# John Robbins says WTS-PA teaches justification by works of faith



## CDM (Feb 1, 2006)

I got thiis email today from John Robbins, of the Trinity Foundation:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends,

We have just posted the February and March Trinity Reviews to our website. Titled " Lessons for the Lads," and written by Martha McElwain, daughter of one of the founding Elders of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, "Lessons" is an account of one woman's *confrontation with the administration of Westminster Theological Seminary over its false teaching of justification by works of faith. * 

You will not want to miss "Lessons for the Lads."

And to help you understand why such confrontations are imperative, please read Paul Elliott's new book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the OPC and Beyond.

Cordially,

John Robbins 
February 2, 2006
www.trinityfoundation.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Mr. Robbins serious? Does WTS teach this? I know he can be a bit a little off-balance but come on.

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2006)

Need more information before someone can make a blanket statement about a Reformed seminary (ie, like specifics on _how_ they are teaching stuff).


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

Read the whole story - there is a lot of information and documentation that shows that there are major errors being taught by some WTS professors.

Lessons for the Lads


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> I got thiis email today from John Robbins, of the Trinity Foundation:
> Is Mr. Robbins serious? Does WTS teach this? I know he can be a bit a little off-balance but come on.



Can we change the title of this post? As it is it's misleading. Let's be clear. We're talking about WTS/Philadelphia, not 

Westminster Seminary California (WSC).

For our stand regarding the FV and NPP look  here.

Oh, he's quite serious. As to his balance, I'll leave that to others. 

Robbins has had a sort of vendetta against WTS/P which has roots in the Clark/Van Til controversy of the 1940's. 

These are serious questions that should be handled carefully and fairly. 

Arguments that convict folk because they lived in Scotland (because we all know that all Scots are Barthians) or because they studied under Van Til and support his apologetic are not to be credited. 

CVT said what he did during the Shepherd controversy because he only heard one side of the story. He was not actively involved in the discussion. To my knowledge, he did not attend the faculty meetings (he was retired). My impression is that Norm told him that he was being picked on by some antinomians who didn't like "Dutch" theology. 

Well that's rubbish of course. By "Dutch" Norm meant Klaas Schilder's idiosyncratic covenant theology. Kees Van Til had, by the way, criticized KS for some of his idiosyncratic views of common grace (which he shared partly with Herman Hoeksema, though for different reasons). Norm's critics were not "antinomian." Say what you will about Robertson, P E Hughes, Bob Godfrey, Bob Knudsen et al, but they were none of them antinomian. For Shepherd, to say "guilt, grace, and gratitude," is antinomian, so the _Heidelberg Catechism_ is antinomian!

If you asked CVT what he taught and believed about justification, he would never have said (prior to his dotage) "we're justified by faith and works." He was raised with Heidelberger. He knew better. No one ever raised a peep about CVT's doctrine of justification during his decades of ministry. 

Everyone wants to claim CVT. Steve Schlissel talked him on his porch (again in his dotage) to get his "real" views. The theonomists claim him (after all he used the word "theonomy" once) right up to the point that Gary North rejects his eschatology and doctrine of common grace. 

Anyway, that's the background behind CVT's comments, but JR is convinced that CVT's view of faith and reason are real culprit behind the Shepherd controversy and what he sees as the continuing "conspiracy" in the OPC and elsewhere.

There is no conspiracy -- presbyterians are not generally well organized enough to mount a conspiracy!, but there are real differences of opinion. There are folks who either took a long time (30 years!) to wake up to the problems inherent in NS's soteriology or who were blinded by their personal loyalty to Shepherd. Of course, there are folks in our denominations who genuinely support the FV and NPP and some of them are not being entirely honest about their convictions or the logical consequences of them.

I think that D G Hart's critique of WTS/P in the Strimple festschrift (P&R) is probably right. They haven't taken the same stance as Princeton regarding innovation. Bob Godfrey, pointed out in the volume that some there have taken a "sympathetic but critical" stance toward the confessions as if they were not ecclesiastical documents but mini-systematics from which one can pick and choose and that's problematic, but WTS/P is not a monolith either as JR would have folks think. 

I understand the frustration some feel over the slow progress in the churches on this issue. I've been dealing with it for a long time now. When I started speaking up (6-7 years ago) many told me to sit down and be quiet. I've been criticized as a bomb thrower and troublemaker. Some of those critics were right. In the early days of the controversy, the issues were very clear to me, but I didn't take the time to try to bring others up to speed, as they say, before demanding action. Bob Godfrey has been dealing with this (off and on) for 30 years! Yet he still has his youthful good looks. It's a wonder.

People don't want to think that there are some in the churches/church who are explicitly or implicitly denying the gospel. There are certainly some in my own federation who think that, having left the CRC, we're all "conservatives," and that should be enough. They don't understand that it's not enough to be conservative. We must be confessional. 

The churches haven't moved on this as quickly as they should have. This is probably a testament to the theological state of our churches. It is also a testament to our polity. Presbyterian and Reformed polity is slow, awkward, and frustrating. 

I think momentum is building toward addressing it. The Mississippi Presbytery report was a model of good ecclesiastical work. I've not seen the whole Mo Valley Presbytery report. It didn't seem quite as unequivocal, but most seem to be taking it as a reject of the FV. The RCUS has spoken out. The RPCGA has spoken out. The URC Synod has affirmed the imputation of active obedience. Certainly our classis (SWUS, the largest in the URC) is on record as opposing it unanimously. The OPC has a study committee working on these questions right now. They are preparing to report to the OPC GA this spring.

Of course, there seems to be a realignment going on under our ecclesiastical noses as the FV folk seem to be moving to Wilson's CREC. John Barach sent out a post recently saying that he's leaving my federation to join the CRE. Lusk has already done. Theo Hoekstra (who was rebuked by the last Synod of the URC for teaching a two-stage justification) has gone too. I suppose others will. So, as Doug tells Mike Horton in interviews that the FV is just some fellows thinking out loud, and that the CRE isn't a FV denomination, the birds seem to be coming home to roost.

Sorry for rambling.

rsc

[Edited on 2-1-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 2-1-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 2-1-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 1, 2006)

Don't be sorry. That was a good rambling!


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 1, 2006)

Wow, thanks so much Dr. Clark. That wasn't rambling. Thanks for putting this difficult subject in some perspective both historically and in scope. I have listened to D.A. Carson' s take on this and he seemed to give a balanced critique of where this started and what's going on. It so hard for those of us who have so little knowledge of the issue but keep hearing the shrill and frantic vitriol. "It's the end of the OPC!", "This is another gospel", "This is heresy". Oy vey!


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 1, 2006)

Just a quick :

I understand some of the concerns that JR has expressed concerning WTS, although I do not pretend to be anything close to an expert. 

That being said, at least when taken as a whole, JR doesn't condemn all people just because they attend or have graduated from WTS. He actively supports (and has posted writings by) O. Palmer Robertson, Mark W. Karlberg and is a big supporter of J. Gresham Machen. Also, his biography snip says that he himself has lectured at WTS.

Just for clarifications sake.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...
> Anyway, that's the background behind CVT's comments, but JR is convinced that CVT's view of faith and reason are real culprit behind the Shepherd controversy and what he sees as the continuing "conspiracy" in the OPC and elsewhere.
> 
> ...



I seriously doubt John Robbins thinks there is a "conspiracy", or that he would have people think that WTS/P is a monolith. But very few of the laity would even know anything about Shepherd or Federalist Vision or NPP etc. if John Robbins had not spoken up about it. The "conspiracy" (loosely speaking) tends to be between the leaders of the church to keep laity in the dark regarding these issues. God bless John Robbins for shining a light on this (and promoting the teaching of Gordon Clark). 



[Edited on 2-1-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 1, 2006)

I've gotten this spam and others from "jrob" ever since a blow up on the Warfield list where someone indiscriminately emailed all the list members offlist and did not hide the email addys. 

Now when I'm trying to unsubscribe, it's saying it's an invalid address. If it doesn't work soon I'm thinking of reporting him to AOL for spamming, which is what he's doing.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> But very few of the laity would even know anything about Shepherd or Federalist Vision or NPP etc. if John Robbins had not spoken up about it.



Do you mean the laity in general, everywhere? If so, you surely cannot be serious.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Just a quick :
> 
> That being said, at least when taken as a whole, JR doesn't condemn all people just because they attend or have graduated from WTS. He actively supports (and has posted writings by) O. Palmer Robertson, Mark W. Karlberg and is a big supporter of J. Gresham Machen.



There's more to it than that. He claims that CVT perverted the WTS founded by Machen. The fundamentalists who left in the 30's said the same thing about RB Kuiper. It's an old fight.

