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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
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.

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.

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.
"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.
:sing:
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
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.

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.

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.
"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.
:sing:
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.

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).
 
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.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

:ditto:
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

:ditto:

:ditto:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top