Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by Mantis, Apr 4, 2005.
Is R.C. Sproul Jr. connected with Neolegalism movement?
[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Mantis]
Who are the Neo-legalists?
2) the Dallas Willard bunch?
If it's the last one, he's not. Positively not!
In the latest Trinity Foundation article, John Robbins makes this charge against him directly. See footnote #6 at the end of article.
Not sure about Sproul Jr.'s personal positon on Justification, but you would think he would be in for a good spanking from his daddy if he wandered in this regard.
Soli Deo Gloria,
[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Canadian Baptist]
John Robbins has also come close to charging Westminster Seminary with abandoning the gospel. Seriously, who hasn't Robbins charged with heresy. And no, RCjr isn't involved with "Neolegalism." In fact, he debated against them in teh Auburn Symposium.
Didn't Robbins also charge Van Til with denying the Trinity? When I read that I stopped taking him seriously.
Sadly, John Robbins has done alot of damage to/against orthodoxy. Many people have used his invective to excuse the errors of others.
Just for clarification, these two things are not exactly the same, either. There is more information on them both here.
I think so - and I seem to remember him claiming that C. S. Lewis is in hell unless he changed his beliefs at the end of his life. One could go on and on...
I had the unpleasant experience of being around a group of people who hold John Robbins in high-esteem. Not only is he invective, but he excuses this as biblical and a virtue. He wanders off the course of classical orthodoxy at key points, I believe. Anyone who disagrees with him is exposed publicly on the internet in the harshest of ways. The gospel to him seems to mean everything that G. Clark taught. Any slight variation from this and you have supposedly denied the gospel. In this regard, on his website, he seems to charge Mike Horton, Sproul Jr and Sr., Roger Nicole, John MacArthur, Spurgeon, Piper and others as either antichrists, gospel deniers, or roman catholics. Classical calvinists are considered hypo-calvinists (i.e arminians). And one of the more prominent hyper-calvinists of our time used to write for him. And lastly, in his writings he consistently misrepresents those he disagrees with. When you read the authors in context that he says have moved into heresy, you see that he distorts their words and meanings.
Here are links to Sproul Jr.'s squiblog. I think they will show explicitly that Sproul Jr. is not part of the FV or NPP. I was particularly intrigued how he mentions that he never read Shepherd, except for Robbin's critique of Shepherd, yet Robbin's in his latest heresy hunt (posted by Canadian Baptist) states with certainty that Sproul Jr. is getting his teachings from reading Shepherd's book.
(see Six Degrees of Condemnation)
(see auburn affirmations)
see Cutting off one´s nose)
(see He´s heavy, he ain´t my brother)
I was either told once or read somewhere that Mr. Robbins wasn't a member of any church. Is this true?
I have also read those links by Sproul and talked with him on the phone, although for a different reason. I don't have the trinity foundation "Horror File" with me but I seem to remember Robbins linking Banner of Truth was either Arminiansim or Roman Catholicism.
Robbins is out to lunch on this one.
The website above gives you Robbins take on this in his own words.
My question was in response to Robbins' article, but I couldn't get the article to link yesterday. Robbins does like to make heresy claims against many people. After reading his article on Piper ("Pied Piper") I knew that he needed to be taken with a grain of salt. Piper isn't perfect...but he isn't a heretic either.
Ruling Elder at Midway Presbyterian (PCA) in Jonesborough, TN, about 30 minutes from me.
I'm not a fan of his stuff, but I thought that one needed to be put to bed.
Correspondence with him a year ago says differently(I should have said denomination, not church), as does this recent article.
Apparently even the critics of "neo-legalism" are apostate in some peoples eyes. More and more credibility flys out the window every month with this organization.
Thank God for the critics on the PB, Knox colloquium, and elsewhere, who have an evident christian character towards others while they rightly criticize these errors of "neo-legalism". Their example has helped tone me down in my own discussions with those I disagree with.
[Edited on 5-4-2005 by RAS]
Well that's worthy of stoning!
If Van Til's doctrine is as they say, I stand side by side with them in this claim. Here is a small section from a Trinity Review entitled "Why I am Not a VanTillian" by Gary Crampton, professor at Whitefield Theological Seminary:
This is by no means the classical (non-contradictory) formulation of the Trinity.
Since we are playing "Footnote Refutation," I'll add my two cents:
Doug Jones refutes:
Thanks for posting that Jacob.