 Richard Paul
“C ritical thinking is the ar t of thin king about thinking in an intellectually disciplined manner…they [critical thinkers] analyze thinking, they assess thinking, and they improve thinking (Paul, 2005) .”  "[The] baseline conception of critical thinking…is constituted of four interrelated components…ability to engage in reasoned discourse…reasoning operating in the context of intellectual standards…involving analytic inferential skills…[and] committed to a fundamental value orientation that includes certain traits and dispositions ( Paul, Elde r, & Bartell, 1997) .”  Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser . Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
 Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools by Richard Paul & Linda Elder The Miniature Guide to The Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org 707-878-9100 [email protected] For more information, see: The Miniature Guide to The Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org 707-878-9100 [email protected] Visual Map of Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model: https://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/about/criticalthinking/framework Related Papershalimah Farin According to Laws of The Republic Indonesia Number 12 in 2012 about Higher Education article 5, one of the main purposes of higher education is to promote the potentially development of students in order to be man of faith and fear of God Almighty and noble, healthy, knowledgeable, skilled, creative, independent, skilled, competent, and cultured for the sake of the nation. Therefore, the students of higher level should be promoted to have critical, reflective and analytical abilities. Although students at university levels should be able to develop this kind of thought, thinking critically is not simply acquired; it ought to be promoted and practiced constantly trough effective aids. A useful mean to foster critical thinking in this context is reading, and more specifically comprehension reading game " Brain Teasers ". Reading without comprehension is simply word calling. Effective comprehends not only make sense of the text, but are also able to use the information it contains. They are able to think thoughtfully or deeply and to make personal connections as they analyze and question what they are reading, hearing, and seeing. Studies showed that developing students' abilities to take critical literacy boldness when reading texts is an important aspect of literacy instruction. Interpreting texts through a critical literacy lens can help students become aware of the messages that texts communicate; who should receive privileges; and who has been or continues to be oppressed. As students learn how to engage in critical  Educational Philosophy and Theory Jennifer W Mulnix As a philosophy professor, one of my central goals is to teach students to think critically. However, one difficulty with determining whether critical thinking can be taught, or even measured, is that there is widespread disagreement over what critical thinking actually is. Here, I reflect on several conceptions of critical thinking, subjecting them to critical scrutiny. I also distinguish critical thinking from other forms of mental processes with which it is often conflated. Next, I present my own conception of critical thinking, wherein it fundamentally consists in acquiring, developing, and exercising the ability to grasp inferential connections holding between statements. Finally, given this account of critical thinking, and given recent studies in cognitive science, I suggest the most effective means for teaching students to think critically. Syeda Momina mehebub sahana Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Christine M Morgan Seyed Ehsan Afsahi , Akbar Afghari Critical thinking is an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualising, applying, analysing and evaluating information gathered from or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning or communication, as a guide to belief and action. To accomplish these critical thinking actions good language ability is crucial. Vygotsky revise great importance to the link between the development of language and critical thinking. This is a correlational research in which 30 MA Students of Azad University of Shiraz branch were selected as participants. California Critical thinking skills questionnaire was used to collect the data in this research. Results indicated that there is significant relationship between mother tongue and critical thinking level, but there is no significant relationship between age, gender and critical thinking level. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience ISSN 2067-3957 Academia EduSoft , Ali Taghinezhad This study was intended to investigate the effectiveness of teaching critical thinking on students' writing performance and their critical thinking dispositions. To this end, 140 students were selected. 73 students were assigned to the experimental group and 67 were assigned to the control group. The experimental group received instruction in critical thinking strategies whereas the control group did not. The instruments used in this study were the researcher-developed essay test, the Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test, and the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI). A 2-group pretest/posttest quasi-experimental design was utilized to determine the outcome measures. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent-samples t-test. Statistically significant differences were observed in the experimental and the control groups in the total scores of the three instruments. The results indicated an improvement in students' writing performance and their dispositions toward using critical thinking strategies. Nonetheless, some dispositional aspects such as truth-seeking, cognitive maturity, and open-mindedness did not differ significantly after the intervention. Jim Skypeck Wondifraw M I H R E T Dessie Dr. Punam Bansal ABSTRACT In today’s complex world, where human beings need to solve problems, make decisions, or decide in a reasonable and reflective way what to believe or what to do, critical thinking is found to be useful. Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities that can help citizens make sense of their world and participate in a democratic dialogue. To prepare such citizens with higher order thinking skills should be foremost priority of any education system. Therefore ,it is the responsibility of teachers to foster critical thinking skills of their students and switch over to constructivist methods so that students can construct their knowledge and apply it to solve real life problems. This paper is a modest attempt by author to suggest some useful practices in classroom to develop critical thinking skills. Loading Preview Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. RELATED PAPERSHamza Touzani Tracy Cooper, Ph.D. Adam Gyenes Internet Archive Audio
Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet. Mobile Apps
Browser ExtensionsArchive-it subscription.
Save Page NowCapture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future. Please enter a valid web address
The thinker's guide to the nature and functions of critical & creative thinkingBookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.
obscured text on back cover ![[WorldCat (this item)]](https://archive.org/images/worldcat-small.png "[WorldCat (this item)]") plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews140 Previews 14 Favorites Better World Books DOWNLOAD OPTIONSNo suitable files to display here. PDF access not available for this item. IN COLLECTIONSUploaded by station15.cebu on March 15, 2022 SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine Reading Room Dr. Richard Paul (1937–2015) — the founder and iconic force behind the Foundation for Critical Thinking — passed away on August 30, 2015 after a lengthy battle with Parkinson’s. Photo credit: Foundation for Critical Thinking The Passing of a Critical Thinking Giant: Richard Paul (1937–2015)by Greg Hart Since skeptics talk a lot about critical thinking it is important to note that the world of critical thinking lost a significant champion on August 30th 2015. After a lengthy battle with Parkinson’s disease Dr. Richard Paul passed away. Richard was the founder and iconic force behind the Foundation for Critical Thinking , headquartered in Sonoma County, California.  This is going to sound like a strange way to begin a tribute, but in the 15 years that I knew him, Richard never taught me a thing. And yet I learned so much. In fact, it would be difficult to adequately describe the profound effect he and his work have had on my life. This notion about the differences between teaching and learning is one of the things that I took from my work with Richard and the Foundation. It is not a minor contrast in mindset or approach—it affects everything. Learning is active, participative and rewards questioning. Perhaps most importantly, learning is how humans construct knowledge of the world. He saw the teacher as a coach to support learning and not an oracle of information to be pleased with predetermined correct answers. As he used to say, “If the coach is sweating, there is a problem.” It is the learner who should be doing the work. Many classrooms are unfortunately full of sweating teachers. So are conferences and other “learning” events. Dr. Paul saw critical thinking as a way of understanding thinking in general, applying standards to thinking, and where needed improving thinking. No one sets out to think poorly, of course, and yet we do. Critical thinking is an antidote to this problem. His conception of critical thinking was the most complete that I have encountered. Richard did not conceive of critical thinking as simply a tool for solving particular problems, but as a way of understanding and working on all of life with a purpose. That purpose was to make life better for the living. He felt that in order to achieve this purpose, critical thinking could not be divorced from ethics. In other words, it couldn’t just a be a set of tools that you practiced so that you could manipulate particular outcomes, but a way of thinking and living that leads to better lives for all of us. He called this “strong sense critical thinking”—it is strategic thinking in service of a life and not just in service of some tactical consideration.  Dr. Paul’s most enduring and important contribution will be the development of a model that allows for the systematic development of critical thinking skills. This is a keystone requirement for improving thinking on a population-wide basis. I have known many decent thinkers and some great ones, but two things were always troubling. What standards do we use to determine how good the thinking really is and, even if it turns out to be great, how do we teach others to adopt these habits? The model that he built contains three interlocking components:
