John Robbins of the PCA and John Piper

[AndOne]

Has anybody heard of John Robbins. I read an interesting article from him on John Piper. He basically accuses Piper of perpetrating something called "neo-legalism" which he says is a subtle way of inserting Rome's theology into Reformed theology. The article focused on Piper's book "Future Grace." Although I have read many of Piper's books I had not read this one.

I consider myself an ardent Piper disciple but the article caused me some concern. I am wondering what Mr. Robbins credentials are.

I don't believe his accusations concerning Piper are valid - as every thing I have ever read by Piper absolutely flies in the face of any type type of legalism whatsoever - wheather it be neo or regular. Piper is an ardent 7 point Calvinsit - so I was surprised to see a PCA minister calling him out.

Can anybody out there elaborate on Mr. Robbins - and on this supposed "neolegalism" that is he thinks is working its way into reformed theology?

Would greatly appreciate the help...

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Can you direct us to the article? I have read Piper and find that his teachings despise legalism, so I would need quite a bit of evidence to believe that Robbins has any scriptural evidence to back up such a claim.

 

[Elderone]

John W. Robbins of the Trinity Review, has numerous articles including the one on Piper.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/archive.php?s=1

 

[AndOne]

Coffee Swirls - this will take you right there:

www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113

 

[ClementofRome]

Robbins may rub you the wrong way from time to time, but he calls a spade when he sees one.

 

[AndOne]

Robbins may rub you the wrong way from time to time, but he calls a spade when he sees one.

care to elaborate on that?

 

[ClementofRome]

care to elaborate on that?

I would, but I would rather not predispose any more than I have with that comment. With respect to the Trinity Foundation, you will find things to cheer over and find things that perhaps will make you uncomfortable. Robbins pulls no punches.

 

[ClementofRome]

Ok, I decided to elaborate....sorry. Here is an excerpt from an article to which I have often returned that makes many a Christian mad, nervous, ticked, etc....

Quoted from Trinity Review, 1983, "What is Faith" by John W. Robins:

[size=-1]""As for having a "personal relationship" with Christ, if the phrase means something more than assenting to true propositions about Jesus, what is that something more? Feeling warm inside? Coffee has the same effect. Surely "personal relationship" does not mean what we mean when we say that we know someone personally: Perhaps we have shaken his hand, visited his home or he ours, or eaten with him. John had a "personal relationship" with Christ in that sense, as did all the disciples, including Judas Iscariot. But millions of Christians have not, and Jesus called them blessed: They have not seen and yet have believed. The difference between Judas Iscariot and the other disciples is not that they had a "personal relationship" with Jesus and he did not, but that they believed—that is, assented to certain propositions about Jesus—while Judas did not believe those propositions. Belief of the truth, nothing more and nothing less, is what separates the saved from the damned. Those who maintain that there is something more than belief are, quite literally, beyond belief.""

This is just an example of how he calls things the way he sees it and it makes many a Christian uncomfortable.
[/size]

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I found the exerpt of the book at Amazon.com, I hope the goofy URL comes through. What little I could see did not corraborate the claims of Robbins. Also, the claims that he makes are not consistant with Desiring God, Piper's flagship book. Since I haven't read the book Robbins mentions, I really can't comment beyond this. I don't doubt that he calls a spade when he sees one, but the works mentioned in Desiring God are quite consistant with Ephesians 2:10, showing that the works we do that honor God are a result of His saving grace, not a way to earn it.

 

[AndOne]

Ok, I decided to elaborate....sorry. Here is an excerpt from an article to which I have often returned that makes many a Christian mad, nervous, ticked, etc....

Quoted from Trinity Review, 1983, "What is Faith" by John W. Robins:

[size=-1]""As for having a "personal relationship" with Christ, if the phrase means something more than assenting to true propositions about Jesus, what is that something more? Feeling warm inside? Coffee has the same effect. Surely "personal relationship" does not mean what we mean when we say that we know someone personally: Perhaps we have shaken his hand, visited his home or he ours, or eaten with him. John had a "personal relationship" with Christ in that sense, as did all the disciples, including Judas Iscariot. But millions of Christians have not, and Jesus called them blessed: They have not seen and yet have believed. The difference between Judas Iscariot and the other disciples is not that they had a "personal relationship" with Jesus and he did not, but that they believed—that is, assented to certain propositions about Jesus—while Judas did not believe those propositions. Belief of the truth, nothing more and nothing less, is what separates the saved from the damned. Those who maintain that there is something more than belief are, quite literally, beyond belief.""

This is just an example of how he calls things the way he sees it and it makes many a Christian uncomfortable.
[/size]

Yea - I can see how this would make someone uncomfortable - it surely does me.

Although - I don't think that Robbins intent here is to say that we shouldn't have a relationship with Christ - just that the relationship itself is not a causual factor toward salvation. As in all things good - it is a result of salvation....

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Has anybody heard of John Robbins. I read an interesting article from him on John Piper. He basically accuses Piper of perpetrating something called "neo-legalism" which he says is a subtle way of inserting Rome's theology into Reformed theology. The article focused on Piper's book "Future Grace." Although I have read many of Piper's books I had not read this one.

I consider myself an ardent Piper disciple but the article caused me some concern. I am wondering what Mr. Robbins credentials are.

I don't believe his accusations concerning Piper are valid - as every thing I have ever read by Piper absolutely flies in the face of any type type of legalism whatsoever - wheather it be neo or regular. Piper is an ardent 7 point Calvinsit - so I was surprised to see a PCA minister calling him out.

Can anybody out there elaborate on Mr. Robbins - and on this supposed "neolegalism" that is he thinks is working its way into reformed theology?

Would greatly appreciate the help...

Robbins is not a minister but he is an ordained elder. He is also a bomb thrower. If you don't agree with him you are anathema.

I have read him for years and find him to be someone who looks for fights and tries to keep things stirred up. I agree that he does call a spade a spade, but he claims that hammers, nails, wood, etc. are also spades.

I don't like his style of writing but still read him now and then to see what he is up to. Some times he takes on bad guys instead of strawmen, but it's not always easy to tell which is which. He can be useful, but you have to be careful when you read him.

I'm not a fan,
Kenith