I guess this is not a big shocker to anyone who has followed the Trinity Foundation over the years. In this link, Robbins castigates Douglas Kelly's assertion that the WCF taught an Experimental Calvinism. Rubbish! The WCF taught the trichotomatic view of Faith in WLC Question 72: What is justifying faith?

Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

Belief, assent, and trust, plain and simple. The WLC separates "receives" and "rests" for the express purpose of underlining the need for the truth to pass into personal persuasion. It is the separating of assent and trust that Clark and Ribbins take issue with. Here, they believe is where we enter the "navel gazing" element that leads to improper introspection. Belief and assent is all that is needed according to Clark.
Robbins claims that the WCF does not teach a Reformed form of mysticism we call experiential. Has he ever read the codifiers of the WCF? Even the supra Rutherford, who is clearly objective in his approach of apprehension makes ample room for the head/heart distinction Robbins takes issue with. As one reads the codifiers of the Standards, the more infra the more experimental. Ribbins needs to get his head out of objective rationalism for a moment and take a heartfelt look at the testing and proving of genuine faith as is so clearly explained in the Word.

Robbins also takes a potshot at Beeke and any of our Churches which teach the Puritan ideal of faith.

__________________
Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis. (Dipl. IT; Assc. A; B.Th; M.Th Candidate, PRTS)
Lacombe Free Reformed Church
"A hot iron, though blunt, will pierce sooner than a cold one, though sharper."

JOHN FLAVEL

My Blog - Click HERE
Our Church site - Click HERE

See this thread, starting with post 17.

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

Click to get: Board Rules--Signature Requirements--Suggestions?

So Joel Beeke and Richard Sibbes are on Robbin's short list. Since Beeke is one of my FAVORITE preachers, I subscribe to his podcast, and Sibbes' "The Bruised Reed" is a great book imo, what does that make me?

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

one of us. welcome to the dark side.

I don't know, brother, but apparently I'm one too since the RPCUS is on the list with Dr. Beeke.

We should get together and see if we can figure it out.

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

I love both Robbins and Beeke, we're family.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

TF have been consistently growing closer and closer to Sandemenianism.

JOwen,

You should have titled the thread: John Robbins Denounces Calvinism.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.

Indeed. I believe Dr. Robbins has had articles published in the Grace Evangelical Society's journal, which is dedicated to the "free grace" teachings of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, et. al.

That's where I stand also.

__________________
Kevin Guillory
Pastor
Redeemer Christian Congregation
Baltimore, MD

I don't interpret Scripture. Scripture
interprets itself. And in the process ...
Scripture interprets me!

Me too.

__________________

R. Martin Snyder
1689erPuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page
"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."William Symington

I highlighted another key word - "whereby". You see the problem is a conflation of faith with the effects of faith. This is what FV has done, and this is what other "experimentalists" have done, and this is what the Church of Rome does.

The only part of WCF Question 72: that you could call a definition of faith is the first part of the first sentence "Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God". After that you get the "whereby" which means that which follows is not the essence of "saving faith", but rather the effect. This includes "not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel..."

I recommend you read the article "What is Saving Faith" by Gordon Clark to better understand the argument.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Rubbish.

Read the Banner of Truth article "Gordon Clark and Sandemanianism". John Robbins' rebuttal demolishes this ridiculous charge.

You know, I've heard this before. It came from defenders of FV.

There have been other discussions on this board about the head/heart dichotomy and it appears that there are a reasonable amount here who believe that it's bunk.

And you take potshots at John Robbins. What's your point?



So here's a question: if the bible says that the "word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," how is it possible that an unbeliever could truly assent to the teachings of scripture? If he seems to assent but is not regenerated, the problem seems to be not that he needs to add something else, but that he never assented to begin with and the Word is still foolish to him.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

The "whereby" is the "way in which" faith functions towards the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Reformed theology has always recognised that we are not saved by knowing facts (notitia), or by assenting to propositions (assensus), but by trusting in Jesus Christ -- whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM shall not perish -- (notitia, assensus, et fiducia). Romanism teaches faith is an assent. Reformed theology teaches it is also trust. This is not a subject which allows for discussion within the context of the reformed faith.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

First, even a broken clock is correct two times a day. There is a certain irony that, in this thread, you would point to the FV. They were the first I thought of in consideration of your reckless handling of Confessional documents.

I think this post pretty much summed up for me your approach to Reformed orthodoxy:

I told you before that your epistemology does not allow for some answers to be satisfactory to you. What was very telling in the previous thread is that you are ignorant of the issue of Eternal Generation but your approach to the thread was to assume first that Reymond's approach was the orthodox view because, after all, he is a source you trust. You match in epistemology. In contrast, the whole Reformed faith leading up to Clark is under a cloud until it is re-worked according to a "proper" theology.

Reymond's statements for you, a priori, were trustworthy while the man (Turretin) whose Systematic Theology was used for centuries as the textbook was a priori something you did not trust until you researched it more. Even Princeton utilized Turretin as the textbook until Hodge wrote his in close correspondence to the great work of this man. Your attitude: Eh, seems kind of speculative to me. Frankly, your dismissive attitude spoke volumes.

I appreciate these threads because it allows me to underline where you stand on this as it will happen any time a Clarkian merely asserts that their view is the Confessional view. Why, of course it must be Confessional, a Clarkian just said it was Confessional.

You would never accept a secondary source that called Clark a rationalist to be proof enough for you. You would insist that Clark be able to speak for himself.

This is the strange irony of people who complain about others who twist things and then don't have the consistency in themselves when their sacred cow is being gored. I find it ironic, for instance, that Doug Wilson complains about liberals who treat the Constitution like a living document and insists that we read the Federalist Papers and the like but then gives quarter to a Wilkins who simply asserts that the WCF allows for his view or that the framers of the WCF were silent on it.

I simply haven't got the patience for this kind of duplicity. For somebody who gives such a seat to a reasonable approach to the Scriptures you don't have a very reasonable approach to men who are simply asserting that their view is the Confessional view. They don't appeal to any framers or any Puritans that agreed with them but, on the basis of language, they turn the WCF into a "living document", and you fall in line without critically examining their claims.

Now, you may conclude that the Reformers were wrong for having a non-Clarkian epistemology and definition of faith but, at that point, your are disagreeing with the Confession and you cannot appeal to the Confession for your view. You have to take an exception to it and say they are wrong. You can't simply equivocate on words and dishonestly assert the Confessions states what you believe. This, Anthony, is very much what the FV does so if you think I sounded like an FV man simply because I stated the obvious about the Calvinistic understanding of faith then I have a hard time accepting that as a critical assessment considering your facile treatment of the issue of faith vis a vis the Confessions.

If you want to make a case that Robbins' view of faith is Confessional then build your case on primary source material. I simply do not find an article that does not interact with Reformed history to be credible for the argument.

Robert Shaw's clear and accurate assessment of saving faith: