon the baptized individual. While he acknowledges that some baptized individuals may fall away through covenant unfaithfulness, his teaching implies that baptism is salvific in itself for those who remain faithful.

This view raises significant theological concerns. Scripture teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, not by any external act or ritual. Baptism is a means of grace, but it is not the means by which salvation is conferred. Wilson’s theology not only misrepresents the role of baptism but also undermines the sufficiency of faith as the sole instrument of justification.

The Lord’s Supper and Efficacy
Similarly, Wilson’s view of the Lord’s Supper leans toward a sacramentalism that attributes objective efficacy to the sacrament. He suggests that the Supper is not only a means of sanctification but also plays a role in maintaining one’s union with Christ. This shifts the focus from the believer’s faith in Christ’s finished work to their ongoing participation in the sacrament as a necessary element of covenant faithfulness.

While the Reformed tradition affirms the real spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, it does so in a way that emphasizes faith as the means by which believers receive its benefits. Wilson’s theology, by contrast, attributes a level of efficacy to the sacrament itself that confuses its role as a sign and seal of grace with the means of grace itself. This undermines the biblical teaching that salvation is wholly dependent on Christ’s work, received by faith alone.

C. Troubling Parallels with Roman Catholicism

One of the most concerning aspects of Wilson’s ecclesiology and sacramental theology is its similarity to Roman Catholic doctrines. While Wilson denies outright Roman Catholic positions, his teachings echo key elements of Catholic theology, such as the conflation of the church and salvation, the efficacy of sacraments, and the emphasis on covenant faithfulness as a condition for salvation.

Church as Mother and Mediator
Wilson’s view of the church bears striking resemblance to the Roman Catholic idea that salvation is mediated through the church. By equating union with Christ with membership in the visible church, Wilson effectively makes the church the arbiter of salvation. This diminishes the believer’s direct access to Christ through faith and places an undue emphasis on institutional participation.

Sacraments as Necessary for Salvation
Like Roman Catholic sacramental theology, Wilson’s teachings attribute salvific efficacy to the sacraments, particularly baptism. While he stops short of fully endorsing ex opere operato, his view leads to similar practical outcomes, where participation in the sacraments is seen as essential for salvation rather than an expression of the believer’s faith.

In summary, Doug Wilson’s ecclesiology and sacramental theology reveal a troubling departure from biblical and Reformed teaching. By conflating the visible church with salvation and attributing undue efficacy to the sacraments, Wilson creates a system that blurs the Gospel’s clarity and undermines assurance. His teachings resemble Roman Catholicism in their emphasis on institutional and sacramental means of grace, while failing to uphold the biblical distinctions that safeguard the Gospel.

The implications of these errors are significant. Believers are left unsure of their standing before God, focusing on their faithfulness to the covenant rather than resting in Christ’s finished work. The church becomes a mediator of salvation rather than a community of those already saved by grace. As before, my prayer is that those influenced by Wilson will see these errors for what they are and return to the simple, liberating truth of the Gospel: that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Part III: Wilson’s Contradictory and Inconsistent Claims

One of the most frustrating aspects of Doug Wilson’s theology is its contradictory and inconsistent nature. He frequently affirms orthodox doctrines in one breath while undermining them in the next. This inconsistency creates confusion among his followers and allows him to deflect criticism by claiming his detractors misunderstand him. Wilson’s contradictions play out in his claims about justification, saving faith, and the nature of works. These inconsistencies make his theology not only problematic but also pastorally harmful.

A. Affirmation of “Justification by Faith Alone” (But Not Really)

One of Wilson’s most glaring contradictions is his repeated affirmation of “justification by faith alone” while simultaneously redefining faith to include works. He uses the language of orthodoxy to cloak a heterodox system, and this linguistic sleight of hand is as clever as it is dangerous.

Semantic Games: Faith Redefined
Wilson insists that he believes in justification by faith alone, but when pressed, he redefines faith to include obedience. For Wilson, faith is not merely resting on Christ’s finished work but includes the sinner’s works of covenant faithfulness. This is not faith as Scripture defines it; it is a hybrid of faith and works.

