# Can I Trust John Robbins?



## davidsuggs (Oct 3, 2008)

I am about to download his introduction to philosophy series but I want to be sure he is trustworthy to listen to. Is he? I have heard of him before and I can usually pick out problems in people's philosophy but if I am going to learn from a Christian perspective I want to make sure it is sound.

So who is he and does he have any quirks I should know about?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 3, 2008)

David,

John Robbins was a Clarkian. There have been many threads in the Philosophy and Apologetics forum on that subject. There are certainly disputes over aspects of Clarkian philosophy that some find problematic but it really does depend on what you're listening to. I found his series on the introduction to Philosophy very helpful. On that note, many find Clark's book on the history of philosophy an excellent work and it's on my "to read eventually" list.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 3, 2008)

davidsuggs said:


> I am about to download his introduction to philosophy series but I want to be sure he is trustworthy to listen to. Is he? I have heard of him before and I can usually pick out problems in people's philosophy but if I am going to learn from a Christian perspective I want to make sure it is sound.
> 
> So who is he and does he have any quirks I should know about?



I would check his biograhpy at the Trinity Foundation first. If I remeber correctly his academic discipline was not philosophy but political theory. I have found that when Robbins writes outside that discipline he sometimes makes significant errors. His mentor Gordon Clark is probably a better bet for the history of philosophy than Robbins. Again see the TF website for Clark's boks.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 3, 2008)

He has some very helpful writings on philosophy, so long as you realize that:


everything that Gordon Clark ever said was right
everything that Van Til ever said was wrong
anyone who disagrees with Clark is a heretic


----------



## davidsuggs (Oct 3, 2008)

The biography says his doctorate was in Philosophy and Political Theory but yes, it does seem like he is grounded primarily in political theory. But then again, R.C. Sprould was originally a theologian through and through but I learned a great deal from his philosophy series


----------



## davidsuggs (Oct 3, 2008)

> He has some very helpful writings on philosophy, so long as you realize that:
> 
> 
> everything that Gordon Clark ever said was right
> ...


 
So are you saying you have to _*presuppose*_ these things first?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 3, 2008)

davidsuggs said:


> > He has some very helpful writings on philosophy, so long as you realize that:
> >
> >
> > everything that Gordon Clark ever said was right
> ...



I'm saying that Robbins has a difficult time writing a couple of pages without banging you over the head with those items.


----------



## davidsuggs (Oct 3, 2008)

I know what your are saying I was just joking haha


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 3, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> davidsuggs said:
> 
> 
> > > He has some very helpful writings on philosophy, so long as you realize that:
> ...



True enough, but I've listened to his series on philosophy and he doesn't spend much time (if any--I can't recall) on Van Til.

It's not a bad series. I'd second the recommendation on Clark's Introductory work, called _Thales to Dewey_. It does not go into theological controversy at all, but gives a pretty good whirlwind tour of the history of philosophy.

And I think the last page is priceless.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 3, 2008)

Thales to Dewey is excellent. Just for the record, I think Clark has some _very_ good stuff.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 3, 2008)

davidsuggs said:


> I am about to download his introduction to philosophy series but I want to be sure he is trustworthy to listen to. Is he? I have heard of him before and I can usually pick out problems in people's philosophy but if I am going to learn from a Christian perspective I want to make sure it is sound.
> 
> So who is he and does he have any quirks I should know about?



Having listened to Robbins' series on Philosophy and Dr. Bahnsen's series on Philosophy I find Bahnsen's to be better. Of course Bahnsen had a PhD in Analytical Philosophy. You can get Bahnsen's three-part series on the history of philosophy or his Christian Philosophy from Covenant Media Foundation

I would go with the cheaper Christian Philosophy series. Bahnsen deals with Clark's contributions to Christian Philosophy and is generally quite fair considering his mentor was Van Til.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 5, 2008)

Clark is better on speaking about other's philosophy than he is at developing his own.

For instance, God and Evil: the problem solved is unBiblical and anti-confessional.

Now, ducking for cover....


----------



## Davidius (Oct 5, 2008)

KenPierce said:


> Clark is better on speaking about other's philosophy than he is at developing his own.
> 
> For instance, God and Evil: the problem solved is unBiblical and anti-confessional.
> 
> Now, ducking for cover....



Not sure why you would be ducking. If the board has a particular slant, it would be Van-Tillian, not Clarkian. Since his proposed solutions to things such as the problem of evil are part of what drove the movement against his ordination, I doubt that your position is unique on this board.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 5, 2008)

I have to agree with Davidus in this respect:

It it pointless to just toss out an "I think Clark was unconfessional" blast, which ends up just sounding like a person bias instead of a reasoned and thoughtful reply to a perceived error.

I'm just left wondering, Ken, if you have read and studied Clark out on the topic, and come to this conclusion, or if that comment is simply fueled by reading some partisan on the VT side, whose opinion you value and respect?

I'm more more VT (I think), but I don't think that labeling helps anyone come to an informed opinion. So few of us can carry on discussion of the subject at that level anyway. Give people something to read, not a mere put-down.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 5, 2008)

davidsuggs said:


> > He has some very helpful writings on philosophy, so long as you realize that:
> >
> >
> > everything that Gordon Clark ever said was right
> ...





That was hilarious! 

Hi davidsuggs! Are you talking about the series on this page- Trinity Foundation ? It doesn't cost anything, so it wouldn't be a waste of money. I've listened to a few of his lectures and found them thought worthy, ie, make me think. Most people here seem to pick up on his anti-Van Tillian stance, I picked up his Anti-Ayn Rand stance more. 

I would listen to it. One of the things that has benefited me is listening to people of varied views. But I would add that it depends on how well grounded you are. I don't think that Robbins will be that off, if at all.

On a personal note, I would recommend R.C. Sproul's Ideas have Consequences series as a great into and history of philosophy. He has some of the lecture's here - Ligonier Ministries | Broadcast Archive. The first ones are in the audio, some of the latter in video. So get'em while they are there.

I think I will download them (Robbins) and listen to them too! Enjoy!


----------



## Theogenes (Oct 6, 2008)

David,
Trust God and be a good Berean. Read Robbins or Clark or Van Til or Calvin or anyone else as a good Berean, bringing all that you read to the bar of Scripture. You can profit from reading many under the Reformed umbrella while realizing that after the canon was closed we have to read everything critically. Those not in the Reformed stream may profit you less and you'll have to be more careful, but the bottom line is read whomever you wish holding their book in one hand and the bible in your other.


Jim


----------



## kalawine (Oct 7, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I have to agree with Davidus in this respect:
> 
> It it pointless to just toss out an "I think Clark was unconfessional" blast, which ends up just sounding like a person bias instead of a reasoned and thoughtful reply to a perceived error.
> 
> ...





Thanks Rev. Bruce. I've been thinking hard for quite some time on this very subject and I'm about to start a new thread.


----------