Palmer allowed that old paper (I have nearly all the original documents in the Shepherd controversy) to be published and regretted it. I don't think he knew quite who or what JR is.

The Karlberg story is a long one. I wrote Mark a private letter - which I indicated to be private -- which nevertheless ended up on JR's website! You can see the traces of it today where MK published his response to me. 

Needless to say, I don't communicate with JR any longer. Anything I say can and may be used against me in his court of law.



> Also, his biography snip says that he himself has lectured at WTS.



Well, we had John Hick (http://www.johnhick.org.uk/) who is, let us say, not the doctrinal model we set for our students, lecture here and we've had papists and Mormons and all sorts give guest lectures for a variety of pedagogical reasons. The student association, over my vehement protest even had Andrew Sandlin lecture here some years ago (which, as I predicted, he marketed as his "historic" lecture at WSC!). 

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 1, 2006)

> I seriously doubt John Robbins thinks there is a "conspiracy", or that he would have people think that WTS/P is a monolith.



Think what you will, but I recieved an unsolicited private email from him today (which I shall not publish here) suggesting just that. I'm not fabricating this.

As to turning on the light, there is a difference between a light and a blow torch. The one illumines and the other destroys. 

rsc


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



I mean those who are not "clergy", elders, officials, etc. in what are generally considered reformed churches (OPC, PCA,...). People who are not in reformed churches (who might not have any idea of what the Reformation was) would not be included. But those who are in denominations that are effected by the false teachings of the FV & NPP, have often been kept in the dark.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 1, 2006)

Can someone change the title of the thread so it doesn't implicate every seminary campus with the word Westminster in the title? 

Thanks,

rsc


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > I seriously doubt John Robbins thinks there is a "conspiracy", or that he would have people think that WTS/P is a monolith.
> ...



Yes, fire does tend to purify... that's what you meant right? 

So JR used the term "conspiracy" as you seemed to be quoting him.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Can someone change the title of the thread so it doesn't implicate every seminary campus with the word Westminster in the title?
> 
> Thanks,
> ...



Not to mention the WCF! That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the title.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Can someone change the title of the thread so it doesn't implicate every seminary campus with the word Westminster in the title?
> 
> Thanks,
> ...



Everyone will assume Philly, just like when you hear "Disney" you think of Florida and not California. 

But I agree with you, especially considering the position WSC took against FV as you noted.

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I know the definition of "laity." I am amazed that you think most such people within Reformed churches who are aware of the existence of the issues would not know about them if it had not been for Robbins (one man) alone, when so many numerous books and audio presentations by authors and pastors completely unrelated to Robbins have served that very purpose on the common-man's level.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Can someone change the title of the thread so it doesn't implicate every seminary campus with the word Westminster in the title?
> 
> Thanks,
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> I've gotten this spam and others from "jrob" ever since a blow up on the Warfield list where someone indiscriminately emailed all the list members offlist and did not hide the email addys.
> 
> Now when I'm trying to unsubscribe, it's saying it's an invalid address. If it doesn't work soon I'm thinking of reporting him to AOL for spamming, which is what he's doing.



Ok. It seems to have gone through now. The problem was the unsubscribe link in his email which did not have the correct email address. Now we'll see if I continue to get the unsolicited emails to two addresses...I've received more from JR in the past few weeks than I've ever received from even the likes of Bain.Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg door, not to every door in Wittenburg!!!! Yet another distinction to be made between the Reformers of the past and modern day self styled ones. And I have absolutely no sympathy for the FV btw. 

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...


"Few", "many", "most" are not precise terms and it does not matter. The point is there are "many" lay people who would not know about these issues had it not been for John Robbins. But feel free to list the others who have "served that very purpose on the common-man's level" and I will sing their praises too.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



And someone took Luther's 95 Theses right down and sent it to a printer so that more people would know about it. I guess whoever that was was spamming too in a way. I get each of JR e-mails three times through different routs. As long as he doesn't send them out ALL IN CAPS I don't mind.  

Also, Luther didn't mince words either.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



The way he acquired my addresses and has been sending me unsolicited messages (including commercial) is very bad form.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 1, 2006)

Is anyone going to comment on the issues in the Trinity Review article?



> John Kinnaird says earlier in his Declaration that one is justified before God through the sole instrument of faith. Below I shall quote from the section of John´s Declaration which he has entitled "œGOD´S PURPOSE AND PLAN."
> 
> "œGod had a purpose and a plan for all of creation and history, including the fall of Adam, before he brought any of it to pass. Insight into this purpose and plan is received from Scripture, one notable place being Romans 8:29-30, "˜For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.´ It is to be noted from this text that God´s stated purpose here is to establish His Son as "˜the firstborn among many brethren´. To that end he had to create people who would "˜be conformed to the image of his Son´. It is not possible that any could be a brother to Jesus Christ and enjoy with Christ, in the Kingdom of Heaven, the presence of God the Father except that one be fully conformed to the image of Christ in true and personal righteousness and holiness. Neither the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which all Christians receive at justification, nor the infusion of the righteousness of Christ (a false and non-existent concept taught by the Roman Catholic Church)-can suffice for that purpose. Christ does not have an imputed righteousness; His righteousness is real and personal. If we are to be conformed to his image, we too must have a real and personal righteousness"¦."
> 
> _"Lessons for the Lads" - Martha McElwain_



The whole issues is whether justification by faith AND works is being taught at WTS. Is it?

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks for changing the topic line!



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Is anyone going to comment on the issues in the Trinity Review article?



J. Kinnaird said:



> ...Neither the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which all Christians receive at justification, nor the infusion of the righteousness of Christ (a false and non-existent concept taught by the Roman Catholic Church)-can suffice for that purpose. Christ does not have an imputed righteousness; His righteousness is real and personal. If we are to be conformed to his image, we too must have a real and personal righteousness"¦." _"Lessons for the Lads" - Martha McElwain_
> 
> The whole issues is whether justification by faith AND works is being taught at WTS. Is it? [Edited on 2-2-2006 by Civbert]



John Kinnaird was an elder in the Oxford, PA OPC, not a faculty member at WTS/P. To my knowledge, no ecclesiastical charges have been lodged against any WTS/P faculty.

Arne and Wanda Wilkening (whom I'm proud to name as friends) were, however, quite right to complain about this doctrine to their session and to their presbytery. Indeed, they, like the husband and wife who complained in the URC about Theo Hoekstra's "Daniel" sermon (those in the lions' den were not consumed because they were intrinsically righteous, imputation had nothing to do with it, so he said) were heroic in their perseverance. Would that we had ministers with as much fortitude.

That Mr K. was apparently judged at GA on the basis of what he said on the floor of GA rather than what he wrote and taught prior, which, as I understand it, was the basis of the complaint, is unfortunate. As I say, however, there is a report on this whole matter coming to GA. 

Mr K does not apparently recognize that, even though he denies infused grace, he teaches a substantially Roman doctrine here. 

Protestants only confess one justification, not two. There are not even two stages to the one justification. We don't speak of a final justification. That is a Roman way of speaking. 

We certainly DO NOT confess that our sanctity, even Spirit-wrought (which is the definition of condign merit by the way!) sanctity is any part of our justification in this life or in the life to come.

The problem is that having started with the assumption that the "already...not yet" scheme must apply univocally to every thing -- a rationalist assumption, he was bound to say this. There's nothing wrong with the already...not yet scheme as a way of explaining eschatology. I'm quite fond of it, but it doesn't work to explain the biblical doctrine of justification. Full stop.

Instead we confess that we are justified _sola gratia_, _sola fide_ in this life and *vindicated* in the final judgment. These are different categories. Vindication refers to something already accomplished and adjudicated. Justification is adjudication. It's not that complicated.

Does anyone at WTS/P teach exactly what Kinnaird teaches? JR alleges that Dick Gaffin does. To be sure, Dick's proposed exegesis of Rom 2:13 (in a couple of footnotes I think), that we are the "doers of the law," as far as I know, is unprecedented in the Reformed interpretation of that passage and does tend to set the stage for the Kinnaird doctrine, and it is also true that Dick has defended Norm Shepherd for 30 years (but has backed away a bit since NS has _openly_ denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ) and did defend Kinnaird in Presbytery and at GA, and even though, as I understand it, he does speak of a final justification, none of these together or separately makes him guilty of doctrinal error. 

This is why I counsel care and not bomb throwing.

To defend NS for 3 decades is a serious error in judgment. To defend Kinnaird is a serious error in judgment and could be more, depending on how Dick defended him, e.g., "Kinnaird has a right to be wrong," or "Kinnaird taught that final justification is grounded on our sanctity and was right to do so." I don't know what Dick said on the floor of GA and no one has filed charges against him on the basis of what he said. 

Yes, to confess that there is a final justification is a serious mistake.

That said, when Dick says "final justification," he apparently means what we mean by vindication. He uses FJ in order to keep the parallelism in the already...not yet scheme.

It is not a helpful, clear, biblical, traditional, or confessional way of speaking, but so long as he means "vindication," by final justification, we cannot say it's a theological error. 

Having read the documents from the 70's I think Dick's views have probably matured since the first episode in this controversy ('74-81). I don't think he would say today exactly what he said then in some of the papers that circulated (e.g., defending "trust and obey" as a legitimate definition of "faith" in justification.

I don't know whom among the WTS/P faculty JR has in mind beside Dick. MK has alleged all manner of errors at WTS/P based on who lived in Scotland (I'm not kidding) and who is friends with whom, so the line between reality and fantasy is fluid here.

rsc


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 1, 2006)

We are justified by works....














...crickets chirping...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> We are justified by works....
> 
> 
> ...



I'll bite.

Yes, by Christ's works for us which are imputed to us on which true faith rests and which true faith receives, of which it has certain knowledge and in which it has a hearty trust.

rsc


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Sorry Dr. Clark, Ryan is being funny.
I got it Ryan.

We aren't trying to be offensive. I have had my battles with NPP. I lost one of my friends that I discipled to it because we were close to John Armstrong. John changed. My friend is now Pastoring on the East Coast. I despise N.T. Wrights justification stuff and his view of Scripture.
Thanks for the Historical overview Dr. Clark and for making a demand of clarification concerning Westminster. Our buddy Joe Gleason goes to Westminster in Dallas I believe.

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 1, 2006)

I had heard a lot of bad things about WTS-PA lately. I guess they were all true.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I had heard a lot of bad things about WTS-PA lately. I guess they were all true.



To be clear, my point is not to pile on WTS/P. My point is to try to put some of the controversy in some historical perspective and to ask for calm, patience, and charity. 

Again, I've been guilty of rushing to judgment in the past and I regret it. 

rsc


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 6, 2006)

For clarification:

I just listened to an audio lecture by Robbins where a person asks him the question as to if Westminster West teaches the same "justification by works" as Westminster PA. He answers that in the negative. He commends Westminster CA for writing a clear statement on justification that rejects the controversy surrounding Shepard et. al. and also mentions that he especially has high respect for Robert Godfrey.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 10, 2006)

Are the lectures on logic good?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...


I completely missed this whole thread a month and a half ago when it appeared. I think if you surveyed most Reformed folk they would have not a clue who John Robbins is. I don't consider myself as one who had his head completely in theological sand for 8 years before I joined this board but I had never even heard of JR nor was he discussed in any Reformed circles I ran in on two different coasts.

I think it was the July/August edition of _Modern Reformation_ that opened up many Reformed people's eyes to this subject.

Just prior to deploying to OIF I in the Fall of 2002, I invited Mike Horton to lunch at the Camp Pendleton O'Club and he accepted. My friend, Jay Storms, and I had lunch with him and thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. I remember at that point we brought up how much we liked Doug Wilson's writings and he mentioned he was going to meet with Doug about some theological controversy brewing. I wasn't quite sure what it was but I sure found out eventually and now it's everywhere. I did see in Mike, however, a desire to proceed carefully and dialogue and try to understand better and, if necessary, help correct Doug Wilson et al before he was going to begin levelling the heavy guns against him. I think the time interlude reflects thoughtfulness on the WSCAL faculty to dialogue before leveling the flamethrower.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritanpilgrim_
> Are the lectures on logic good?


I'm listening to a few of his lectures right now. I'm not sure if I like them yet. One thing, however, don't listen to them on a long freeway ride at 0430 in the morning when you're sleep deprived.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Horton is to be commended for his level-headedness and non-shrill attitude. However, his dialogue with Doug Wilson was boring by polemical standards. I kept waiting for them to disagree. (They eventually did on the nature of prelapsarian grace).


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Horton is to be commended for his level-headedness and non-shrill attitude. However, his dialogue with Doug Wilson was boring by polemical standards. I kept waiting for them to disagree. (*They eventually did on the nature of prelapsarian grace *).



(Emphasis added)

A good assessment. But do not discount the crucial importance of the bolded portion.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...


----------