Imagine a person claiming to adhere to a gluten-free diet while openly munching on a bagel and declaring, “Well, this isn’t technically gluten, because I’ve redefined gluten to mean something else.” This is the kind of wordplay Wilson engages in with the doctrine of justification. He affirms the words of orthodoxy but empties them of their biblical meaning.

A Distinction Without a Difference
Wilson frequently attempts to mollify critics by insisting that the works he includes in faith are not “meritorious” or “Pelagian.” He excludes what he calls “rabbinical works” or “medieval merit theology,” but he still includes the sinner’s obedience as part of what justifies. This is a distinction without a difference. Paul’s condemnation of works in justification does not carve out exceptions for certain kinds of works. When Paul says we are justified by faith apart from works (Romans 3:28), he means all works—not just a particular subset.

Wilson’s approach amounts to saying, “We are justified by faith alone, but faith includes works, so we are justified by works—but don’t worry, they’re the right kind of works.” This is the kind of theological doublespeak that confuses believers and undermines the clarity of the Gospel.

B. Rejection of Historic Reformed Theology

Wilson’s contradictions extend beyond his redefinition of faith to a broader rejection of historic Reformed theology. While he claims to uphold the Westminster Confession of Faith, his teachings consistently depart from its plain meaning.

Denial of Key Distinctions
Wilson rejects the historic Reformed distinction between law and Gospel, a distinction that is essential for understanding the biblical doctrine of justification. The law demands perfect obedience, while the Gospel offers the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ. Wilson collapses these categories, treating the entire Bible as a single “covenantal” framework that blends law and Gospel into an indistinguishable whole.

This denial has profound implications. If there is no distinction between law and Gospel, then the law’s demands are no longer fulfilled in Christ alone but are placed back on the believer. This leads directly to the kind of works-based theology that Wilson promotes under the guise of covenant faithfulness.

Misrepresentation of Reformed Theology
Wilson often caricatures historic Reformed theology as “cheap grace” or “easy believism.” He portrays the traditional view of justification as a kind of transactional event that has no bearing on the believer’s ongoing life. This is a gross misrepresentation. The Reformed tradition has always taught that saving faith is accompanied by good works as its fruit and evidence. What it denies—and what Wilson refuses to accept—is that these works play any role in our justification.

By attacking a strawman version of Reformed theology, Wilson creates a false dichotomy. He positions his Federal Vision theology as the only alternative to what he portrays as a shallow, lifeless version of the Gospel. This tactic may be rhetorically effective, but it is deeply dishonest and profoundly misleading.

C. The Danger of Doctrinal Fog

The contradictions and inconsistencies in Wilson’s theology create a doctrinal fog that leaves his followers confused and vulnerable. His rhetorical skill allows him to appear orthodox to those who are not paying close attention, but a closer examination reveals a theology that is anything but consistent.

Obfuscation Through Rhetoric
Wilson’s writing is often intentionally ambiguous. He uses clever turns of phrase and high-sounding jargon to obscure the real issues. For example, he speaks of justification as being “organically connected” to works, a phrase that sounds sophisticated but is ultimately meaningless. What does it mean for works to be “organically connected” to faith? Is this connection causal, evidential, or something else entirely? Wilson never clarifies, and this lack of clarity allows him to avoid accountability for his errors.

His fondness for literary flourish often masks the fact that his arguments are internally inconsistent. He can affirm justification by faith alone in one breath and undermine it in the next, leaving his readers unsure of where he truly stands. This is not the kind of theological clarity that the church needs; it is a recipe for confusion and division.

Fellow Christians, do not be taken in by Wilson’s clever words and sharp wit. His contradictions are not harmless; they reveal the fundamental instability of his theology and its departure from the truth of Scripture. The Gospel is not a confusing maze of covenantal performance and theological word games. It is the simple and glorious truth that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Hold fast to that truth and reject the errors of Doug Wilson and his Federal Vision.

