# John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation



## ChristopherPaul

Where does John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation Go Wrong?

Even Gordon Clark supporters warn others about John Robbins. What is the concern?


----------



## BobVigneault

I would say first and foremost John Robbins is a pot stirrer. He will cry in shrill tones about what may seem to be the slightest infraction regarding ones doctrine and not let anyone give a defense or clearification about what was really mean't. Dr. Robbins does not encourage dialogue but will pass a very hasty judgment on what he may have heard.

He's a smart and knowledgeable man and I've enjoyed his lectures but he is a trouble-maker. I say these things speaking as a soft-Clarkian.


----------



## CalsFarmer

I tend to agree with all of the above posts with an addition: 

John Robbins jumps to more incorrect and in-conclusive conclusions very quickly and often times misses the point of the person(s) he is attacking. He does stir the pot.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

So his theology and teachings are trustworthy, just not his attitude and character?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by CalsFarmer_
> I tend to agree with all of the above posts with an addition:
> 
> John Robbins jumps to more incorrect and in-conclusive conclusions very quickly and often times misses the point of the person(s) he is attacking. He does stir the pot.



I see, he is not the best to give a defense at times even though he is on "our" side.


----------



## BobVigneault

I wouldn't call him a bad man at all, he is our brother. I do think he is a bit over zealous in his attempt to define and establish doctrinal purity. In his rashness he has hurt some good people.


----------



## Me Died Blue

There is a blog entry by Paul Manata here that does a great job putting Robbins' extreme tendencies in their place.

As a sample, Robbins believes the PCA is a false church, believes that C. S. Lewis is likely to be in hell, and has labeled Cornelius Van Til, Herman Bavinck and a host of others as "heretics," whatever that term means anymore in his language.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> There is a blog entry by Paul Manata here that does a great job putting Robbins' extreme tendencies in their place.
> 
> As a sample, Robbins believes the PCA is a false church, believes that C. S. Lewis is likely to be in hell, and has labeled Cornelius Van Til, Herman Bavinck and a host of others as "heretics," whatever that term means anymore in his language.



I agree that apart from the over-heated rhetoric (which goes back to the Clark-Van Til controversy in the 40's) Robbins opposes the Shepherd-FV movement but often does so in a way that discredits critics of the movement.

There are some theological issues. Though right to be deeply concerned about the Shepherd-FV movement (as well as the NPP), GC and he have defined faith, as I see it, as a purely intellectual matter. They seem to deny that there are three elements to faith in the act of justification, or as the HC puts it, "true faith:" Knowledge, Assent, and Trust (these three are all present in the Latin text of the HC but only two appear explicitly in the German/English texts). 

Clark/Robbins seem to define faith as knowledge and perhaps assent but seems to omit or reject "trust" (traditionally "fiducia").

I suspect this re-definition is due to Clark's notion that the human intellect intersects with the divine and it may be an over-reaction to what they perceive as Van Til's "irrational" fideism, I don't know, but then again, my intellect has yet to intersect with God's.

So, take what Robbins says about who is doing what to whom (he tends to see the world through conspiritorial lenses) and his solution (a new denomination with Gordon Clark as the chief theological influence) with a grain of salt.

rsc


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Thank you Chris (Paul Manata) and Dr. Clark. This is very helpful.

The reason I am asking is I have heard that many turn their noses when they hear anything about Robbins or the Trinity Foundation.

One of the women's bible study leaders at my church is currently attending WTS - Philly. Her husband is an elder. Her and her husband and I have many conversations regarding theology since we share the interest in theology.

This past weekend, I mentioned that I was reading Gordon Clark, and she scolded me for it by lending me a Van Til book and reminding me that John Robbins supports Gordon Clark. It was rather funny.

It appears there is indeed a disagreement between Vantillians and Clarkians, but the fact that Robbins supports Clark does not make him problematic as much as his rash and foolish words.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Thank you Chris (Paul Manata) and Dr. Clark. This is very helpful.
> 
> The reason I am asking is I have heard that many turn their noses when they hear anything about Robbins or the Trinity Foundation.
> 
> One of the women's bible study leaders at my church is currently attending WTS - Philly. Her husband is an elder. Her and her husband and I have many conversations regarding theology since we share the interest in theology.
> 
> This past weekend, I mentioned that I was reading Gordon Clark, and she scolded me for it by lending me a Van Til book and reminding me that John Robbins supports Gordon Clark. It was rather funny.
> 
> It appears there is indeed a disagreement between Vantillians and Clarkians, but the fact that Robbins supports Clark does not make him problematic as much as his rash and foolish words.



Gordon Clark is worth reading. He was clear headed, thoughtful, and persuasive. 

You should also read Van Til. Unfortunately his vocabulary (e.g., how often do folk speak about "concrete universals"?) can be rather daunting. Nevertheless, if you start with "My Credo" or "Why I Believe in God" or The Defense of the Faith, you'll be okay. His summary of Reformed Christianity in DF is quite good.

I certainly side with CVT in that debate. See my essay on the Clark-Van Til controversy here: 
http://www.prpbooks.com/inventory.html?target=indiv_title&id=874

rsc


----------



## BobVigneault

I got the same response Christopher. When I started attending the OPC, which I am now a member of, I was approached by several folks who would ask "Is it true that you are a Clarkian?" No one was disrespectful but it was quickly apparent that I was a novelty for having given Clark consideration. Van Til was my introduction to presup and has been noted, he does some funny things with language - Bahnsen is his best interpreter.

I especially like Gordon Clark's theodicy. There are some good mateirals on the Trinity Foundation site but that doesn't change the need for caution that has already been expressed.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Clark/Robbins seem to define faith as knowledge and perhaps assent but seems to omit or reject "trust" (traditionally "fiducia").



This is not entirely accurate. As I understand Clark, he does not reject "trust" at all, but sees it circular and unhelpful as a seperate element in a definition of faith. He uses the root of faith (fide) and trust (fiducia) and the etymology of both to show that they have the same root. 

I thoughougly believe that Clark and Robbins would have absolutely no problem saying that faith is trust, but simply that if one is coming up with a definition of what faith is, one must do better than saying "Faith is knowledge, assent and faith (or trust)."



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> So, take what Robbins says about who is doing what to whom (he tends to see the world through conspiritorial lenses) and his solution (a new denomination with Gordon Clark as the chief theological influence) with a grain of salt.



I agree that Robbins (along with everybody for that matter) should be read with a grain of salt. I have read much of Robbins, and have listened to most (if not all) of his lectures.