Richard along with his wife of 20 years and chief collaborator, Dr. Linda Elder, authored many publications providing detailed support for the model, including a series of mini-guides that highlight particular issues in the model, along with barriers to the adoption of critical thinking. He didn’t invent the components of the model, but as Steve Jobs once said, “Creativity is just connecting things.” Jobs had a gift for seeing what was fundamental, for seeing the things that transcended the specifics or novelty of situations. Through their foundation, Richard and Linda offered an annual international conference in and around Sonoma and the Bay Area (that conference will continue). I was fortunate to give presentations at several of them. The conferences are very participative and require the practice of the model from the beginning of the event to the end. There are few conventional lectures, but I saw Dr. Paul give several excellent keynotes over the years. My favorite perhaps was the “Top Ten Ways to Impair Student Learning”—sadly, all ten were (and are!) in constant circulation in the public and private schools of North America and serve as a painful contrast to a critical thinking approach.  Richard was one of those people who loved what he did, so in that sense he never worked a day in his life. He also lived the ideals, practiced the model with discipline and conviction, while creating the space for others to do so as well. He modeled his program with patient listening, relevant and important questions, and a subtle but incisive and twinkling sense of humor. He wanted to help build more critical societies. According to the foundation’s obituary: Paul established the first Center for Critical Thinking worldwide in 1980 at Sonoma State University in Northern CA and established the Foundation for Critical Thinking in 1991, to support the work of the Center. The work of the Foundation for Critical Thinking is widely used in education, at all levels of instruction, where critical thinking is to be found. It is also advanced in the current Army Field Manual for all military leadership education in critical thinking. Due largely to Paul’s work and the theoretical foundations of critical thinking he developed over a lifetime, Paul revolutionized the way in which critical thinking is conceptualized in academia and in intellectual communities across the world. Paul wrote eight books and more than 200 articles on critical thinking, including his early seminal work on critical thinking published in 1992 entitled: Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World . Throughout his life, Paul wrote books for every grade level and developed extensive teaching tactics and strategies that advance critical thinking in instruction.  About the AuthorGreg Hart spends his time designing the invisible but powerful influences on behavior. He has a formal background in ergonomics and kinesiology. He can tell you exactly why sitting is one of the most dangerous things you could ever do. His work and research in ergonomics is fed by a fascination with the relationship between explicit and subconscious behaviour and how the effects are felt in the world — from offices to helicopters to muddy trenches and into Urban Ergonomics (how citizens interact with the built and natural environment of their cities and towns). He has published and presented on the impact of human nature on design, strategy and process. Greg is a lifelong student and advocate of critical thinking — he leads workshops and helps organizations embed the principles in the work they do. He lives in Calgary, Alberta. This article was published on October 14, 2015. One response to “The Passing of a Critical Thinking Giant: Richard Paul (1937–2015)”What are the “Top Ten Ways to Impair Student Learning”? I can’t find any reference to it on the web, not even at the Centre for Critical Thinking. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how Akismet processes your comment data . Comments are closed 45 days after an article is published. SKEPTIC AppWhether at home or on the go, the SKEPTIC App is the easiest way to read your favorite articles. Within the app, users can purchase the current issue and back issues. Download the app today and get a 30-day free trial subscription. 
Expeditions
  Start growing! Boost your life and career with the best book summaries. Home » Critical Thinking Summary Critical Thinking SummaryEmir Zecovic | Posted on October 4, 2017 | 4 min read ⌚ Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal LifeCritical thought has the power to change your life. Avoid being caught having negative sensations running around in your mind, try to transform your mindset and see the results! Who Should Read “Critical Thinking”? And Why?Overthinking is not an aspect of critical mentality; these two terms are not related. Overthinkers often have the habit to judge themselves only by their temporary situation. If you cannot adapt to the environmental uncertainty, you’ll end up depressed and lost. The world is one big change, don’t get involved in the thinking process without seeing the big picture. What matters is – how you lay down the foundation for success. “Critical Thinking” is a book which is prescribed for people who are brave and eager enough to explore the possibilities of today. About Dr. Richard W. Paul & Dr. Linda Elder “Critical Thinking Summary”Since the beginning, the world has always been subjected to change. No person can stop the evolution – referring to technological growth , inventiveness, and most importantly – nature. The complicity on the topic makes it even harder to forecast any modification which may appear at any time. Even if you try to hide and fight it, you’ll not be able to stop the process of transformation. Dangers, as well as possibilities, lurk around, no matter how you approach life. It is only a part of the game, environmental issues like the pollution have become the main threats to our community. Critical thinking is a new discipline that answers the question – How to improve my decision-making abilities in challenging circumstances? The problem appears when people take critical approach too seriously, like something they cannot imagine doing. In fact, your mindset is developed by you, don’t misuse the term by adopting a perspective by which the “ordinary” negative thinking mentality is much more easier to apply. Sure, it takes some time and effort to master the useful critical-thinking skills, but complaining aside, critical thinking is not harder than the uncritical one. Before you start making assumptions, examine the way your mind works . The analysis process refers to your “logic-center” which by some standards is a reflection of decision-making attitude. As the authors clarify, approach yourself with a dose of curiosity. Every person is probably thinking – I know myself, there is no need for this step. Nevertheless, the statistics have shown that the mistakes we made in our lives are a consequence of not knowing thyself. Open your heart to the possibility that you may have been wrong all along. Only a small portion willingly admit that they are not in a position to control the life-flow. Total control is not advisable either, even though we want it. Success and failures are only concepts, phenomena which float in our heads. Admirable thinkers do not rely on their outstanding skills; they use their intellectual virtues to answer critics. Just like any other human feature, the intellectual virtues are also interdependent sensations. The introduction covers the complexity of the today’s society by assessing the damage till now. The 21 st century conveys a strong liberal message which by some modern intellectuals is a fraud. They prescribe this phenomenon to the knee-jerk reactions and short-orientated thinking mentality. According to Richard W. Paul and Linda Elder, critical thinking assists people to cope with the changeableness of the digital life and become more comfortable making decisions. Its point extends far beyond the simple mastering of the uncertainty ; it reaches the gates of emotional and intellectual abilities. It is not easy to simply walk in people’s lives without an invitation, giving advice and waiting for them to receive it well. Igniting the fire is an individual privilege, encourage yourself to be one of those people who wake up every morning thinking how to improve. You probably know a lot of complainers, who blamed someone else – for their own life failures. Even if somebody else played its part to sabotage your promotion, for example, the real culprit is always you. Key Lessons from “Critical Thinking”1. Adopt long-term perspectives 2. Sociocentric point of view 3. Fight your deficiencies with the intellect Adopt long-term perspectivesSkillful thinkers place their hope in themselves. They don’t like being deceived, nor apply it to others, that is their strength. These people put their personal gain aside by focusing on learning and assessing skills. Sociocentric point of viewSociocentrism is a new term that stimulus the group rather than the individual. Egocentrism, for example, is a reflection of the capitalist rule, as a manager, you must handle this kind of situations by placing the team up front. Provide your organization with norms and principles on how to behave, to ensure that everyone follows your perspective. A group may refer to a nation, or some department – it doesn’t matter. Fight your deficiencies with the intellectStrategic thinking is a method which takes you one step further in the process of thinking. It helps you acknowledge the way you should see things. Before you start making conclusions, analyze the environment and yourself. Diagnose your imperfections and apply intellectual activities to defeat them. Like this summary? We’d Like to invite you to download our free 12 min app , for more amazing summaries and audiobooks. “Critical Thinking” Quotes Our Critical ReviewWith this in mind, we have no other choice than support the “Critical Thinking” claim on the significance of proper mind-approach . The book also outlines valuable skills and methods to be used in various situations. As such, this masterpiece is prescribed for all those people willing to learn the art of critical thinking.  Emir is the Head of Marketing at 12min . In his spare time, he loves to meditate and play soccer.  Improve Your Reading Habits in 28 days Explore key insights and ideas from 2500+ titles in audio and text Start Now for Free  Start learning at the speed of today's world.
Website language: What if you could read 3 books per day?3000+ book summaries await you for free on 12min.  Want to learn from the world’s best nonfiction books in just 12 minutes?
MoSCoW PrioritizationWhat is moscow prioritization. MoSCoW prioritization, also known as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a popular prioritization technique for managing requirements. The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the “W” in MoSCoW to mean “wish.” What is the History of the MoSCoW Method?Software development expert Dai Clegg created the MoSCoW method while working at Oracle. He designed the framework to help his team prioritize tasks during development work on product releases. You can find a detailed account of using MoSCoW prioritization in the Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) handbook . But because MoSCoW can prioritize tasks within any time-boxed project, teams have adapted the method for a broad range of uses. How Does MoSCoW Prioritization Work?Before running a MoSCoW analysis, a few things need to happen. First, key stakeholders and the product team need to get aligned on objectives and prioritization factors. Then, all participants must agree on which initiatives to prioritize. At this point, your team should also discuss how they will settle any disagreements in prioritization. If you can establish how to resolve disputes before they come up, you can help prevent those disagreements from holding up progress. Finally, you’ll also want to reach a consensus on what percentage of resources you’d like to allocate to each category. With the groundwork complete, you may begin determining which category is most appropriate for each initiative. But, first, let’s further break down each category in the MoSCoW method. Start prioritizing your roadmapMoscow prioritization categories.  1. Must-have initiativesAs the name suggests, this category consists of initiatives that are “musts” for your team. They represent non-negotiable needs for the project, product, or release in question. For example, if you’re releasing a healthcare application, a must-have initiative may be security functionalities that help maintain compliance. The “must-have” category requires the team to complete a mandatory task. If you’re unsure about whether something belongs in this category, ask yourself the following.  If the product won’t work without an initiative, or the release becomes useless without it, the initiative is most likely a “must-have.” 2. Should-have initiativesShould-have initiatives are just a step below must-haves. They are essential to the product, project, or release, but they are not vital. If left out, the product or project still functions. However, the initiatives may add significant value. “Should-have” initiatives are different from “must-have” initiatives in that they can get scheduled for a future release without impacting the current one. For example, performance improvements, minor bug fixes, or new functionality may be “should-have” initiatives. Without them, the product still works. 3. Could-have initiativesAnother way of describing “could-have” initiatives is nice-to-haves. “Could-have” initiatives are not necessary to the core function of the product. However, compared with “should-have” initiatives, they have a much smaller impact on the outcome if left out. So, initiatives placed in the “could-have” category are often the first to be deprioritized if a project in the “should-have” or “must-have” category ends up larger than expected. 4. Will not have (this time)One benefit of the MoSCoW method is that it places several initiatives in the “will-not-have” category. The category can manage expectations about what the team will not include in a specific release (or another timeframe you’re prioritizing). Placing initiatives in the “will-not-have” category is one way to help prevent scope creep . If initiatives are in this category, the team knows they are not a priority for this specific time frame. Some initiatives in the “will-not-have” group will be prioritized in the future, while others are not likely to happen. Some teams decide to differentiate between those by creating a subcategory within this group. How Can Development Teams Use MoSCoW?Although Dai Clegg developed the approach to help prioritize tasks around his team’s limited time, the MoSCoW method also works when a development team faces limitations other than time. For example: Prioritize based on budgetary constraints.What if a development team’s limiting factor is not a deadline but a tight budget imposed by the company? Working with the product managers, the team can use MoSCoW first to decide on the initiatives that represent must-haves and the should-haves. Then, using the development department’s budget as the guide, the team can figure out which items they can complete. Prioritize based on the team’s skillsets.A cross-functional product team might also find itself constrained by the experience and expertise of its developers. If the product roadmap calls for functionality the team does not have the skills to build, this limiting factor will play into scoring those items in their MoSCoW analysis. Prioritize based on competing needs at the company.Cross-functional teams can also find themselves constrained by other company priorities. The team wants to make progress on a new product release, but the executive staff has created tight deadlines for further releases in the same timeframe. In this case, the team can use MoSCoW to determine which aspects of their desired release represent must-haves and temporarily backlog everything else. What Are the Drawbacks of MoSCoW Prioritization?Although many product and development teams have prioritized MoSCoW, the approach has potential pitfalls. Here are a few examples. 1. An inconsistent scoring process can lead to tasks placed in the wrong categories.One common criticism against MoSCoW is that it does not include an objective methodology for ranking initiatives against each other. Your team will need to bring this methodology to your analysis. The MoSCoW approach works only to ensure that your team applies a consistent scoring system for all initiatives. Pro tip: One proven method is weighted scoring, where your team measures each initiative on your backlog against a standard set of cost and benefit criteria. You can use the weighted scoring approach in ProductPlan’s roadmap app . 2. Not including all relevant stakeholders can lead to items placed in the wrong categories.To know which of your team’s initiatives represent must-haves for your product and which are merely should-haves, you will need as much context as possible. For example, you might need someone from your sales team to let you know how important (or unimportant) prospective buyers view a proposed new feature. One pitfall of the MoSCoW method is that you could make poor decisions about where to slot each initiative unless your team receives input from all relevant stakeholders. 3. Team bias for (or against) initiatives can undermine MoSCoW’s effectiveness.Because MoSCoW does not include an objective scoring method, your team members can fall victim to their own opinions about certain initiatives. One risk of using MoSCoW prioritization is that a team can mistakenly think MoSCoW itself represents an objective way of measuring the items on their list. They discuss an initiative, agree that it is a “should have,” and move on to the next. But your team will also need an objective and consistent framework for ranking all initiatives. That is the only way to minimize your team’s biases in favor of items or against them. When Do You Use the MoSCoW Method for Prioritization?MoSCoW prioritization is effective for teams that want to include representatives from the whole organization in their process. You can capture a broader perspective by involving participants from various functional departments. Another reason you may want to use MoSCoW prioritization is it allows your team to determine how much effort goes into each category. Therefore, you can ensure you’re delivering a good variety of initiatives in each release. What Are Best Practices for Using MoSCoW Prioritization?If you’re considering giving MoSCoW prioritization a try, here are a few steps to keep in mind. Incorporating these into your process will help your team gain more value from the MoSCoW method. 1. Choose an objective ranking or scoring system.Remember, MoSCoW helps your team group items into the appropriate buckets—from must-have items down to your longer-term wish list. But MoSCoW itself doesn’t help you determine which item belongs in which category. You will need a separate ranking methodology. You can choose from many, such as:
For help finding the best scoring methodology for your team, check out ProductPlan’s article: 7 strategies to choose the best features for your product . 2. Seek input from all key stakeholders.To make sure you’re placing each initiative into the right bucket—must-have, should-have, could-have, or won’t-have—your team needs context. At the beginning of your MoSCoW method, your team should consider which stakeholders can provide valuable context and insights. Sales? Customer success? The executive staff? Product managers in another area of your business? Include them in your initiative scoring process if you think they can help you see opportunities or threats your team might miss. 3. Share your MoSCoW process across your organization.MoSCoW gives your team a tangible way to show your organization prioritizing initiatives for your products or projects. The method can help you build company-wide consensus for your work, or at least help you show stakeholders why you made the decisions you did. Communicating your team’s prioritization strategy also helps you set expectations across the business. When they see your methodology for choosing one initiative over another, stakeholders in other departments will understand that your team has thought through and weighed all decisions you’ve made. If any stakeholders have an issue with one of your decisions, they will understand that they can’t simply complain—they’ll need to present you with evidence to alter your course of action. Related Terms 2×2 prioritization matrix / Eisenhower matrix / DACI decision-making framework / ICE scoring model / RICE scoring model Prioritizing your roadmap using our guideTry productplan free for 14 days, share on mastodon. 