Part IV: The Spiritual and Pastoral Implications

Doug Wilson’s theology, while couched in intellectual rigor and Reformed vocabulary, carries significant spiritual and pastoral consequences for those under its influence. Theology is not just abstract—it affects how we relate to God, understand our salvation, and live out our faith. Wilson’s teachings on faith, justification, and the church create a spiritual atmosphere of confusion, anxiety, and misplaced focus.

A. Confusion and Division in the Church

Wilson’s theology does not merely burden individual believers; it also sows confusion and division in the broader church. His rhetoric, while clever, often obscures the real issues at stake, leading to misunderstanding and conflict.

Theological Confusion
One of the most common effects of Wilson’s teaching is theological confusion. His redefinition of key terms like faith, justification, and covenant faithfulness creates a doctrinal fog that leaves believers uncertain about the basics of the Gospel.

For example, Wilson’s conflation of faith and works leads to endless debates about what faith actually is. Is it trust in Christ alone, or does it include obedience? Is justification a one-time declaration, or is it contingent on ongoing faithfulness? These are not minor academic questions; they strike at the heart of the Gospel. Wilson’s theology muddies the waters, making it harder for believers to understand and articulate the good news of salvation.

Division in the Church
Wilson’s teachings have also caused significant division within Reformed circles. By presenting his Federal Vision theology as a legitimate expression of Reformed faith, Wilson has forced churches and denominations to spend time and energy refuting his errors. This has not only diverted resources from more constructive endeavors but has also created rifts among believers.

Wilson’s ability to attract a following with his sharp wit and rhetorical flair has made him a polarizing figure. Some see him as a champion of Reformed theology, while others recognize him as a dangerous subverter of it. This division weakens the church and distracts from its mission to proclaim the Gospel.

B. The Subtle Shift Toward Legalism

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of Wilson’s theology is how it subtly shifts the emphasis of the Christian life from grace to law. While Wilson would deny being a legalist, his teachings place such a heavy emphasis on covenant faithfulness that they inevitably lead to a works-based mindset. This is not the explicit legalism of Pharisaical rule-keeping, but a more subtle form that ties salvation to the believer’s ongoing performance.

Legalism in Disguise
Legalism does not always present itself as a rigid list of rules. It often disguises itself in spiritual-sounding language about obedience and faithfulness. Wilson’s theology, by making obedience part of saving faith, creates a system where the believer’s works are inextricably tied to their salvation. This is legalism by another name, and it undermines the very grace it claims to uphold.

The Loss of Gospel Freedom
One of the great truths of the Gospel is that Christ has fulfilled the law on our behalf, freeing us from its demands and penalties. Wilson’s theology, by emphasizing covenant faithfulness, reintroduces the law as a condition for salvation. This leads to a loss of the freedom and joy that come from knowing we are fully accepted by God through Christ’s righteousness alone.

The spiritual and pastoral implications of Doug Wilson’s theology are profound and deeply troubling. By redefining faith to include works, he places an unbearable burden on believers, robbing them of assurance and replacing joyful obedience with fear-driven performance. His teachings sow confusion within the church, making it harder to proclaim the Gospel with clarity and unity. Most alarmingly, his theology subtly shifts the focus from Christ’s sufficiency to the believer’s own efforts, leading to a form of legalism that undermines the very essence of the Gospel.

Part V: Call to Return to Biblical and Reformed Orthodoxy

Having examined the theological errors and spiritual consequences of Doug Wilson’s teachings, I want to end with an earnest plea to return to the pure, liberating truth of the Gospel as revealed in Scripture and upheld by the historic Reformed faith. This is not merely an intellectual exercise or a call to embrace a particular theological tradition—it is an appeal to cling to the simple and life-giving truth that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The stakes are eternal, and the clarity of the Gospel is worth defending at all costs.

A. Affirmation of the Gospel of Grace

At the heart of the Reformed tradition is a glorious truth: God saves sinners by His grace, apart from anything they do. This is the Gospel that sets captives free, brings peace to weary souls, and glorifies Christ as the all-sufficient Savior. It is this Gospel that Doug Wilson’s theology obscures, and it is this Gospel to which we must return.