He has many good things to say, and his zeal for the gospel is refreshing. I do disagree with him at points, but I haven't found a theologian yet that I agree with 100%.

I think that many people do not like his outspoken-ness and most of their dislike for the man stem from this. 

I have been heavily influenced by Clark and Robbins, and would recommend them to anyone, with the caveat to examine what they say in light of scripture. I believe (and I think most would agree) that Clark has been one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*The Definition of Faith*



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Clark/Robbins seem to define faith as knowledge and perhaps assent but seems to omit or reject "trust" (traditionally "fiducia").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not entirely accurate. As I understand Clark, he does not reject "trust" at all, but sees it circular and unhelpful as a seperate element in a definition of faith. He uses the root of faith (fide) and trust (fiducia) and the etymology of both to show that they have the same root.
> 
> ...one must do better than saying "Faith is knowledge, assent and faith (or trust)."
Click to expand...


Difficulties.

1. When he says "circular" and "unhelpful," how is that not a rejection of the traditional tri-partite definition?

2. The meaning of word cannot be established by its etymology. As has been pointed out by lots of folk (e.g., James Barr and Moises Silva) the word "nice" is derived from the Latin "nescius" which means "stupid." When we say "x is nice" we don't usually mean "x is stupid."

3. The tri-partite definition is deeply embedded in our tradition. These etymological arguments are not sufficient to overturn this tradition.

4. The tri-partite definition (knowledge, assent, and trust) is confessional. It is embedded in BC 23 and throughout the HC:



> Q21: What is true faith?
> 
> True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust (_herzliche Vertrauen_; the Latin text has _certa fiducia_ - rsc), which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.
> 
> Q81: Who are to come to the table of the Lord?
> 
> Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet *trust* (Latin: confidunt; German vertrauen) that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the suffering and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.



The point is that the historic and confessional tripartite definition was meant to comprehend the intellect, the will, and the affections. I can't see how addressing three faculties of the soul with three distinct elements is circular. Simply because CVT held the HC doesn't make it wrong!

It seems to me that the tri-partite definition describes accurately how faith actually happens existentially. One must know something certain information. One must assent to the truth of that information (facts) and one must trust, in this case, that those facts (in this case, Christ's death and resurrection) have immediate implications for one's standing before God, that these things happened and they happened for me.

The historic Reformed understanding of _fiducia_/trust was not that that it is really only another way of speaking of the intellect. See Calvin, _Institutes_ 3.2.11 for a typical example.

One reason we emphasized _fiducia_ is because my name is not written in the Bible. Didn´t Clark have a problem with this? 

We say that one must know the Gospel, must assent to its truth, and must trust that it is true for him. Hence Luther said that we must learn to say _pro me_ (for me) over and over. That is the Gospel, that Christ obeyed and died and was raised for me. 

This was all in opposition to the Roman definition of faith which stressed the intellectual aspect and defined _fiducia_ as arrogance (which is how it is used often in the Vulgate). 

In turn we said, no, it's not arrogance. It's confidence in the finished work of Christ and in his promises.

Further, to redefine faith as really only an act of the intellect is to play right into the hands of those who criticize the _sola fide_-ists, if you will, for reducing faith to an act of assent. This definition is exposed to the criticism that it is too close to the definition of faith criticized by James.

This proposed re-definition should not be undertaken or accepted lightly.

rsc


----------



## Arch2k

Mr. Clark,

I will have to reply to some of your questions later. Until then, my main point was that Gordon Clark's definition of faith looked something like this:

Faith=Trust=Knowledge+Assent

Whereas the "classical" formulation would be:

Faith=Knowledge+Assent+Trust

So while Clark DOES reject the "classical" formulation of faith, he does NOT reject defining faith as trust.

Thanks for your interaction, and I will try to respond more in-depth later.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> ...Gordon Clark's definition of faith looked something like this:
> 
> Faith=Trust=Knowledge+Assent
> 
> Whereas the "classical" formulation would be:
> 
> Faith=Knowledge+Assent+Trust
> 
> So while Clark DOES reject the "classical" formulation of faith, he does NOT reject defining faith as trust.



Jeff,

Thanks.

I understand.

Do you understand that this is a novel, idiosyncratic definition of "trust?"

As a matter of systematics, it may be correct -- that has to be proven -- but as a matter of history and confessionalism, it is quite distinct from how the Scriptures have been understood and confessed by Reformed folk.

rsc


----------



## Arch2k

So as not to detract this thread from its original purpose, I have created a new thread to discuss Gordon Clark's definition of faith here.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I received this unsolicited email today:



> Friends,
> 
> Some so-called Puritans and Protestants were and are little better than medieval mystics.
> 
> They do not understand the Gospel of objective and everlasting righteousness, completely outside of us, belonging to Another, that saves us completely through belief of the truth alone. Instead, they focus on their own "spirituality," their "existential and experiential union" with Christ, their spiritual experience, and they seek and urge others to seek a "deeper Christian experience." Frequently they obscure, if not flatly deny, the Gospel of Jesus Christ by their navel watching, transforming simple understanding and belief into a complex and confusing psychological feat that only the "really spiritual" can perform.
> 
> Sometimes they call this semi-pagan mysticism "experimental religion." By "experimental" they mean "experiential." Knowing and believing the truth are not enough for them; such things are of the head, but not of the heart, and it is the heart, not the head, they fervently assert, that is important.
> 
> These teachings are antithetical to the Gospel, yet they are very popular in some Presbyterian and Baptist circles. Dr. Joel Beeke, a graduate of Westminster Seminary, has been zealously promoting "experimental religion" for years. And now the RPCUS denominational magazine, The Counsel of Chalcedon, features an essay by Douglas Kelley (PCA), who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, extolling mysticism and "spirituality" and asserting that it is present in the Westminster Confession. The editor of the magazine, Rev. Wayne Rogers, tells his readers that Kelley's article "is one of the most important articles I have heard and read in a long time."
> 
> Kelley writes, "Certainly within the broader Medieval Catholic tradition there were streams of Christ-centered mystical experience (that are not totally removed from experimental Calvinism...."
> 
> The ironic thing about this statement is that Kelley spends the first dozen paragraphs of his article suggesting that it is the denial of mysticism/spirtuality in Reformed churches that drives men to Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He does not see, and apparently cannot understand, that it is not the denial of mysticism in so-called Reformed churches, but its very presence that sends men to Rome and Constantinople: They go there because the so-called Reformed churches, like Kelley, acknowledge the legitimacy of mysticism and "spirituality," and Romanism and Orthodoxy are the experts in the field. Why would anyone fool around with Presbyterian experimentalism when they can get the real thing in Rome and the East? Kelley's analysis of the problem is exactly wrong, but we have come to expect that from seminary professors.
> 
> Kelley finds support for his ideas in the French Catholic Charismatic Louis Bouyer, who attacked Reformation theology and extolled "Protestant" experimentalism and experientialism. In fact, nearly all the sources Kelley quotes are Roman and Eastern Catholic. Kelley praises Thomas a Kempis and St. Bernard and traces some of Calvin's doctrines to those medieval mystics.
> 
> Kelley quotes Richard Sibbes (second hand) praising "heart knowledge" as opposed to "reason." This is paganism without any support in Scripture. It is a crime that a seminary professor at a reputedly Reformed seminary is so ignorant of what the word "heart" means in Scripture. But then seminary professors have been using words in un-Biblical ways for centuries. One of those words is "mystery," which in the Bible means simply an intelligible secret, but which the theologians twist into something unintelligible and therefore "spiritual." Mysticism has to do with unintelligible mysteries.
> 
> After all his praise for medieval mysticism, Kelley's argument falls flat, for he can find no mysticism -- none -- in the Westminster Confession. He quotes several paragraphs, and none of them says anything about mysticism or "spirituality." He does not even bother to make an argument that they do.
> 
> So what is the effect of this "most important" essay? Simply this: It is to legitimize medieval mysticism, which of course has nothing to do with Christianity and is in fact a characteristic of pagan religions, and to obscure the objective Gospel. The fact that the RPCUS denominational magazine reprinted it bodes ill for that denomination.
> 
> Rather than legitimizing Roman and Eastern mysticism as Kelley does, Reformed churches must deny any legitimacy to mysticism/spirituality and all forms of counterfeit Christianity. That is the only way to be faithful to Christ and his teachings.
> 
> John Robbins
> The Trinity Foundation
> January 9, 2006



_Non sequitur_. It does not follow that the mainstream of the puritan tradition stressed "heart religion" that they denied sola fide or imputation. Sibbes denied the gospel? Really?

That Joel Beeke took his PhD from WTS/PA, and therefore is implicitly untrustworthy, is _ad hominem_ Joel is a blessing to the Reformed community.

That Kelley quotes a Roman scholar, and therefore is wrong, is guilt by association.

This sort of rhetoric and reasoning in defense of the gospel is not helpful. These folk continue to bring into disrepute the concern that orthodox, confessional folk have about the FV et al.

rsc


----------



## Contra_Mundum

1) I'm not surprised at Robbins' screed. (What took him so long? That magazine came out a couple weeks ago.)

2) Doug Kelley is too much of a true Christian gentleman to probably even notice this scurrilious attack. (And he probably likes at least some of the thoroughly Reformed Christian company he finds with his name on Robbins' hit-list.)

3) DK has probably digested more historic, reformation theology straight from the primary sources than Robbins ever will. DK's heart is full of his head, and his head is full of his heart. (Does Robbins the Grinch have a heart? What size is it?)

4) One more vote for "experimental Calvinism"! Maybe I can get on the hit list too.


----------



## AdamM

Disgraceful.

If I had to name a top ten of the the most helpful, well balanced teachers in our circles today, Joel Beeke and Doug Kelley would be on that list. Let's pray Robbins comes to his senses and repents.


----------



## fredtgreco

Andy Webb's helpful open letter:



> Dear John,
> 
> As a supporter of the Banner of Truth, and an exponent of warm, experimental Calvinism which rightly regards Christianity as fundamentally a religion of the heart, I am appalled that you are criticizing Joel Beeke and others on this point. Are you unaware that the emphasis on experimental (or experiential) piety is demonstrably central to the teaching and preaching of the Puritans and Scots Divines, and can be found throughout the work of John Calvin as well? If you choose to label experimental religion as "semi-pagan" and illegitimate you are thus condemning not only the majority of the Westminster and continental puritans. You are also heaping your condemnation on the likes of Edwards, Owen, Bunyan, A'Brakel, Traill, Guthrie, Boston, the Erskines, and a host of other eminent Scottish, English, and American theologians. In fact, about the only men in the Reformed Community who would escape from this repudiation of "Heart Religion" are your mentor Gordon Clark, a sprinkling of Dutch theologians, and perhaps the most extreme proponents of redemptive historical preaching. Additionally you have condemned the curricula and teaching of several excellent seminaries including highly conservative ones like GPTS and Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.
> 
> More importantly, how on earth can you reconcile such a sweeping condemnation of "experimental religion" with the text of scripture itself? How does one reconcile the supposed lack of heart religion and experimental piety with statements like "Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!" (Psalm 34:8) Surely you see that what the Psalmist is calling for here is much more than a mere belief in propositions? To taste and see that the Lord is good implies the vital union of the believer with his maker, and the experience of his blessings. This speaks of a heart reliance upon the Lord that cannot be summarized in assenting to propositions. It must involve experience and that far beyond the ken of the unbeliever who has never trusted in the Lord or had his heart quickened. Calvin himself clearly grasped this commenting upon this verse that "the goodness of God ...ought to be to them more than matter of simple knowledge." and then further commenting "Davids meaning, therefore, is, that there is nothing on the part of God to prevent the godly, to whom he particularly speaks in this place, from arriving at the knowledge of his goodness by actual experience." [Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms] Yes, even Calvin believed that true believers must have an experimental religion rather than merely a rationalistic one.
> 
> Have you never met someone who understands the Christian faith, and perhaps even assents to its propositions, and yet is clearly not regenerate? I dare say most Pastors have encountered many of this type during their ministry. Also, you should realize that statements in the bible that speak of personal declension are not always speaking of a decline in the accuracy of the doctrine that one confesses. For instance "the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:12) speaks of declension in the heart, certainly it will affect what we confess and practice, but the process of leaving one's first love (per Rev. 2:4) is a problem that speaks of a decline in true heart religion, not an improper understanding of the doctrinal content of the faith.
> 
> Certainly many of the greatest preachers and theologians of the Reformed faith have understood and expounded upon precisely what Douglas Kelly and Joel Beeke wrote about. Here are just a few instances of what I mean:
> 
> "THERE IS no book of the Bible which affords a better test of the depth of a mans Christianity than the Song of Solomon. If a mans religion be all in his head, a wellset form of doctrines built like masonwork stone above stone, but exercising no influence upon his heart, this book cannot but offend him; for there are no stiff statements of doctrine here upon which his heartless religion may be built.
> 
> Or, if a mans religion be all in his fancy; if, like Pliable in The Pilgrims Progress, he be taken with the outward beauty of Christianity; if, like the seed sown upon the rocky ground, his religion is fixed only in the surface faculties of the mind, while the heart remains rocky and unmoved; though he will relish this book much more than the first man, still there is a mysterious breathing of intimate affection in it, which cannot but stumble and offend him.
> 
> But if a mans religion be heart religion; if he has not only doctrines in his head, but love to Jesus in his heart; if he has not only heard and read of the Lord Jesus, but has felt his need of Him, and been brought to cleave unto Him, as the chiefest among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely, then this boor; will be inestimably precious to his soul. It contains the tenderest breathings of the believers heart towards the Savior, and the tenderest breathings of the Saviors heart again towards the believer." - R.M. M'Cheyne
> 
> "Religion is not to be stowed away in the dark garret of the brain. Christianity is a heart religion; and if you cannot say, from the very depths of your being, Christ is all, you have neither part nor lot in the blessings and privileges of the gospel; and your end will be destruction, everlasting banishment from the presence of the Lord. God grant it may not be so, but that in both your lives and mine we may each be enabled to say of a truth, Christ is all, and that we may meet again around the eternal throne!" - C.H. Spurgeon
> 
> "If we be not in good earnest in religion, and our wills and inclinations be not strongly exercised, we are nothing. The things of religion are so great, that there can be no suitableness in the exercises of our hearts, to their nature and importance, unless they be lively and powerful. In nothing is vigor in the actings of our inclinations so requisite, as in religion; and in nothing is lukewarmness so odious. True religion is evermore a powerful thing; and the power of it appears, in the first place in the inward exercises of it in the heart, where is the principal and original seat of it." - Jonathan Edwards
> 
> Surely you would admit that the command to "love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself" cannot possibly involve only "belief of the truth alone" but refers to a believer's wholehearted love of God that goes far deeper than mere knowledge and assent. How can one love unexperimentally?
> 
> My hope is that you will consider these things and not just through the lens of the late Gordon Clark's philosophy. In your sweeping statements you have described not just Beeke and Kelly, but countless other Reformed theologians, institutions, and even denominations as being "semi-pagan." I will be frank in saying that you have tarred me and my own ministry with the same brush. Now you may put this down to my having graduated from WTS as well (even though no one has ever accused me of being an uncritical proponent of that institution), but I learned my experimental Calvinism not from my Seminary, but from the writings of the Puritans and more importantly the Word of God, both of which preceded both WTS and the Van Til / Clark controversy.
> 
> John I beg you to reconsider your present course before you become guilty of condemning everyone in the Reformed world save for the most avid and exact followers of Gordon Clark. I cannot be certain, but I strongly suspect that not even he would have gone this far.
> 
> Your Servant in Christ,
> 
> Andrew Webb
> Pastor, Providence PCA
> Fayetteville, NC


----------



## Laura

Mr. Webb's strong suspicions are on track. Gordon Clark *would* be appalled, and I am convinced that it is precisely because his most vocal advocate happens to be John Robbins that Clark attracts the unwarranted charge of rationalism wherever his name appears.


----------



## VanVos

Let's hope John Robbins doesn't go the same way as Marc Carpenter. Didn't he once write for The Trinity Foundation until he starting condemning many respected reformed leaders i.e. George Whitfield?

VanVos


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I received this unsolicited email today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends,
> 
> Some so-called Puritans and Protestants were and are little better than medieval mystics.
> 
> They do not understand the Gospel of objective and everlasting righteousness, completely outside of us, belonging to Another, that saves us completely through belief of the truth alone. Instead, they focus on their own "spirituality," their "existential and experiential union" with Christ, their spiritual experience, and they seek and urge others to seek a "deeper Christian experience." Frequently they obscure, if not flatly deny, the Gospel of Jesus Christ by their navel watching, transforming simple understanding and belief into a complex and confusing psychological feat that only the "really spiritual" can perform.
> 
> Sometimes they call this semi-pagan mysticism "experimental religion." By "experimental" they mean "experiential." Knowing and believing the truth are not enough for them; such things are of the head, but not of the heart, and it is the heart, not the head, they fervently assert, that is important.
> 
> These teachings are antithetical to the Gospel, yet they are very popular in some Presbyterian and Baptist circles. Dr. Joel Beeke, a graduate of Westminster Seminary, has been zealously promoting "experimental religion" for years. And now the RPCUS denominational magazine, The Counsel of Chalcedon, features an essay by Douglas Kelley (PCA), who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, extolling mysticism and "spirituality" and asserting that it is present in the Westminster Confession. The editor of the magazine, Rev. Wayne Rogers, tells his readers that Kelley's article "is one of the most important articles I have heard and read in a long time."
> 
> Kelley writes, "Certainly within the broader Medieval Catholic tradition there were streams of Christ-centered mystical experience (that are not totally removed from experimental Calvinism...."
> 
> The ironic thing about this statement is that Kelley spends the first dozen paragraphs of his article suggesting that it is the denial of mysticism/spirtuality in Reformed churches that drives men to Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He does not see, and apparently cannot understand, that it is not the denial of mysticism in so-called Reformed churches, but its very presence that sends men to Rome and Constantinople: They go there because the so-called Reformed churches, like Kelley, acknowledge the legitimacy of mysticism and "spirituality," and Romanism and Orthodoxy are the experts in the field. Why would anyone fool around with Presbyterian experimentalism when they can get the real thing in Rome and the East? Kelley's analysis of the problem is exactly wrong, but we have come to expect that from seminary professors.
> 
> Kelley finds support for his ideas in the French Catholic Charismatic Louis Bouyer, who attacked Reformation theology and extolled "Protestant" experimentalism and experientialism. In fact, nearly all the sources Kelley quotes are Roman and Eastern Catholic. Kelley praises Thomas a Kempis and St. Bernard and traces some of Calvin's doctrines to those medieval mystics.
> 
> Kelley quotes Richard Sibbes (second hand) praising "heart knowledge" as opposed to "reason." This is paganism without any support in Scripture. It is a crime that a seminary professor at a reputedly Reformed seminary is so ignorant of what the word "heart" means in Scripture. But then seminary professors have been using words in un-Biblical ways for centuries. One of those words is "mystery," which in the Bible means simply an intelligible secret, but which the theologians twist into something unintelligible and therefore "spiritual." Mysticism has to do with unintelligible mysteries.
> 
> After all his praise for medieval mysticism, Kelley's argument falls flat, for he can find no mysticism -- none -- in the Westminster Confession. He quotes several paragraphs, and none of them says anything about mysticism or "spirituality." He does not even bother to make an argument that they do.
> 
> So what is the effect of this "most important" essay? Simply this: It is to legitimize medieval mysticism, which of course has nothing to do with Christianity and is in fact a characteristic of pagan religions, and to obscure the objective Gospel. The fact that the RPCUS denominational magazine reprinted it bodes ill for that denomination.
> 
> Rather than legitimizing Roman and Eastern mysticism as Kelley does, Reformed churches must deny any legitimacy to mysticism/spirituality and all forms of counterfeit Christianity. That is the only way to be faithful to Christ and his teachings.
> 
> John Robbins
> The Trinity Foundation
> January 9, 2006
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Non sequitur_. It does not follow that the mainstream of the puritan tradition stressed "heart religion" that they denied sola fide or imputation. Sibbes denied the gospel? Really?
> 
> That Joel Beeke took his PhD from WTS/PA, and therefore is implicitly untrustworthy, is _ad hominem_ Joel is a blessing to the Reformed community.
> 
> That Kelley quotes a Roman scholar, and therefore is wrong, is guilt by association.
> 
> This sort of rhetoric and reasoning in defense of the gospel is not helpful. These folk continue to bring into disrepute the concern that orthodox, confessional folk have about the FV et al.
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