On Justification, Doug Wilson, and The Moscow Doctrine“What do you think about Doug Wilson?” is a question we receive often as pastors, and it’s sometimes hard to know exactly how to answer. He has a remarkable wit that he sometimes uses to defend biblical positions in a hostile society, which accounts for much of his appeal among conservative and Reformed-minded Christians. But we have deep concerns about his ministry practices and, even more importantly, the theology that stands behind those practices. 1 We are aware of accusations toward Doug Wilson’s church and ministries concerning improper uses of pastoral authority and mishandlings of abuse, however we are not in a position to speak knowledgeably on such matters. Therefore, we limit our critique to their stated theology. Kevin DeYoung has written an incisive critique of “the Moscow mood,” primarily addressing how the content coming out of Moscow, Idaho (the headquarters of Wilson’s ministry) falls short of the character and virtue revealed in Scripture, and taught and modeled by Christ. In this essay, we continue in this stream of brotherly critique by focusing on just one pillar of “the Moscow doctrine,” specifically Wilson’s problematic doctrine of faith and its relationship to justification. We draw attention to historical and theological points that have been too easily overlooked by many of Moscow’s recent and sometimes unsuspecting acolytes. At the heart of these serious errors is the understanding of faith’s relationship to justification as expressed by the Federal Vision (abbreviated FV), which bears several striking similarities to the doctrines of Richard Baxter (1615–1691). We conclude that Baxter’s doctrine is similar to the FV on justifying faith, that both reject the Reformed position on this issue, and that Wilson can rightly be considered neo-Baxterian on this point. Therefore, just as our confessional Baptists forefathers responded to Baxter’s errors, contemporary Baptists should respond firmly and decisively to Wilson’s similar errors. What’s the Big Deal with Federal Vision?It is beyond our purpose to recount the history of the FV movement. Dr. Steve Wellum has written a succinct summary . R. Scott Clark has helpfully cataloged a great deal of the FV discussion at his blog . Fuller treatments can be found in the PCA’s report and the URCNA’s report . But most relevant for this essay is the OPC’s report , which specifically examines the FV’s relation to the doctrine of justification. Now, what is the Federal Vision? It’s notoriously difficult to pin down, since the movement has splintered, and many self-proclaimed adherents differ from one another on various points of substantial weight. True to his brand, Wilson distinguished between “amber ale federal vision” (regeneration and justification cannot be lost) and “oatmeal stout federal vision” (regeneration and justification can be lost), and Wilson identified with the former. However, most Federal Visionists point to the Joint Federal Vision Statement from 2007 as a good summary of their affirmations and denials. Doug Wilson was an architect and signatory on this statement. However, in a 2017 blog post , Wilson distanced himself from the term “Federal Vision” while stating that he still affirms its teaching: “This statement represents a change in what I will call what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe.” Some mistakenly interpreted him to be recanting his FV position, but he wrote, “I would still want [ sic ] affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement.” Again, what is the Federal Vision? Perhaps we can boil the FV down to the “objectivity of the covenant,” “the objectivity of the visible church,” and “the efficacy of the sacraments.” These affirmations have far-reaching implications. The FV holds that all who are baptized are objectively part of the covenant of grace. The FV dark (oatmeal stout) teaches that baptism confers vital union with Christ along with all of his graces, including entry into “the regeneration” as well as justification unto life (without the imputation of Christ’s active obedience), which is maintained by covenant faithfulness. Saints who do not persevere in faith will lose their regeneration and justification, proving that they were not decretally elect. This is the perspective of men such as James Jordan and Peter Leithart . The FV light (amber ale) teaches that all who are baptized are united to Christ in his covenantal life and grace, and receive the status of covenantal election. Only the decretally elect are regenerated and justified by the word of the gospel in their baptism, but their regeneration and justification are not tied to the time of their baptism. The regenerate cannot lose their regeneration, but all who are baptized into Christ must remain in Christ by their covenant faithfulness. This is the perspective of Doug Wilson. Thankfully, Wilson’s “amber ale” is not as far afield as some of his stouter FV brethren. The OPC report stated this concerning Wilson: Perhaps the most fruitful interaction between an FV proponent and his critics has occurred on the part of Douglas Wilson, who, in being examined by his judicatory (at his request), affirmed the covenant of works, with some qualifications, as well as the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification. Nevertheless, Wilson’s theology is still in error on the matter of faith’s relationship to justification, and his equivocation on some FV terminology serves mainly to obfuscate the issues. One reason for the heterodoxy and error found in the FV is that it sought to revise historic Reformed orthodoxy but without engaging it sufficiently. The result was that it jettisoned many of the careful distinctions and balanced theological formulations of the fathers of the Reformed faith. This is seen in the FV’s hesitancy with respect to the “scholastic use of words and phrases” (Joint Federal Vision Statement), which is directly contrary to the Reformed tradition that from the beginning operated in a scholastic mode (see Turretin’s Institutes , for example). We argue that Wilson’s wrong thinking on the matter of faith’s relation to justification is a result of not dealing adequately with some of the essential distinctions in the scholastic mode of the Reformed heritage. Since the FV is so multifaceted, we shall address just its doctrine of justification, specifically as it’s expressed by Wilson. Our motive is fundamentally pastoral: a key part of our concern is that the FV, largely through the influence of Doug Wilson, has siphoned off many lovely Baptist families and has won them (perhaps unknowingly) to an aberrant doctrine of justification. Therefore, we wish to offer a theological critique from a confessional Baptist perspective. We aren’t the first to do so. In 2019, Brandon Adams wrote an assessment of FV’s incompatibility with confessional Baptist theology. Just weeks afterward, James White and Doug Wilson recorded a significant video clarifying some issues. Adams soon posted a follow-up essay responding to some Muscovite critics. Now, to understand Wilson’s errors on justifying faith, it’s helpful to examine the theology of Richard Baxter. Though the case against Baxter has been closed for three centuries, his influence (even if indirect) continues, as we will show, through the “the Moscow doctrine.” Richard Baxter on Faith and JustificationMany will know the name of the Puritan Richard Baxter from his influential book, The Reformed Pastor (1656), and his book of wisdom for pastoral counseling, The Christian Directory (1673). These practical books have been, and still are, relevant and useful to the church today. But there’s a reason his theological writings aren’t being reprinted. Specifically, his doctrine of justifying faith was deeply and dangerously flawed in ways akin to the Federal Vision. To understand why Baxter’s view of faith was flawed, it’s important to see what the Reformed Orthodox taught. Reformed theology said that while faith is an act of obedience, faith only justifies as it rests in and receives Christ and his righteousness, which is why they called faith the instrument of justification. William Ames (1576–1633) wrote, “Faith justifies only by apprehending the righteousness by which we are justified.” 2 William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 162. They were answering the question: “If Jesus Christ completely obeyed the law of God, and if Christ’s obedience wholly satisfies God’s justice, then what can be justly required of human beings in justification?” Reformed theology understood that faith as obedience cannot be required in justification. That’s because Christ already obeyed perfectly for our justification. Thus, there is no room for our faith as obedience in point of justification. Herman Bavinck writes: Faith does not justify by its own essence or act because it itself is righteousness, but by its content, because it is faith in Christ, who is our righteousness. If faith justified on account of itself, the object of that faith (that is, Christ) would totally lose its value. But the faith that justifies is precisely the faith that has Christ as its object and content (emphasis added). 3 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 211. It is not sufficient to say, “Christ obeyed for the ground of our justification, but we have to obey for the instrument of our justification.” Renaming the obedience of faith the “instrument of justification” does not solve the theological problem, and it misunderstands the nature of faith as an instrument in justification. To require faith as obedience in justification implies that Christ’s obedience is insufficient in justification. Furthermore, a fallen man’s faith is imperfect and sin-tainted, which means such faith is disqualified to justify as obedience, and God would be unjust to accept such faith as obedience in point of justification because it is a non-just faith. Therefore, while faith is obedience, only faith as the appropriating organ, an empty hand or an open mouth, is rightly called the instrument of justification. 