Faith Alone in Christ Alone
The doctrine of justification by faith alone is not a mere slogan; it is the heart of the Christian faith. When Paul declares in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast,” he is making an unambiguous statement about the nature of salvation. It is entirely a work of God, received through faith, without any contribution from our works.

Restoration of Assurance
One of the greatest blessings of the Gospel is the assurance it provides. Because salvation depends entirely on Christ’s work, believers can have full confidence that they are secure in Him. This assurance is not presumption; it is faith in the promises of God, who does not lie (Titus 1:2).

Wilson’s theology, with its emphasis on covenant faithfulness, robs believers of this assurance. By making salvation contingent on ongoing performance, it shifts the focus from Christ’s sufficiency to the believer’s insufficiency. Returning to the Gospel means reclaiming the joy and peace that come from knowing we are saved by grace, not by works.

In Christ, we have peace with God (Romans 5:1), and nothing—not even our own failures—can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38-39). This is the assurance that the Gospel offers, and it is the assurance we must proclaim.

B. Rejection of Federal Vision Theology

The Federal Vision, as articulated by Doug Wilson and others, is not a renewal or improvement of the Reformed faith but a departure from it. It introduces a hybrid theology that blurs the Gospel’s clarity and leads believers into confusion and despair. Rejecting Federal Vision theology is not an act of division but an act of faithfulness to the truth.

Exposing Its Errors
To reject Federal Vision theology, we must first understand its errors. These include the redefinition of saving faith to include works, the conflation of justification and sanctification, and the blurring of law and gospel. These errors strike at the heart of the Gospel and must be confronted with Scripture.

Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:6-9 is as relevant today as it was in his time: “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” This is not a call for hostility but for vigilance in defending the truth. The Federal Vision presents a gospel that is contrary to the one revealed in Scripture, and it must be rejected for the sake of Christ and His church.

Encouragement to Leave Wilson’s Teachings
For those under Doug Wilson’s influence, this may be a difficult step. Wilson’s writings and teachings are compelling and often laced with enough orthodoxy to sound convincing. But when examined in light of Scripture, his theology falls short of the Gospel. My encouragement is to seek out faithful Reformed teaching that upholds the biblical Gospel without compromise.

Resources such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin, and the works of contemporary Reformed theologians can provide clarity and guidance. Engage with Scripture itself, allowing the Spirit to reveal the simple and powerful truth of the Gospel.

C. Standing Firm in the Faith

The call to return to biblical and Reformed orthodoxy is not just about rejecting error but about standing firm in the truth. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). It is worth fighting for, worth proclaiming, and worth living for.

Cling to Christ Alone
At the end of the day, the Christian life is about Christ. He is our righteousness, our sanctification, and our redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30). To return to the Gospel is to fix our eyes on Him, to trust in His finished work, and to rest in His promises. It is to say with Paul, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21).

Proclaim the True Gospel
As believers, we are called to be ambassadors for Christ, proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation to a world in need (2 Corinthians 5:20). This means not only sharing the good news with unbelievers but also defending it against distortion within the church. By standing firm in the faith, we uphold the truth of the Gospel for future generations.

The call to return to biblical and Reformed orthodoxy is a call to embrace the Gospel in all its beauty and simplicity. It is a call to reject the errors of Doug Wilson’s theology and the Federal Vision, which distort the truth and burden believers with confusion and doubt.

Part VI: Conclusion

Fellow Christians, this is not merely an academic exercise or a theological debate for its own sake. The stakes are high, and the consequences are eternal. The errors of Wilson and the Federal Vision are not minor missteps; they are fundamental departures from the truth of Scripture. And yet, the Gospel itself shines brighter in contrast to these errors, offering clarity, freedom, and assurance to all who embrace it.

B. Hope for Unity in the True Gospel

One of the most painful consequences of Wilson’s theology is the division it has caused among believers. The body of Christ is called to unity, but this unity must be grounded in the truth of the Gospel. False unity based on theological compromise does not honor God or serve His church. True unity comes when we rally around the unchanging truths of Scripture and the historic confessions of the faith.