I recieved this as well as many other e-mails from them for over a week now.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I already emailed Robins and told him that it was bunk.


----------



## TimeRedeemer

"Christianity doth not abrogate affections, but regulates them." - Thomas Manton

"Grace comes not to take away a man's affections [emotions], but to take them up." - William Fenner

Puritans aimed at a balance of head and heart, yet: "The believer is the most reasonable man in the world; he who doth all by faith, doth all by the light of sound reason."

A Christian needs a balanced development physically, emotionally, and intellectually. Ideally. Then, of course, intellect, taking its orders from the will of God, is to command emotion and will. Emotion at that point, though, is educated and developed - or disciplined - and can know things mere intellect can't get at. The discernment that is given with regeneration and faith involves elements of emotion. The fact is, our discernement when we have it is a quick thing, much quicker than our mere intellectual thinking, and that comes from a combination of mind and heart and instinct -- from the entire being.

(Quotes above taken from Banner of Truth's 'A Puritan Golden Treasury' and from Wordly Saints by Leland Ryken.)


----------



## TimeRedeemer

This quote:

"The believer is the most reasonable man in the world; he who doth all by faith, doth all by the light of sound reason."

is from Samuel Rutherford (from pg. 4 of Worldy Saints by Leland Ryken).


----------



## TimeRedeemer

Ironically, Mr. Robbins may be at a disadvantage with his views of 'heart religion' and its place in Christian practice because when you are not aware of your emotions, and that there are, for instance, noble emotions and not-so-noble emotions, and that the affections (emotions) need to be commanded to be used in a way that glorifies God then what tends to happen is emotional energy (sometimes it verges on sexual energy too) gets into your thoughts where it doesn't belong which results in alot of the over-heated rhetoric and suspicions and accusing and conspiracy type thinking that Mr. Robbins may at times engage in. 

Zeal is a very positive thing (and the extent that Mr. Robbins has a zeal for the truth and the faith is very good, i.e. he's not lukewarm). I'm not going to follow that sentence with a "but". I'll just let it stand. Yet now I'll say that a balanced development (a command and just boundary) of heart and head aids zeal. A promiscuous use of emotional energy in the intellect does not glorify God.

It's ironic when a person who exalts reason over (or exclusively over) emotion doesn't realize how much his emotion is driving his reason.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> I already emailed Robins and told him that it was bunk.



Do you think that will do any good?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

No. He'll probably rant a bit, then I'll respond, he'll rant again, I'll repsond, then he'll just stop emailing me. (I say that from experience.)

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> _Non sequitur_. It does not follow that the mainstream of the puritan tradition stressed "heart religion" that they denied sola fide or imputation. Sibbes denied the gospel? Really?



This is the point JR is making in his argument - "experimental religion" is "antithetical to the Gospel" - i.e. that this mystical/experiential stress in teaching is a denial of sola fide. So this is not a non-sequitur, it is simply an argument, whether you agree with it or not.

And he really isn't making an argument here so-much as he is bringing to light some of the teachings found in main-stream seminaries and so-called reformed denominations.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> That Joel Beeke took his PhD from WTS/PA, and therefore is implicitly untrustworthy, is _ad hominem_ Joel is a blessing to the Reformed community.



Dr. Robbins did not say he was untrustworthy. He gave Beeke's credentials to let people know that this is the kind of thing that is being taught in our seminaries. It is Beeke teachings that make him untrustworthy, not where he got his PhD.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> That Kelley quotes a Roman scholar, and therefore is wrong, is guilt by association.



It's not that simple. He did not merely quote them, but that "nearly all the sources Kelley quotes are Roman and Eastern Catholic". I'm assuming Kelley used these quotes to support his position. If I quote Luther or Calvin to support my position, one might expect that I tend to agree with Luther's and Calvin's teaching, and that I consider them to be trustworthy authorities. That's not unreasonable.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> This sort of rhetoric and reasoning in defense of the gospel is not helpful.



Actually, I find it very helpful. His reasoning is sound, and his passion is enlightening. 



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> These folk continue to bring into disrepute the concern that orthodox, confessional folk have about the FV et al.



I don't see any problem with bringing these concerns to light. That Dr. Robbins is passionate and direct only demonstrates his genuineness. There is nothing inherently trustworthy about people who take a "nice-guy" approach to these issues, to avoid rocking the boat, or stirring things up, or offending other. If not for people like Dr. Robbins, very few would be aware of "FV et al". If you want examples of aggressive passionate speech regarding issues of the Gospel, one need go no further than Paul and Jesus. But consider also Martin Luther. Heated rhetoric only underscores the import of the issues.

Finally, your point-by-point critique seems to avoid addressing the main point Dr. Robbins is making, that a form of mysticism is being openly taught in many "reformed" seminaries. A sort of emotional, experiential, feel-good religion - that says the Gospel truth is a function of personal experience, and not just God's revelation. 

John Robbins is being consistent with Gordon Clark who denied that there was a heart/head dichotomy in scripture - and the neo-orthodox emphasis of heart-religion takes away the scriptural demand that faith is entirely a gift from God, and has nothing to do with man's will and desires.

Even if your critiques were right, it does not address the issues. I find that frequently, people are quick to criticize there opponents "tone" or character. We find the quality of the speech to be irritating or harsh. Consider Hillary Clinton verses Rush Limbaugh. A person will find one acerbic and the other refreshing. But neither reaction is a valid critique of either person's positions. 

So seems to be the case with many critiques of John Robbins, Vincent Cheung, and Martin Luther. People who agree with them, often find less in their tone that is objectionable. But people who disagree find them too harsh and insensitive.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 1) I'm not surprised at Robbins' screed. (What took him so long? That magazine came out a couple weeks ago.)...



Is Douglas Kelley's essay in Counsel of Chalcedon available on-line? I'd like to read it myself.

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> _Non sequitur_. It does not follow that the mainstream of the puritan tradition stressed "heart religion" that they denied sola fide or imputation. Sibbes denied the gospel? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point JR is making in his argument - "experimental religion" is "antithetical to the Gospel" - i.e. that this mystical/experiential stress in teaching is a denial of sola fide. So this is not a non-sequitur, it is simply an argument, whether you agree with it or not.
> 
> And he really isn't making an argument here so-much as he is bringing to light some of the teachings found in main-stream seminaries and so-called reformed denominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> That Joel Beeke took his PhD from WTS/PA, and therefore is implicitly untrustworthy, is _ad hominem_ Joel is a blessing to the Reformed community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Robbins did not say he was untrustworthy. He gave Beeke's credentials to let people know that this is the kind of thing that is being taught in our seminaries. It is Beeke teachings that make him untrustworthy, not where he got his PhD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> That Kelley quotes a Roman scholar, and therefore is wrong, is guilt by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that simple. He did not merely quote them, but that "nearly all the sources Kelley quotes are Roman and Eastern Catholic". I'm assuming Kelley used these quotes to support his position. If I quote Luther or Calvin to support my position, one might expect that I tend to agree with Luther's and Calvin's teaching, and that I consider them to be trustworthy authorities. That's not unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> This sort of rhetoric and reasoning in defense of the gospel is not helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I find it very helpful. His reasoning is sound, and his passion is enlightening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> These folk continue to bring into disrepute the concern that orthodox, confessional folk have about the FV et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see any problem with bringing these concerns to light. That Dr. Robbins is passionate and direct only demonstrates his genuineness. There is nothing inherently trustworthy about people who take a "nice-guy" approach to these issues, to avoid rocking the boat, or stirring things up, or offending other. If not for people like Dr. Robbins, very few would be aware of "FV et al". If you want examples of aggressive passionate speech regarding issues of the Gospel, one need go no further than Paul and Jesus. But consider also Martin Luther. Heated rhetoric only underscores the import of the issues.
> 
> Finally, your point-by-point critique seems to avoid addressing the main point Dr. Robbins is making, that a form of mysticism is being openly taught in many "reformed" seminaries. A sort of emotional, experiential, feel-good religion - that says the Gospel truth is a function of personal experience, and not just God's revelation.
> 
> John Robbins is being consistent with Gordon Clark who denied that there was a heart/head dichotomy in scripture - and the neo-orthodox emphasis of heart-religion takes away the scriptural demand that faith is entirely a gift from God, and has nothing to do with man's will and desires.
> 
> Even if your critiques were right, it does not address the issues. I find that frequently, people are quick to criticize there opponents "tone" or character. We find the quality of the speech to be irritating or harsh. Consider Hillary Clinton verses Rush Limbaugh. A person will find one acerbic and the other refreshing. But neither reaction is a valid critique of either person's positions.
> 
> So seems to be the case with many critiques of John Robbins, Vincent Cheung, and Martin Luther. People who agree with them, often find less in their tone that is objectionable. But people who disagree find them too harsh and insensitive.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that you agree with Robbins that Beeke's experimental preaching, or his teachings on this (i.e. all the early church, puritans and reformers) were wrong? 

What Robbin's is doing is basically eliminating all of church history except his version of it through Clarkian glasses that don't warrant the email he sent out. His conclusions are not only a horrific red herring (fight the straw man) argument (though it was more simply caustic than anything else) rather than thoughtful based on the historic position. In my own reading through of all of Clark's works, I don't find him being as nearly as harsh as Robbin's strange manic reactions surrounding some of these issues he simply does not seem to understand. Hopefully you are not mistaking his manic reactions for passion. Christ was passionate about the use of the temple, and drove the money changer out. But Christ did that with Scriptural knowledge. Robbins is not doing that at all in this case.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Are you saying that you agree with Robbins that Beeke's experimental preaching, or his teachings on this (i.e. all the early church, puritans and reformers) were wrong?
> ....



It seems the main topic of the e-mail is Douglas Kelley's essay - which I'd like to read if anyone can tell me how to get a copy of it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Where does John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation Go Wrong?
> 
> Even Gordon Clark supporters warn others about John Robbins. What is the concern?



I believe this was the main topic. 

Robbin's caustic misinformation about Reformed experimental preaching simply followed suit.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Where does John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation Go Wrong?
> 
> Even Gordon Clark supporters warn others about John Robbins. What is the concern?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this was the main topic.
> 
> Robbin's caustic misinformation about Reformed experimental preaching simply followed suit.
Click to expand...


And I was responding to _your_ question regarding Beeke's experimental preaching which was your response to my post on regarding Robbins e-mail. 

So why do you ask me if I agree "with Robbins that Beeke's experimental preaching"? Or was that meant as a red herring, to illustrate your view that John Robbins e-mail was a red herring?

 I get it now! I misunderstood the purpose of your question. My mistake.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The article is not available from the publishers on-line; thieir most recent back issue on-line pdf is about 6 months ago. But Kelly's lecture may be available (audio) through the PCA website (don't ask me how, you'll have to research it) because I think it may have originally been a lecture given in conjunction with the G.A., or something.

Of course you can always write to Chalcedon Presbyterian Church and they will probably send you a hard copy _gratis_ if they have any extras. But you could volunteer a little postage... Or just ask Robbins for a photocopy!


