John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation

ChristopherPaul · #1 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 10:43 AM

Where does John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation Go Wrong?

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

BobVigneault · #2 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 10:56 AM

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 judgement 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 · #3 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 11:22 AM

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 · #4 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 11:22 AM

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

ChristopherPaul · #5 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 11:26 AM

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 · #7 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 11:37 AM

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 · #8 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

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 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 12:13 PM

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 · #10 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

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.ht...v_title&id=874

rsc

BobVigneault · #11 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 12:33 PM

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.

Jeff_Bartel · #12 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

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)."

Quote:

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 · #13 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Quote:

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)."

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:

Quote:

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

Jeff_Bartel · #14 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 03:28 PM

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 · #15 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

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

Jeff_Bartel · #16 (**permalink**) 01-04-2006, 06:52 PM

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 · #17 (**permalink**) 01-09-2006, 06:30 PM

I received this unsolicited email today:

Quote:

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 · #18 (**permalink**) 01-09-2006, 07:12 PM

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 · #19 (**permalink**) 01-09-2006, 09:23 PM