The Many Faces of John Robbins
The more recent Robbins (1999): "Second, can an Arminian get the doctrine of justification straight? Yes, considered all by itself, he can. He can understand the resurrection, imputation, substitution, the alien righteousness of Christ, and believe them. Many Arminians do not, but it is theoretically possible for one to do so. One must keep in mind the distinction between a system and a person. In one of the quotes you provided, Clark pointed out that people are sometimes wonderfully confused, and they are saved in spite of that confusion."
Robbins in The Virtue of Name-Calling (1979): "To return to our example, the editors of Present Truth suggested that a separation be made between Karl Barth's theology and his person, indicating that it is permissible to judge his theology, but not his person. Such a separation is foreign to the Scriptures. ... Not only are we not to make a separation between a person's theology and his person, we are commanded to judge another person by his theology."
Would the real John Robbins please stand up?
Also, John Robbins claims to be staunch opponent of Van Til. Yet see he agrees with Van Til that some Arminians are true Christians who are just "wonderfully confused," or, as Van Til puts it, "happily inconsistent." Here is Van Til:
"If logically carried through, Arminianism is destructive of the very foundation of Christianity. It is not merely on the so called "five points of Calvinism" that people of the Reformed persuasion are to be distinguished from those who hold to Arminian teaching. The difference goes, in the last analysis, to the foundation of all Christian belief. Happily, however, Arminians are usually inconsistent. They separate the work Christ does within us from the work He has done "without" us, but they do not separate the facts of Bible history from one another. It does not occur to them to separate the resurrection of Christ from the fact that Adam sinned in paradise. Nor do they separate the Bible itself from the facts of which it speaks. It does not occur to them to think of the Bible otherwise than as the infallible Word of God."
Both Robbins and Van Til are in the same damnable boat.
In the January 2001 Trinity Review, G.A. Chan wrote:
<<Are Arminians Christians? Sproul answers, "'Yes, barely.' They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency" (R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will, 140). Another theologian thinks that Arminians are saved by "blessed inconsistency.">>
So not only is Robbins a Van Tilian hypocrite, he's a Sproulian hypocrite! This quote is in Robbins's Trinity Review! How many faces does Robbins have?