----------



## Magma2

For what it's worth I think Dr. Robbins´ reply to the Kelly piece was spot on. I´ve read Kelly´s piece and Andy Webb´s reply. The heart in Scripture is the mind and man is a unitary being - not some bi or tri-partite conglomeration. The dichotomy that Scripture presents, as Clark pointed out long ago, is between the heart and the tongue, not between head and heart as Kelly and Webb wrongly assert. There is no such thing as head knowledge vs heart knowledge. Now, if these men were just arguing for the difference between understanding and understanding with an assent, there would hardly any problem, but that´s clearly not what they´re arguing for. Just more proof that tradition and history are often errant and are not trustworthy sources of truth. But some will hang on to their traditions regardless of what the Scriptures teach. 

Interestingly and more than a bit ironic, a PCA RE, who will remain nameless, wrote the following in response to Webb´s open letter:



> John Robbins, another "banned nutbar", has already struck. Can Marc Carpenter be far behind?
> 
> Incidentally, John Robbins' latest diatribe contained a statement I
> believe is indicative of underlying heresy. Here it is, without the
> big bold print and links:
> 
> "Some so-called Puritans and Protestants were and are little better
> than medieval mystics.
> 
> They do not understand the Gospel of objective and
> everlasting righteousness, completely outside of us, belonging to
> Another, that saves us completely through belief of the truth alone.
> Instead, they focus on their own "spirituality," their "existential
> and experiential union" with Christ, their spiritual experience, and
> they seek and urge others to seek a "deeper Christian experience."
> Frequently they obscure, if not flatly deny, the Gospel of Jesus
> Christ by their navel watching, transforming simple understanding
> and belief into a complex and confusing psychological feat that only
> the "really spiritual" can perform."
> 
> It seems to me that Robbins is saying that salvation comes by
> mere "belief of the truth alone." By making faith exactly equal to
> belief, he is denying the necessity of "being converted." I expect
> he will deny this, but his attacks of the Puritans for their
> emphasis on "experimental religion", and his saying that their
> emphasis on the heart is "antithetical to the gospel", indicates
> that he seriously overvalues the intellect, to the neglect of the
> necessity of receiving a new heart.



I responded to this RE privately to remind him that belief and faith are the same thing and are derived from the same Greek word. I think it telling that this RE denies salvation by mere belief alone and yet claims to have discovered some underlying heresy in Robbins. May God have mercy on the sheep under his care. With the collective bobbing of the head to Webb´s reply and the dismissal of Robbins by those who think like Paul Manta that Robbins "œ needs his little bottom spanked," is there really any wonder that P&R denominations are virtually impotent in removing the false gospel of the Federal Visionists? For what it's worth at least FV´s like Doug Wilson provide a logical definition for the addition of fiducia in their view of salvation by corporate and covenantal faithfulness. After all, for men like Wilson and his counterparts in Rome, believing is doing. I´m not at all sure what the above RE has in mind, but at best it is incoherent. 

Sean Gerety


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The article is not available from the publishers on-line; thieir most recent back issue on-line pdf is about 6 months ago. But Kelly's lecture may be available (audio) through the PCA website (don't ask me how, you'll have to research it) because I think it may have originally been a lecture given in conjunction with the G.A., or something.
> 
> Of course you can always write to Chalcedon Presbyterian Church and they will probably send you a hard copy _gratis_ if they have any extras. But you could volunteer a little postage... Or just ask Robbins for a photocopy!



While that will work, be forewarned: A lot of times it takes Chalcedon Church a while to get stuff out (I assume we are talking about Morecraft's church). I ordered some cds from them around Christmas and they still haven't gotten here. Good material. Good people, just not quick on the mail. Oh well...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I don't see any problem with bringing these concerns to light. That Dr. Robbins is passionate and direct only demonstrates his genuineness. There is nothing inherently trustworthy about people who take a "nice-guy" approach to these issues, to avoid rocking the boat, or stirring things up, or offending other.


There is something inherently Scriptural about the way we interact with our Brothers:


> (Romans 12:10) Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.


Andy Webb nailed this:


> Have you never met someone who understands the Christian faith, and perhaps even assents to its propositions, and yet is clearly not regenerate? I dare say most Pastors have encountered many of this type during their ministry.


Yes I have. They are destructive to the Church in their "zeal". Whenever somebody has to constantly qualify their zeal as "just being honest" there is usually something wrong.


----------



## RamistThomist

While I ignore 99% of what Robbins says, I will give him credit on this one issue (and only once!):

He has given the MOST PENETRATING short-level critique of natural law out there.


----------



## Magma2

Rich writes:


> Andy Webb nailed this:
> Quote:
> Have you never met someone who understands the Christian faith, and perhaps even assents to its propositions, and yet is clearly not regenerate? I dare say most Pastors have encountered many of this type during their ministry.




In my view Webb nailed nothing, that is, unless you´re willing to attribute omniscience to Andy. Last I checked, TE´s and RE´s still don´t have the ability to peer into the hearts of men. What seems to have Andy and others confused is a failure to draw a distinctions between understanding and assent. As Clark writes:



> One can understand and lecture on the philosophy of Spinoza, but this does not mean that the lecturer assents to it. Belief is the act of assenting to something understood. But understanding alone is not belief in what is understood.



Now, unlike Andy, I have met a number of people over the years who seem to understand the Christian faith, profess to believe it, and, from my feeble vantage point, even appear to be quite genuine in their conviction. Yet, something happens and next thing I know those who I thought were believers prove themselves to be anything but. Or, as John put it; "œThey went out from us, but they were not really of us . . . ." Does it therefore follow that salvation is not by mere belief alone or that Christians once saved can be lost? Of course not. Clearly there are those whom we may _think_ have come to saving faith, who themselves might have even deluded themselves into thinking themselves Christians, yet never actually believed. A feigned assent to the truths of the gospel does not an assent make. Yet, if Andy and the others require something more than understanding and assent in order to make faith "œsaving," then I think they should be required to clearly define "“ and from the Scriptures "“ exactly what that is, but from my experience people like Webb never do this. Instead they wrap themselves in confused quotations taken from those in the Reformed tradition and claim their work is done. Well, that kind of argument from tradition might work for some, but I hardly think it very Protestant. 
 




> Yes I have. They are destructive to the Church in their "zeal". Whenever somebody has to constantly qualify their zeal as "just being honest" there is usually something wrong.



