Pilgrim
You have made your stand very clear now on Wilson.
Here is my dilemna.

The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. Is perhaps the most important doctrine of the Reformation.

It has been reported by many that Doug Wilson does not hold to this doctrine; regardless of the fact he claims to; because he hold to FV, and until he repudiates FV completely we should consider him a heretic.

In response to this, Wilson has set of do just that; while adding a few caveats.
For example, he indicated he holds to a nuanced view of FV; and rejects others parts of it.

I set out to uncover the truth behind these accusations and did so, not really wanting to, because Doug Wilson is not someone I follow.
Yet, he seems to be someone that is followed or avoided by many of my Reformed friends, aquantences, and theologians.
What I find very odd about this, is both sides are in agreement theology wise. Yet disagree with each other about what Wilson believes.

One of my best friend’s who is actually a fan of Wilson is encouraging me to research the matter myself. Adding that if I come to conclude that Wilson is indeed a heretic, I better be willing to stop following some of my favourite theologians and pastors.

I am not sure I would go quite that far. However, I do know that some of them, speak on occasion at Wilson’s Church.
Including one of my favourites, Voddie Baucham. Someone that I know would not do so, if he was convinced Wilson did not believe in sola-Fide.

Here is a section where Doug Wilson dealt with some accusations.

[quote]3. Kevin says that FV rejects the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. But I affirm the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, and insist, together with Machen, that “there is no hope without it.” This is how I put it twelve years ago. “Classic Reformed theology calls it the active obedience of Christ. What it means, simply, is Christ for us. In your salvation, you were not given a fraction of Christ, but rather were given all that He ever did . . . In the life of Jesus, Israel finally does it right, and He does it right on behalf of all Israel, all who are gathered to Him by faith” (God Rest Ye Merry, p. 50, 2012). So agreement #3: Kevin affirms the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. So do I.

4. Kevin says that in FV theology, works are a condition of final justification, and not corroborating evidence that the person has been justified. This is yet another point of agreement between Kevin and me. As I put it way back in 2007, “I hold that if any of my good works attempted to contribute to my justification before God, then they should be slathered with bacon grease and thrown into hell” (The Auburn Avenue Chronicles, p. 398). So agreement #4: Kevin says that good works are a corroborating evidence of justification. I agree.[\quote]

My friend, said that there are a few reasons why Wilson will not totally repudiate FV. Mainly because he still holds to a few aspects of it. Such as Paedo-communion and he accepts Roman Catholic baptism as valid; regardless of if the fact that he believes Roman Catholicism is heretical.
Obviously, they disagree with Wilson on these things, however they do not believe they are essential issues.

Again, my friend believes should I believe Wilson is a heretic; I should not be following people who do not.

To throw a wrench into this, another Reformed friend of mine chimed in and said that not only is Wilson a heretic; but he is wrong on culture as well.
I found that to be interesting, because Wilson promotes many of the same books on culture, that many of my favourite theologians promote.

Tom