John W. Robbins- The Justification Controversy

http://www.vincentcheung….on-controversy/

Previously I had erroneously attributed this blog entry to Vincent Cheung. Although it was published in Mr. Cheung’s blog, it was actually written by John W. Robbins- a fact I had completely overlooked. I hope Mr. Cheung will accept my apology for mis-characterizing him for saying things he never said.

In this blog, John Robbins attempts to explain that the current debate over the New Perspective on Paul has been going on longer than one might, at first, think. In fact, he ends up blaming Westminster Seminary as the cause of the current debate- specifically attributing it to the theological methodology of Cornelius Van Til.

I couldn’t resist responding to his blog entry (albeit a year old) because it touches on two of my favorite topics- justification and presuppositional apologetics. In fact, as a result, I will finally unveil my new blog category: apologetics.

For starters, I find Robbin’s blog a little prejudicial. He drops a lot of names without citing any examples of how they have fallen into the “faith and works” heresy. Now I agree that this is a problematic statement, in the least but if you are going to accuse big named theologians of this heresy you need to quote them. There’s no lack of writings from which you could quote Gaffin or Frame, for example, but he offers none. At least he footnotes his accusation of Gaffin referring to his book (dissertation- “Resurrection and Redemption”) but he never quotes anything specific that Gaffin said. When I read this book I found it a insightful and firmly biblical description of the doctrines of redemption, finding no basis to question Gaffin’s orthodoxy.

We have to be very careful when we issue accusations like this, especially on the internet. The internet is the great equalizer- any old fool, whether they are an expert or not, can give his own two-cents and as long as they have a slick web site (like mine) you will listen whether or not they have any idea about what they are discussing. As Christians we should be extra careful about what we say about others on the net because rumors like these can have very dire consequences.

Robbin’s major argument is that the presuppositional apologetic method of Cornelius Van Til lead to Westminster Seminary’s approval of this heresy. Robbins says,

The utter skepticism and agnosticism of Professor Van Til’s doctrine of revelation (and his agnosticism is shared by many theologians) – the notion that we cannot know at any point what God knows – opens the door to any and every form of denying Biblical truth. Some of his students have developed his doctrine into a philosophy of various theological perspectives, which may all be found in Scripture. Those new perspectives are now appearing in Reformed churches.

Thus perspectival apologetics (and it’s influence into theological method) opens the door to liberal theology such as the New Perspective on Paul.

I would argue to the contrary: belief in the brute truth of laws of logic and reason leads to liberal theology. It’s Van Til’s standing against these brute facts that saved Reformed theology from the throws of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy and turned us back to the presuppositional foundation of the Scriptures. Sure, Van Til’s perspectivalism leads us to a fuzzier ground for our own theological constructs, but it’s not because God is fuzzy- it’s our own capacity as fallen creatures that make the creator so incomprehensible. Nevertheless, as we turn again and again, with the analogy of Scripture, to the Bible our theology will constantly be reforming (“the Reformed church is always reforming”), rather than statically limited by our own arrogant and fallen constructs of brute reason and fact.

While Robbins and I agree that the current controversy over justification is very important, we disagree on the foundation of this debate. presuppositional thinking, and its inherit reverence to the Scriptures, is our only hope in confronting this heresy. Let’s not jump to conclusions, making a seminary guilty by association with a heretic, and make this debate even more confusing than it already is.