The Reformed tradition, with its emphasis on the sovereignty of God, the sufficiency of Christ, and the authority of Scripture, provides a firm foundation for this unity. By rejecting the errors of the Federal Vision and returning to biblical orthodoxy, we can find common ground in the Gospel that has been faithfully proclaimed for centuries. My hope is that this unity will not only strengthen the church but also serve as a powerful witness to the world.

C. Final Encouragement

Dear friends, the Gospel is a message of freedom, not bondage. It is a message of assurance, not uncertainty. In Christ, we are justified by faith alone, apart from works. Our salvation does not rest on our covenant faithfulness but on His perfect faithfulness. His work is finished, His promises are sure, and His love is unshakable.

Hold fast to this Gospel. Do not be swayed by the clever words or rhetorical flair of those who would distort it. Stand firm in the truth, and do not allow the errors of Doug Wilson and the Federal Vision to lead you astray. The Gospel is too precious, too glorious, and too essential to be compromised.

Let us rejoice in the freedom we have in Christ. Let us rest in the assurance that comes from knowing that our salvation is secure in Him. And let us proclaim this Gospel with boldness and clarity, pointing others to the One who has done it all.

To Christ alone be the glory, now and forever. Amen.

Note on the Origins and Construction of this Essay

This essay is the product of years of personal experience, reflection, and study, combined with insights and resources that have helped me articulate my concerns about Doug Wilson’s theology. It draws from my personal interactions with members of Wilson’s denomination, my past involvement in a CREC church, and decades of witnessing the theological and practical consequences of his teachings. A special thanks is due to Pastor Patrick Hines and his YouTube channel, whose videos, most notably “Doug Wilson’s False Doctrine of Saving Faith” https://youtu.be/ZUugJZ4owAU?si=lokwePkUpwlQijjw, provided inspiration for several aspects of the content and confirmed many of my observations. The essay incorporates my own extensive notes and observations. Additionally, the essay benefited from the organizational and copy-editing capabilities of GPT-4o, which helped refine my writing into its final form.

While I have sought to ensure accuracy and fairness throughout, any errors of fact or interpretation are entirely my own. I welcome corrections and constructive feedback from readers who can point out inaccuracies or provide further clarity. My aim is to encourage thoughtful examination of these important theological issues for the good of the church and the glory of Christ.

Works used and/or recommended

Beisner, E. C. (Ed.). (2004). The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision. Knox Theological Seminary.

Berkhout, J., & Van Dyken, D. (2004). The federal vision: Heresy at the root. Reformed Fellowship.

Clark, R. S. (2007). Covenant, justification, and pastoral ministry: Essays by the faculty of Westminster Seminary California. P&R Publishing.

Clark, R. S. (2008). A contemporary reformed defense of infant baptism. P&R Publishing.

Estelle, B. D., Fesko, J. V., & VanDrunen, D. (Eds.). (2009). The law is not of faith: Essays on works and grace in the Mosaic covenant. P&R Publishing.

Piper, J., & Wright, N. T. (2009). The future of justification: A response to N.T. Wright. Crossway Books.

Waters, G. P. (2004). The federal vision and covenant theology: A comparative analysis. P&R Publishing.

Waters, G. P. (2006). Justification and the new perspectives on Paul: A review and response. P&R Publishing.

Denominational Reports:

Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (2006). Report on justification. Minutes of the Seventy-third General Assembly.

Presbyterian Church in America. (2007). Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies. 35th General Assembly.

Reformed Church in the United States. (2007). A report on justification. Synod of the Reformed Church.

Journal Articles:

Bredenhof, W. (2011). The federal vision: A Canadian reformed pastor’s perspective. Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, 61 (2), 3-20.

Fesko, J. V. (2012). The Federal Vision and the covenant of works. The Confessional Presbyterian, 8, 23-42.

Gordon, T. D. (2005). Promise, law, faith: Covenant-historical reasoning in Galatians. The Westminster Theological Journal, 67(2), 347-367.

Strange, A. (2007). Imputation of the active obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards. Confessional Presbyterian, 3, 108-132.

Venema, C. P. (2006). The mosaic covenant: A ‘republication’ of the covenant of works? Mid-America Journal of Theology, 17, 182-234.