I think you have to be careful here Rich. I don´t see John Robbins or the work of the Trinity Foundation as being "œdestructive to the Church" in the slightest. Now, you may not like him, the authors he publishes, or TF in general, but in my opinion you need something a bit more concrete to support such a strong charge. For myself, I have been enormously blessed by the work of the Foundation, Dr. Robbins in particular. For what it's worth there was only one time in recent memory that I thought Robbins went too far and that was in his review of John Piper´s book, Future Grace. That is, until I actually read Piper´s book for myself. The book is dreadful for all the reasons Robbins outlined and then some. Needless to say at the time the review came out, Piper´s followers poured out of the woodwork blasting away against Robbins, just like many have on this thread, and I can tell you, not one of them were able to demonstrate that Robbins erred in his review. My guess is most just didn´t like to hear what he had to say, or, more to the point, of whom he was saying it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sean,

I think you miss my point.

I agree that it is probably poor use of terminology to state that we know people who are not regenerate. I will grant the minor issue but it changes nothing in the substance of my critique or the overall criticism. You're missing the forest for the trees.

That you believe I am ascribing this to Robbins is presumptuous. I did not say I have met Robbins. I had no opinion of him until yesterday when I read what he wrote. You're criticizing somebody else here but, for the record, I think the spirit and tone of Mr. Robbins is destructive from the unsolicited e-mail and other statements he has made. Doctrinal purity is not a license to be a wrecking ball.

I stated, merely, that I have met more than a few people that are doctrinally well-educated but demonstrate no fruit of the Spirit - especially love of the brethren. Instead of listening to the Sermon and letting the Word minister through God's ordained ministers, such men fume over a imprecise statement and can't wait to correct the Pastor afterward. Instead of patience with immature brethren, they rebuke openly and coldly. Instead of making the Elders' jobs a joy, they constantly grieve them as they have to pick up the pieces of the destruction they leave in their path.

I'm gratified that you have benefitted from Robbins' work. If you read more carefully, many commend him for some of his doctrinal work but are highly critical of his tone and method. Do not dismiss such concerns so cavalierly as if the love of the brethren is some dispensible inconvenience when you "...just have to tell it like it is."


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Sean,
> 
> I think you miss my point.
> 
> ...
> 
> That you believe I am ascribing this to Robbins is presumptuous. ...
> 
> I stated, merely, that I have met more than a few people that are doctrinally well-educated but demonstrate no fruit of the Spirit - especially love of the brethren. Instead of listening to the Sermon and letting the Word minister through God's ordained ministers, such men fume over a imprecise statement and can't wait to correct the Pastor afterward. Instead of patience with immature brethren, they rebuke openly and coldly. Instead of making the Elders' jobs a joy, they constantly grieve them as they have to pick up the pieces of the destruction they leave in their path.
> 
> I'm gratified that you have benefitted from Robbins' work. If you read more carefully, many commend him for some of his doctrinal work but are highly critical of his tone and method. Do not dismiss such concerns so cavalierly as if the love of the brethren is some dispensible inconvenience when you "...just have to tell it like it is."



I suppose then that the above comments _also_ have nothing to do with John Robbins.

I think you missed my point. I believe some people find John Robbins "tone" harsh because they disagree with his views. Maybe because his criticisms come too close to home.

I think ad hominem criticisms of John Robbins "tone" are next to useless since they do not address his arguments. They reflect poorly on those who disagree with John Robbins. 

And since your comments above had nothing to do with John Robbins, then I need not add that over the years I have known him, he has always demonstrated warmth, patients and graciousness. Not that any of these outward signs of regeneration have any bearing on the specifics of his arguments. So I don't see any point to your comments with regard to John Robbins.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Perhaps you would see my point if you had read Andy Webb's letter that was posted in this forum. Andy did not ascribe reprobation to Mr. Robbins and neither have I. I am merely agreeing with Andy that there are people who have factual knowledge of the Scriptures but do not evidence the love of Christ. That point is true as far as it goes without ascribing it to John Robbins.

Andy Webb's observation is not an _ad hominem_ attack nor is my agreement with that particular point he was making.

I found John Robbins tone to be harsh in the letter he wrote because it was so. I had no fundamental disagreement with anything Mr. Robbins had written because it was the first time I had read something he wrote.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ....
> Andy Webb's observation is not an _ad hominem_ attack nor is my agreement with that particular point he was making.
> ...



That you believe I am ascribing Andy Webb's observations as an _ad hominem_ attack is presumptuous. It was merely a general comment.


----------



## Magma2

> I am merely agreeing with Andy that there are people who have factual knowledge of the Scriptures but do not evidence the love of Christ. That point is true as far as it goes without ascribing it to John Robbins.



Maybe you need to read Andy more closely. He did not say that there are people that have a "œfactual knowledge of the Scriptures but do not evidence the love of Christ." What he said, as you correctly quoted him; "œHave you never met someone who understands the Christian faith, _and perhaps even assents to its propositions,_ and yet is clearly not regenerate?" Clearly Andy´s so-called "œheart religion" has clouded his "œmind religion" because what he asserts is that someone can assent to the propositions of the Christian faith and be lost. Clearly for Andy belief is something more than an assent to understood proposition, but what exactly is it? A deep feeling? An experience or encounter? Our godly lives on display for others? The citations Andy provides merely demonstrate the profound confusion that has clouded Reformed thinking on this key question. Clearly for many something more than belief in the truth of the Gospel is necessary for a sinner to be saved. This is false and dressing up the error in pious sounding language as Andy does, with a sprinkling of some stalwarts of the Reformed faith for good measure, doesn´t make it any less false.



> Andy Webb's observation is not an ad hominem attack nor is my agreement with that particular point he was making.



I never said it was. 



> I found John Robbins tone to be harsh in the letter he wrote because it was so. I had no fundamental disagreement with anything Mr. Robbins had written because it was the first time I had read something he wrote.



Tone is more often something in the ear of the beholder. Clearly some of the remarks praising the posted blog by Paul Manta above indicate that they found his tone, and the tone of others like him, perfectly acceptable. Yet, Manta´s screed is one of the most muddle headed collection of abusive ad hominem attacks and infantile slurs that I have ever read. I would have thought that kind of vitriol would be reserved for addressing the pope or someone along those lines, but many here evidently found Manta´s tone rather pleasant, even edifying. Conversely, I didn´t find Robbins tone harsh in the least. I did find Andy´s tone rather condescending and obtuse, so I guess it´s a draw.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Magma2_Conversely, I didn´t find Robbins tone harsh in the least.



Sean,

Anyone who has read anything that you have posted over the years on any number of internet fora will recognize that you have never found anything that Robbins has done to be anything less than the greatest contribution to the Church since Gordon Clark, and before that, Paul.

This topic is closed.


----------