4 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2000), 522. The Apostle John says that the one who passively “looks” on Jesus is the one who “believes” unto eternal life (John 6:40). Faith justifies solely by virtue of its resting and receiving Christ’s righteousness. Scripture says faith justifies as it receives Christ and his righteousness alone for justification (Phil 3:9, Rom 4:5, etc.). In this way, as R.C. Sproul says , “justification by faith alone is really theological shorthand for justification by Christ alone.” Faith as a justifying instrument is the relinquishment of all one’s own obedience in point of justification. Richard Baxter rejected the carefully considered Reformed doctrine of faith. Instead, he taught that faith justifies in all of its acts. He wrote: It is not therefore any one single act of faith alone by which we are justified, but it is many physical acts conjunctly which constitute that faith which the gospel makes the condition of life. Those therefore that call any one act or two by the name of justifying faith, and all the rest by the name of works; and say that it is only the act of recumbency [leaning, resting, reclining] on Christ as Priest, or on Christ as dying for us, or only the act of apprehending or accepting his imputed righteousness, by which we are justified, and that our assent, or acceptance of Him as our Teacher and Lord, our desire of Him, our love to Him, our renouncing other Saviors and our own righteousness are the works Paul does exclude from our justification, and that it is Jewish to expect to be justified by these though but as conditions of justification; these persons do mistake Paul, and subvert the doctrine of faith and justification, and their doctrine tends to corrupt the very nature of Christianity itself. 5 Richard Baxter, Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions of divers learned and reverend brethren (London: Nevil Simmons, 1658), 77–78. This quotation demonstrates that Baxter does not operate with the proper distinctions concerning how faith relates to justification. In the end, he collapses faith and works and makes them both necessary, not just for “final salvation,” but for justification as well. Thus, in Baxter’s Aphorisms of Justification , his seventy-eighth thesis reads: Our full justification and our everlasting salvation have the same conditions on our part. But sincere obedience is without all doubt a condition of our salvation: therefore also of our justification. 6 Richard Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification (Hague: Abraham Brown, 1655), 199. We have slightly modernized this quotation for clarity. Quite explicitly, he states that a believer’s obedience is a necessary condition for final salvation and “also of our justification.” This is a flat rejection of the Reformed doctrine of justification. Is Doug Wilson a Neo-Baxterian?In a manner similar to Richard Baxter, Doug Wilson teaches that faith as obedience is the instrument of justification. Since faith as obedience is imperfect and tainted with sin, Wilson’s position raises questions about the purity, holiness, and justice of God, the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and active obedience for justification, as well as the gracious nature of justification as a free gift. In Wilson’s post, Obedience Unto Life , he writes, “At the same time, life and obedience are essential characteristics of the instrumentality of faith, in just the same way that life is an essential characteristic of a seeing eye.” Note carefully that Wilson says obedience is essential to the instrumentality of faith. The Reformed faith would agree that obedience is an essential characteristic of faith. But to say that its obedience is an essential characteristic of faith’s instrumentality is unorthodox. Faith’s instrumentality is the manner by which it receives justification. Wilson thinks justification is by faith in its act of obedience and not only by faith in its act of receiving and resting upon Christ. In another post , Wilson says: By obedience in the phrase obedient faith , I am not referring to any of the doing that proceeds out of this being. I am treating obedient faith and living faith as synonymous. The subsequent actions performed by this obedient faith are genuine and sincere, but not perfectly so (because of our remaining sinfulness). Because they are not perfect, they cannot be the basis at all our our justification — our best works would condemn us in the worse [sic] way. Neither can the living faith that gives rise to all these actions be the ground of our justification. But it is obedient in its life, and in that living condition it is the instrument of our justification. Wilson sounds like he’s attempting the standard Reformed expression of the doctrine — he says “what I’m affirming here is classic Reformed theology 101, the kind you buy at Walmart” 7 The 17:56-mark, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqW41sBdYQ. — but he is actually rejecting it. He claims to be “as Reformed as all get out” and a “Westminsterian Puritan,” but teaches contrary to the Reformed doctrine of faith as expressed in the Westminster Standards. Again, he errs when he links the obedience to the instrumentality of faith in justification. Furthermore, in his CREC exam , he said, “By obedient faith, I mean faith that’s alive and therefore does what God expects of it.” Therefore, it is evident that Wilson is saying that faith in its character as obedience, or life, is instrumental for justification before God. Wilson goes so far as to say that regeneration, which precedes faith, is the instrument of justification. In the CREC examination, he says, “Instead of saying ‘faith is the instrument (not ground) of justification,’ we may now say ‘the regenerate heart believing is the instrument (not ground) of justification’” (Q 105). Note that he does not say the belief of the regenerate heart is the instrument of justification. He says the regenerate heart itself, while believing, is the instrument of justification. In the same answer, he defines regeneration as “infused righteousness.” Thus, he thinks infused righteousness is instrumental in justification. Clearly, Wilson is not using the categories of the Reformed Orthodox, who insisted that faith only justifies by virtue of the object it receives and rests upon: Christ and his righteousness alone. The suggestion that regeneration as “infused righteousness” is the instrument of justification is contrary to Scripture (e.g., Phil 3:9) and to the Reformed confessional tradition. The URCNA Report of the Synodical Study Committee on the Federal Vision and Justification denounces, “The FV emphasis upon a ‘living’ or ‘obedient’ faith in the definition of its role as the instrument for receiving the grace of justification in Christ.” These revisionist errors are significant. This is not merely semantic, wrangling over words, or inventing artificial distinctions. This is the heart of the gospel. The FV “oatmeal stout” is far afield of the historic Reformed doctrine of justification, but the FV “amber ale” is too. Thus, when Wilson says, “I don’t deny justification by faith alone. I affirm it, stoutly, from beginning to end,” 8 The 10:40-mark, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqW41sBdYQ. he simply does not mean what the Reformed have historically meant by that phrase. No version of the FV is an option for those seeking to abide within the historic Reformed tradition. In sum, intentionally or not, Wilson is Baxterian with respect to justifying faith. And Baxter’s reconceptualizing of justifying faith (and its far-reaching implications that resulted in his Neonomianism) caused a considerable controversy, drawing respondents from many prominent Reformed writers, including several Baptists. The Baptists’s Consistent Denunciation of BaxterBecause of Baxter’s voluminous writings, he had an extraordinary influence upon Christians of various denominations, including Baptists. This prompted a response from theologians and pastors across the Anglophone world. Below is a survey of some of their rhetoric on this point. Benjamin Keach (1640–1704)The venerable Baptist minister Benjamin Keach engaged heavily with Baxter, especially on the issue of justification, and wrote: Justification is a free act of God’s grace, through that redemption which is in Christ, (who, as our head, was acquitted, justified, and discharged, and we in him, when he rose from the dead) and when applied to us, we in our own persons are actually justified, in being made and pronounced righteous, through the righteousness of Christ imputed to us; and all our sins, past, present, and to come, forever pardoned; which is received by faith alone. And that our sanctification, nor faith it self, is any part of our justification before God; it not being either the habit, or act of believing, or any act of evangelical obedience imputed to us, but Christ, and his active and passive obedience only, apprehended by faith: and that faith in no sense tends to make Christ’s merits more satisfactory unto God; but that he was as fully reconciled and satisfied for his elect in Christ by his death before faith as after; otherwise it would render God only reconcilable, (not reconciled) and make faith part of the payment or satisfaction unto God, and so lessen the merits of Christ, as if they were defective or insufficient. Yet we say, it is by faith that we receive the atonement, or by which means (as an instrument) we come to apprehend and receive him, and to have personal interest in him, and to have our free justification evidenced to our own consciences. 9 Benjamin Keach, The articles of the faith of the Church of Christ, or, Congregation meeting at Horsley-down Benjamin Keach, pastor, as asserted this 10th of the 6th month, 1697 (London, 1697), 12–13. Here we see that Keach denied that justification was by “the habit, or act of believing, or any act of evangelical obedience imputed to us.” Instead “ it is by faith that we receive the atonement, or by which means (as an instrument) we come to apprehend and receive him. ” It’s faith’s passive (or receptive) aspect that receives Christ’s righteousness for justification, not its active (or obedient) aspect. This is the Reformed doctrine of justification; this is the proper sense of sola fide . John Gill (1697–1771)Similarly, the great John Gill denied the Baxterian view and affirmed the historic Reformed doctrine of faith’s relationship to justification when he wrote: What the eye is in the body, that faith is in the soul. The eye, by virtue of its visive faculty, beholds sensible objects, but does not produce them, and did they not previously exist, could not behold them. We see the sun shining in its brightness, but did it not exist before, it could not be visible to us. The same observation will hold good in ten thousand other instances. Faith is the hand which receives the blessing of justification from the Lord, and righteousness, by which the soul is justified from the God of its salvation. 