Final Justification and John Robbins

Final Justification.JwRobbins.MP3

I can’t say…..really

 A credible profession of faith for admittance into the visible church? Ok.
As I listen to John W Robbins (www.trinityfoundation.org) in his lectures on AA theology (www.sermonaudio.com) I am constantly preaching to myself as I drive my 18 wheeler all over God’s blesses state of PA. Brothers, as I listen to these lectures I am constantly and consistently falling more and more in love with the healthier view of grace (ahem, the FV).
Robbins is a Clarkian and begins his series by condemning the AA/FV as Van Tillian heretics. He continues to espouse that we deny propositional truth for relational schmaltz.
John Robbins will critique the AA/FV for proclaiming that belonging to the church by virtue of profession and baptism across the board eliminates the possibility of talking appropriately to the flock. That is, if by baptism one is adopted, justified (sic), sanctified…..etc but can later fall away, how can one have any assurance? Surely, he concludes, there can be no true assurance of perseverance if in the future one can fall away.  We lose, he says, one of our beloved Calvinistic doctrines: definite atonement.  Do we?

But to the issue of able to talk or not talk.  Does this biblica doctrine of apostasy take away from a pastor’s ability to speak to his sheep?  I believe, rather, it establishes it.  Truly (this has already been said in previous FV publications) the Bible gives us the language with which to speak to our sheep.  I recall at my ordination exam falling for the “ol’ banana in the tail pipe.”  On my exam I was asked, “Why does WSC # 4 not include “love” as one of the attributes of God?”  I wished I would have said, I mean really, I wished I would have said, “B/c the nature of covenant and God’s relationship to man through it can change.  A man who is newly converted and baptised can be thoroughly assured of God’s love b/c of that man’s repentance unto life, faith in Christ, and endeavour to walk in newness of life.  But, were that man to apostasize (sic) later on, he could not be assured of God’s love.  So, insomuch as WSC #4 lists attributes of God that are immutable, I conclude therefore, yea and verily, that God’s love in this regard and in this fashion cannot be said to be immutable…..” But instead I said, “Heh! Got me there.”

Actually I did say the former.  U can imagine the hullaballoo.  I was reemed.  But on further discussion with the committee, I asked one of the venerated and esteemed T.E.s of our presbytery, “So you are saying that b/c you don’t know the eternal decree, you aren’t able to say to the person you just baptised, ‘God loves you.’?”  He looked me in the eye and (with much pre-Sonship-Jack-Miller-pharisaical-matter-of-factness) said, “No.”

Now, who has the speech impediment?

Willing to Power

 In all argument and all debate there is some degree of “willing to power”, that is, the speaker makes an assertion that his hearers will take for granted and assume that he is right since he is the authority.  JwR does this in his lectures.  Now, to be sure, it is inadvertent and due to the fallen nature but it happens nonetheless.  For instance, JwR will say, “The confession shows us that those who are justified will never fall away.  But the AA guys say they will.  But the confession says they won’t.” And he stops there.  And so his listeners will all nod their heads and agree but nothing has really said.  What does not happen is a fair presentation of the essence of what the other side is saying (although they will quote, the actual authors are not available). 

To an extent both sides are talking passed one another.  And to some extent the PCA is plugging its ears.  Were I to debate or talk with Waters or Sproul or Pipa, et al, I would suggest this. 

Let us imagine a world wherein no confessional standards have been written.  Let’s say that the church councils have all decided, “No creed but Christ.”  The councils know that heretofore they have erred and can err again, but decide to make a go at living by the Book.  So say we have nothing but the Bible.  And we are reading it together and we are reading Colossians.  Here is what we read.

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Of which I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from the ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.

And when we get to the part where Paul threatens the Colossians to persevere or else, now, how do we respond to this?  Now I know how the Reformed camp (PCA) will answer. “If they were justified then they were really, truly, positively, odupuhwrusbdsvbs…..” (insert the sound of fast-forwarding).

But reading the text a se we find a warning that is real.  And it’s the same in Hebrews or any other place.  Paul warns us that the OT stories are given for our example.  Example?  Yes, not all who were of the faith made it to the promised land.  So watch it.  Don’t presume upon the Temple or the Confession or whatever.  I am not saying anything differently than you Fathers and brothers.  What I am saying is that there is something more than what you allow, something more full, more robust.  And whatever that is, I love it.

Does Denying Merit Condone Liscentiousness?

 Covenant of works In his lecture against the FV, JwR says that denying the covenant of works leads to antinomianism.  He then quotes James on the matter concluding that perfect obedience is required since to break one law is to break them all.  Does this follow?  Is this not a non sequitor?  I think it is.Here is what James says.  

Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin-convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 

Now, does James mean to imply that perfect obedience is required here?  Maybe.  Or, as I grew up hearing, “James teaches us that all sins are equally heinous in the sight of God.  Murder is just as bad as lying!”  Is it?  I’d much rather be lied to than the other.  You?

But rather, is not the context of the passage love?  Is not the arch stone of the commandments love?  If so, then to break any of them is to violate only one law of any significance: love.  If I lie I do not love.  If I murder I am not loving.  If I fail to worship God I do not love. 

 This is only one of the places where I see Robbins falling short in his exegesis.  Others will follow.  And they will show that his ST is grossly over-emphasised while his BT is sorely impotent. 

How Does [that] Baptism Grab You?

 

John W. Robbins does not answer the question, “How do you feel about this statement, ‘Grab them by their baptism’?”  Rather, he guilts by association.  He refers to Roman baptism and discounts it.  He says rather, “What needs to be done is the preaching of the Gospel.”  What JwR fails to conceive is that that is exactly what is meant by being grabbed by one’s baptism.  What needs to be established in this discussion is whether or not the sacraments can be considered “visual Gospels.” Are the sacraments the word made visible or are they not?  It would seem that they are given what WCF says.