10 John Gill, The Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, Stated and Maintained, Being the Substance of Several Sermons, 4th ed. (London: G. Keith and J. Robinson, 1756), 43. Our quotations have been slightly modernized for clarity. Just as the eye receives images (its “visive faculty”) but does not produce them, so faith receives Christ’s righteousness for justification but produces neither the righteousness nor the justification. Here also we see Gill affirming justifying faith as the receiving hand, not the obedient principle. Elsewhere, Gill elaborates at length: Moreover, faith, as an act of ours, is a duty. For whatsoever we do in a religious way, we do but what is our duty to do. And, if it is a duty, it belongs to the law. For, as all the declarations and promises of grace belong to the gospel, so all duties belong to the law; and if faith belongs to the law, as a duty, it is a work of it, and therefore by it we can’t be justified, “for by the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified. 11 Gill, The Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, 20. Thus we read Gill’s affirmation of active, or obedient, faith, which accords with the law of God. This is part of Gill’s refutation of antinomianism. However, he says that faith “as an act of ours” is a work of the law and is therefore not justifying. He continues: Besides, faith is imperfect. It has many deficiencies. Were it perfect, it is but a part of the law, though one of the weightier parts of it, and God, “whose judgment is according to truth,” will never reckon or account a partial conformity to the law a complete righteousness. Add to this that faith and righteousness are manifestly distinguished — “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” — it is “unto all, and upon all them that believe” (Romans 1:17; 3:22). Something else, and not faith, is represented as our justifying righteousness. Faith is not the blood, nor obedience, of Christ, and yet by these we are said to be justified, or made righteous (Romans 5:9, 19). We are, indeed, said to be “justified by faith,” but not by faith as an act of ours, for then we should be justified by works (Romans 5:1); nor by faith as a grace of the Spirit, for this would be to confound justification and sanctification; but we are justified by faith objectively, as it looks to, receives, apprehends, and embraces Christ’s righteousness for justification. And let it be observed, that though we are said to be justified by faith, yet faith is never said to justify us…. Are we said to be justified by faith, or by faith to receive the righteousness of Christ for justification?… In one word, it is God, and not faith, that justifies. 12 Gill, The Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, 20–22. Gill, and Reformed authors generally, are concerned not “to confound justification and sanctification,” which is what Baxter and Wilson have done when they collapse the distinction between faith’s receptive aspect and faith’s active aspect. Instead, as Gill affirms, “we are justified by faith objectively, as it looks to, receives, apprehends, and embraces Christ’s righteousness for justification.” Andrew Fuller (1754–1815)The eminent pastor theologian, Andrew Fuller, who Charles Spurgeon considered “the greatest theologian of the century,” was once accused of adopting “some of the leading peculiarities of Mr. Richard Baxter.” 13 Andrew Fuller, “Letter VI: Baxterianism” in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, 3 vols. (1845 ed.; repr. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:714. He rejected the charge strenuously. To demonstrate his innocence, he took up the “irksome task” of reading all the works of Baxter he could before concluding that Baxter’s writing was “so circuitous, and full of artificial distinctions, and obscure terms, that I could not in many cases come at his meaning, nor could I have read them through without making myself ill.” 14 Fuller, “Letter VI: Baxterianism, 714. He concluded: I find but little satisfaction in Mr. Baxter’s disputations on justification. He says a great deal about it, distinguishing it into different stages, pleading for evangelical works as necessary to it, etc. etc…. Yet he disavows all works as being the causes or grounds on account of which we are justified; and professes to plead for them only as “concomitants;” just as we say repentance is necessary for forgiveness, and faith to justification, though these are not considerations moving God to bestow those blessings. In short, I find it much easier to express my own judgment on justification, than to say wherein I agree or differ with Mr. Baxter. I consider justification to be God’s graciously pardoning our sins, and accepting us to favour, exempting us from the curse of the law, and entitling us to the promises of the gospel; not on account or in consideration of any holiness in us, ceremonial or moral, before, in, or after believing, but purely in reward of the vicarious obedience and death of Christ, which, on our believing in him, is imputed to us, or reckoned as if it were ours. Nor do I consider any holiness in us to be necessary as a concomitant to justification, except what is necessarily included in the believing…. Nor could I feel a union of heart with those who are commonly considered in the present day as Baxterians, who hold with the gospel being a new remedial law, and represent sinners as contributing to their own conversion. 15 Fuller, “Letter VI: Baxterianism, 715. Earlier, Fuller had written a Confession of Faith for his church, wherein he addressed this issue of faith’s relation to justification. He avowed, “The subject-matter of justification, I believe to be nothing of our own moral excellence, but the righteousness of Christ, alone, imputed to us, and received by faith.” A little later in the same document, he writes, “Although I disclaim personal holiness, as having any share in our justification, I consider it absolutely necessary to salvation; for without it ‘no man shall see the Lord.’” Here, Fuller makes the important distinction between faith’s receptive act for justification and faith’s obedient act for salvation. “Obedient faith” is a fruit or effect of justification, not its cause; and salvation is the reward of obedient faith. Elsewhere, Fuller wrote: Though believing in Christ is compliance with a duty, yet it is not as a duty, or by way of reward for a virtuous act, that we are said to be justified by it. It is true that God does reward the services of his people, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, but this follows upon justification. We must stand accepted in the Beloved, before our services can be acceptable or rewardable. Moreover, if we were justified by faith as a duty, justification by faith could not be, as it is, opposed to justification by works. “To him that worketh is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:4–5) 16 Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, 3 vols. (1845 ed.; repr. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:384. Here again, we find Fuller rejecting faith “as a duty” or as “a virtuous act” as necessary for justification. If this were admitted, such faith would become a condition for justification, which necessitates the idea of merit, and thus would be a form of “justification by works.” While more examples could be included from theologians of other denominations, 17 Most famously is John Owen’s response in vol. 5 of The Works of John Owen by Banner of Truth. this sampling of some of the major writing theologians in the Baptist tradition demonstrates a decisive rejection of Baxterianism, especially with respect to justifying faith. It also shows how some of the most influential Baptists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries intentionally situated themselves in the broader Reformed stream of thought on this doctrine. The Reformed Doctrine of JustificationReformed orthodoxy enshrined the Bible’s doctrine of justification in its confessional tradition. Consider the Second London Confession 11.1–2 on justification: Paragraph 1. Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God. Paragraph 2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. Consider the second paragraph in light of Baxter and Wilson on faith’s role in justification. The confession teaches that “Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness is the alone instrument of justification.” That phrase is identical to Westminster Confession of Faith 11.2. According to these confessions, faith is only instrumental in justification as it rests and receives Christ, not as it obeys. Furthermore, The Westminster Larger Catechism says: Q. 70. What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone. Q. 72. What is justifying faith? A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness. Question 73 speaks directly to the matter at hand. Faith justifies “only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.” Faith does not justify as faith, as obedience, or as a part of regeneration. It only justifies by virtue of its reception of justifying content: Christ and his righteousness. Practical ImplicationsIf pastors and teachers don’t get this right, they might think the answer to the sins of God’s people is to call them merely to believe and obey Christ’s commands, rather than to rest in Christ for forgiveness and righteousness, to adore Christ for his loveliness, and to obey him from a motive of gratitude, adoration, and joy. Geerhardus Vos said, “Legalism . . . obeys but it does not adore.” 18 Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke” (Part 2), The Princeton Theological Review (Jan. 1916). Is a woman struggling to be a faithful wife and to raise godly children? Pastors who get this wrong might be inclined to tell the woman that she needs to get her feelings together and believe God’s gracious promises to obey his commands. But the Reformed doctrine of faith means pastors should tell Christian women who are discouraged by their sin that Christ died for their sins, that his objective work outside of them rescues them so they can rest in the free grace of Christ, receive his forgiveness, and accept that they are safe and secure in the robes of his righteousness for assurance of salvation. Her faith as resting will then strengthen her to persevere in faithful obedience day after day, remembering Jesus Christ, risen from the dead. Are children ever discouraged when their parents ask them to obey in something that disappoints them? Pastors who are unclear on the doctrine of faith might teach that the way to minister the gospel to disobedient children is to discipline them and command their joyful obedience. But those who hold to the Reformed doctrine of faith will discipline their children for sin, even while they also proclaim Christ and him crucified and risen for sinners, inviting their children to receive and rest in Jesus’s shed blood and righteousness, to believe his love and mercy toward them, and to put on obedience by faith in him. In short, those who think of faith’s instrumentality in justification as obedience will be more likely to teach that Christians should move directly from sinning to obeying Christ. But the Bible and the Reformed faith teach that Christians should move from sinning to resting in Christ and then to obeying Christ. It’s what Jesus taught when he called sinners to come to him for “rest,” and then he also told them to take his “yoke” of obedience upon them (Matt 11:28–29). Paul said, “The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). Conclusion: The Need for Clarity in Opposing False TeachersAs we witness and lament the waning of Christianity’s influence in American public life, Doug Wilson’s rhetoric has galvanized conservative and Reformed-minded Christians who, at the very least, are hungry for a vision of the future that has a strong Christian influence on the culture. Some have left faithful and orthodox churches for churches more aligned with “the Moscow mood,” while failing to discern the real danger of “the Moscow doctrine,” especially with respect to FV and its erroneous doctrine of justification. Master of rhetoric that he is, Wilson would have us think we are tilting at windmills, stating : Keep your eye on the ball. I believe that this FV issue continues to be an issue because of the doctrinal downgrade entailed in wokeness that is currently swamping Reformed evangelicalism in general. It is a distraction. I am one of the few voices raised in effective opposition to all of that woke foolishness, and so these canards are being resurrected again in order to dampen any thoughts that any of you might have about the propriety of following me into battle. You know, the actual battle. But the theological issues can’t be so flippantly dismissed because of a commitment to “own the libs.” More is at stake than that. And regardless of how effective his opposition to wokeness is, Wilson isn’t the hero we need to follow into battle. A significant error on the doctrine of justification isn’t merely a distraction. Whereas some might (mistakenly, in our view) dismiss DeYoung’s critique as BigEva pearl-clutching because of Moscow’s “serrated edge,” our concern is anything but that. It’s not a disagreement about tone, emphasis, or “knowing what time it is.” It’s a fundamental disagreement about the heart of the gospel, about the doctrine Luther called “the article by which the church stands or falls.” For whatever “visceral” appeal “the Moscow mood” might present, we implore you to flee from the very real spiritual danger embedded in “the Moscow doctrine.” [1] We are aware of accusations toward Doug Wilson’s church and ministries concerning improper uses of pastoral authority and mishandlings of abuse, however we are not in a position to speak knowledgeably on such matters. Therefore, we limit our critique to their stated theology. [2] William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 162. [3] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics , vol 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 211. [4] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2000), 522. [5] Richard Baxter, Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions of divers learned and reverend brethren (London: Nevil Simmons, 1658), 77–78. [6] Richard Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification (Hague: Abraham Brown, 1655), 199. We have slightly modernized this quotation for clarity. [7] The 17:56-mark, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqW41sBdYQ. [8] The 10:40-mark, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqW41sBdYQ. [9] Benjamin Keach, The articles of the faith of the Church of Christ, or, Congregation meeting at Horsley-down Benjamin Keach, pastor, as asserted this 10th of the 6th month, 1697 (London, 1697), 12–13. [10] John Gill, The Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, Stated and Maintained, Being the Substance of Several Sermons , 4th ed. (London: G. Keith and J. Robinson, 1756), 43. Our quotations have been slightly modernized for clarity. [11] Gill, The Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ , 20. [12] Gill, The Doctrine of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ , 20–22 [13] Andrew Fuller, “Letter VI: Baxterianism” in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller , 3 vols. (1845 ed.; repr. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:714. [14] Fuller, “Letter VI: Baxterianism, 714. [15] Fuller, “Letter VI: Baxterianism, 715. [16] Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller , 3 vols. (1845 ed.; repr. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:384. [17] Most famously is John Owen’s response in vol. 5 of The Works of John Owen by Banner of Truth. [18] Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke” (Part 2), The Princeton Theological Review (Jan. 1916).  Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He’s married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.  Garrett Walden (ThM, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is a pastor at Grace Heritage Church in Auburn, Alabama, Senior Editor for the London Lyceum, and Editor-in-Chief for Hanover Press. Garrett and his wife Katherine have four children. Connect With TLL
Podcast ChannelsYou might also enjoy.  Job as a Type of Christ’s Threefold OfficeHe alone is known to all men throughout the entire  The Prophetic Role of the Protestant ReformationNote: This is the online version of an essay from  The Bishop of Rome Hath No Jurisdiction in This Realm of England: The English Reformation and Foreign Jurisdiction
Translate this page from English... *Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations. Richard Paul Memorial Page
Richard William Paul September 1, 2015 Tomales, CA. The Foundation for Critical Thinking is saddened to announce the death of our Founder, Dr. Richard William Paul, who died quietly in his sleep on August 30, 2015. Paul suffered from Parkinson’s Disease.  Paul wrote eight books and more than 200 articles on critical thinking, including his early seminal work published in 1992, entitled, Critical Thinking: What Every Student [ Every Person, in later editions] Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Throughout his life, Paul wrote books for every grade level and developed extensive teaching tactics and strategies that advance critical thinking in instruction. In his critique of traditional philosophical approaches to reasoning, Paul illuminated the conflicting nature of these approaches, as well as the limitations and often glaring inconsistencies within and among them. He asserted the need for replacing the fragmented, inconsistent, and conflicting philosophical approaches to reasoning with an integrated, systematic, and – if possible – universal approach to critical thinking. Paul argued that the primary task of the logician is to develop tools for the analysis and assessment of reasoning in every discipline and domain of human thought – tools to be used in reasoning through life’s many complex problems and issues. He emphasized the importance of the “logic of language” to human reasoning. He set forth the idea that every subject and discipline has a fundamental logic that could, and should, be explicitly formulated - and that an adequate theory of reasoning would provide the foundation for that logic.  1. It is human nature to think (i.e. that thinking pervades every aspect of human life and every dimension of the human mind). 2. Though it is human nature to think, it is not natural for humans to think well (human nature is heavily influenced by prejudice, illusion, mythology, ignorance, and self-deception). 3. Therefore, we need to be able to intervene in thinking, to analyze it, assess it, and, where necessary, improve it. Paul believed that critical thinking, properly conceptualized, entails understanding the ethical dimension of human life. Paul, from his earliest days as a theoretician, placed the realization of fairminded critical societies at the center of his work and his conception of critical thinking. In the 1980’s, he articulated the crucial distinction between strong-sense critical thinking and weak-sense critical thinking. While critical thinking in the weak sense is used in ways that are manipulative, selfish, and in other ways unethical, critical thinking in the strong sense adheres to the standard of fairness. In Paul’s view, then, critical thinking is not thinking that is merely skilled. If our thinking is not attuned to fairness, to taking account of other points of view and the consequences our thinking and resulting actions have for others, then it is flawed. It is not truly critical thinking because it fails to consider the rights and needs of relevant others.  To highlight different dimensions and applications of critical thinking, Paul developed a number of (now often-cited) definitions of critical thinking, including this basic definition, written with Linda Elder: " critical thinking is a mode of thinking about any subject, content, or problem in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.” Taking charge of the structures of thought, for Paul, requires both the analysis and the assessment of thinking. Paul conceptualized reasoning as entailing eight distinctive elements of thought – purposes, questions, information, inferences, assumptions, point of view, implications, and concepts. In other words, he developed this fundamental idea: that whenever people reason, they reason for a purpose , in answering a question or given set of questions; they use information in making inferences and coming to conclusions; they take certain beliefs for granted (or in other words, make assumptions ) in conceptualizing situations and experiences; they reason from some point of view ; there are implications of their thinking. In developing his understanding of the elements of reasoning, Paul was influenced by his background as a philosopher. But in formulating these elements, he was influenced by other domains of thought, as well as by educated usages of words. Again, he came to see that reasoning was far more complex than had been hitherto understood by traditionally philosophical approaches, which focused primarily on only a few parts of reasoning – namely premises (assumptions and information) and conclusions (inferences and/or implications). Paul’s theory entails the idea that all reasoning contains the eight elements, and therefore can be analyzed into eight specific parts in determining its full logic. All products of reasoning (conversations, articles, books, speeches, editorials, video programs, etc.) can be analyzed according to the eight elements. Further, to ignore any one part is to misunderstand the interrelationships between all parts.  Another hallmark of Paul’s philosophy is his emphasis not only on skills in critical thinking, but on the cultivation of intellectual, and hence ethical, character. For Paul, intellectual virtues are the centerpiece of the fairminded critical person and of a reasonable conception of critical thinking. Those who develop intellectual character, according to Paul, do so through deep commitment to the ideals and principles of critical thinking, passionately pursued over a lifetime. In other words, Paul recognized the need to understand and cultivate the intellectual virtues of intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, intellectual courage, intellectual autonomy, confidence in reason, fairmindedness, and intellectual sense of justice. The idea of intellectual virtues or traits, when Paul first began to conceptualize them, were not completely new. These traits can be seen, at least implicitly, in the works of a number of important thinkers throughout history, including Socrates, John Locke, William Graham Sumner, John Henry Newman, and Bertrand Russell. Paul’s contribution was in bringing the traits together in a system of ideas, clearly delineating them as intellectual in nature, defining and elaborating each one - including those most necessary in the mind of the cultivated thinker - and stressing the importance of these virtues in developing critical minds and critical societies. Paul’s approach to critical thinking is inclusive in that he recognized the significant roles that many fields of study can play in our understanding of the human mind, thereby offering intellectual tools for intervening in human thought to improve the quality of human life. Paul was ever concerned to find the best, most foundational tools, the most easily-accessible concepts for understanding and intervening in thought.  "It is now generally recognized that the art of thinking critically is a major missing link in education today, and that effective communication and problem-solving skills, as well as mastery of content, require critical thinking…It is also generally understood that some major changes in instruction will have to take place to shift the overarching emphasis of student learning from rote memorization to effective critical thinking (as a primary tool of learning)." Paul argued that teaching should not entail transmitting information to students, but rather a “reworking of education where students construct knowledge through application of their own reasoning." He asserted that an educational setting that facilitates the exchange of open and free dialogue between opposing views is essential to any authentic exercise of critical thinking. Richard Paul was born in Chicago on January 2, 1937. He earned a BA from Northern Illinois University and a master’s in English from UC Santa Barbara; he was a Research Student at St. John’s College, Cambridge University, and earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from UC Santa Barbara in 1968. He was a professor at Sonoma State University (SSU) for almost thirty years, later becoming Professor Emeritus of Philosophy there. Paul convened the first global conference on critical thinking in 1981 through the Center for Critical Thinking. The International Conference on Critical Thinking is now the longest-standing and most widely-attended conference on critical thinking in the world. Paul presented annually at the conference until prevented by illness in 2014.  Paul died at his home late in the evening on August 30, 2015. He is survived by Linda Elder, his wife of twenty years and constant collaborator, by his children, and by his legacy of advancing critical thinking in the service of fostering fairminded critical societies around the world. |
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Dr. Richard Paul. Dr. Richard Paul was Director of Research and Professional Development at the Center for Critical Thinking, and was Chair of the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. His body of work, including eight books and over 200 articles, established him as an internationally-recognized authority on critical thinking.
ConCepts and tools. By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder. The Foundation for Critical Thinking. www.criticalthinking.org 707-878-9100 [email protected]. Why A Critical Thinking Mini-Guide? This miniature guide focuses on of the essence of critical thinking concepts and tools distilled into pocket size.
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987. ... A Definition Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking ...
Richard Paul. "C ritical thinking is the art of thinking about thinking in an intellectually disciplined manner…they [critical thinkers] analyze thinking, they assess thinking, and they improve thinking (Paul, 2005) .". "Richard W. Paul is a leading scholar in critical thinking. Since the early 1980's Paul has worked to advance the ...
Critical thinking is an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualising, applying, analysing and evaluating information gathered from or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
Key words: Richard Paul, critical thinking, practicality I first met Richard Paul in the year 1982. He was using my book Reasons and Arguments in his undergraduate course, and he invited me to present at the Second International Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform. He was just then beginning to articulate his conception of
Dr. Richard Paul was a leading proponent of critical thinking and through his work and legacy remains an international authority in the field. He founded the Center for Critical Thinking at Sonoma State University in 1980, followed by the Foundation for Critical Thinking.
The thinker's guide to the nature and functions of critical & creative thinking by Paul, Richard. Publication date 2004 Topics Critical thinking, Creative thinking, Kritiskt tänkande, Kreativt tänkande ... 1962-; Foundation for Critical Thinking Boxid IA40404514 Camera Sony Alpha-A6300 (Control) Collection_set printdisabled External-identifier
Richard Paul. Richard Paul is director of the Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. ... Richard Paul is director of the Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. Search for more papers by this author. First published: Spring ...
Since skeptics talk a lot about critical thinking it is important to note that the world of critical thinking lost a significant champion on August 30th 2015. After a lengthy battle with Parkinson's disease Dr. Richard Paul passed away. Richard was the founder and iconic force behind the Foundation for Critical Thinking, headquartered in ...
Dr. Richard Paul discusses and defines the basic elements of thought involved in critical thinking. Excerpted from the Socratic Questioning video series.
Before attempting to analyze the logic of an article, book, construct, issue, or idea, see our model of the elements of reasoning.This model is based fundamentally in the original work of Dr. Richard Paul, and is an essential component in the Paul- Elder framework for critical thinking™.
A Brief Definition: Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it. The Result: ... Our conception of critical thinking is based on the substantive approach developed by Dr. Richard Paul and his colleagues at the Center and Foundation for Critical Thinking over multiple decades. It is relevant to ...
in the education of the future workforce, rather than to suffer the financial costs and. endure the fiscal and social burdens. associated with economic weakness, public. health problems, crime ...
A Critical Thinking Model for Engineering. Richard Paul's model for critical thinking is adapted to the challenge of engineering education. The model is briefly described and exemplified by ...
According to Richard W. Paul and Linda Elder, critical thinking assists people to cope with the changeableness of the digital life and become more comfortable making decisions. Its point extends far beyond the simple mastering of the uncertainty; it reaches the gates of emotional and intellectual abilities.
Digital access to decades' worth of videos and audio files produced by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. This includes classic and rare video footage of Dr. Richard Paul, as well as video footage of other Foundation for Critical Thinking Fellows and Scholars, including Dr. Linda Elder and Dr. Gerald Nosich.
Richard W. Paul is a leading scholar in critical thinking. Since the early 1980's Paul has worked to advance the concept of fair-minded critical thinking through is work at the Center and Foundation for Critical Thinking, both of which he founded. Dr. Paul has received four degrees and has given lectures on critical thinking at many
Chapter 1: Thinking Critically about the Logic of Arguments Logic and critical thinking together make up the systematic study of reasoning, and reasoning is what we do when we draw a conclusion on the basis of other claims. In other words, reasoning is used when you infer one claim on the basis of another. For example, if you see a great deal of
MoSCoW prioritization, also known as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a popular prioritization technique for managing requirements. The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won't-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the "W" in MoSCoW to mean "wish.".
Richard Baxter on Faith and Justification. Many will know the name of the Puritan Richard Baxter from his influential book, The Reformed Pastor (1656), and his book of wisdom for pastoral counseling, The Christian Directory (1673). These practical books have been, and still are, relevant and useful to the church today.
Tomales, CA. The Foundation for Critical Thinking is saddened to announce the death of our Founder, Dr. Richard William Paul, who died quietly in his sleep on August 30, 2015. Paul suffered from Parkinson's Disease. Richard W. Paul was a philosopher and an international authority on critical thinking. Since the early 1980's Paul has worked to
offers a comprehensive examination of the critical topic of homeland defense in the context of the evolving geopolitical landscape, with a particular emphasis on the Indo-Pacific region. Guest edited by Dr. Richard Newton and Dr. Cameron Carlson, this issue—a collaboration among Air University Press, the Homeland
The memorial service for Dr. Paul was held in Tomales, California on September 3, 2015. Richard William Paul. Obituary. September 1, 2015. Tomales, CA. The Foundation for Critical Thinking is saddened to announce the death of our Founder, Dr. Richard William Paul, who died quietly in his sleep on August 30, 2015.