Exciting New Book

Just received my copy today from the Trinity Foundation.  For a little preliminary reading see The Gaffin Question.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

13 Comments on “Exciting New Book”

  1. Hugh McCann Says:

    Goodness ~ humungous cover!

    Got my copy yesterday. ‘Twas a good Friday!

  2. Steve M Says:

    I would like to go on the record right now and admit that I am a vitriolic loose cannon wihtout a publishing house. There is, however, a certain publishing house that I intend to support all the more now that I have read Lane Keister’s non-vitriolic accusations against John Robbins.

  3. Sean Gerety Says:

    I hope to have a review of the book later in the week. I realize many of Gaffin’s supporters contend that his contributions to the OPC justification report qualifies as repentance for his decades long defense of neo-legalists like Shepherd and Kinnaird, but I never understood how that follows. Between Cunha and Elliot’s book (Christianity vs Neoliberalism) I think only a blind drunk monkey could fail to see how completely Gaffin belongs in what Cunha calls the “union with Christ” school. Perhaps Cunha’s demonstration of Gaffin’s rejection of the Law/Gospel distinction, at least as it applies to believers, will cause even Keister to regain his sight. 🙂

  4. Hugh McCann Says:

    Speaking of Gaffin & Robbins: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/235-InChrist.pdf

    JR wrote of RG:

    Gaffin’s nebulous and unintelligible notion of existential and experiential incorporation into Christ gives rise to his peculiar doctrine that Christ is himself redeemed. In Gaffin’s soteriology, existentially incorporated sinners share in Christ’s own redemption. They are redeemed because Christ is redeemed. This un-Biblical notion of union with Christ also gives rise to a denial that justification is a distinct and purely forensic act. Justification is merely an “aspect” or “facet” of the all-important “incorporation into Christ.” Gaffin shares soteriological ground with Norman Shepherd, which explains why Gaffin has been Shepherd’s most faithful defender for nearly 30 years…


    The contemporary assault on the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone started by the faculty of Westminster Seminary in the 1970s rests in part on this unintelligible and un-Biblical doctrine of “existential union with Christ.” One of the effects, and it is an intended effect, of this false doctrine is to make our salvation depend, not on the objective, extrinsic perfect righteousness of Christ imputed (not infused) to those who believe the Gospel, but on some sort of subjective, existential, experiential “union with Christ” in which there is a merging or incorporation of sinners and Christ. Salvation then becomes a result of infused righteousness (rather than imputed righteousness) and subjective (rather than objective) obedience…


  5. Hugh McCann Says:

    I am interested to know where are “Lane Keister’s non-vitriolic accusations against John Robbins”?
    …Or his vitriolic ones, for that matter.

  6. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hugh, see the link above.

  7. Hugh McCann Says:

    Thanks, Sean. And a blessed Easter Sunday to ya!

    He is risen indeed. Hallelujah!

  8. Steve M Says:

    I was inspired by Keister’s remarks to make a donation to the Trinity Foundation dedicated to the “Reverend” Lane Keister.

  9. Hugh McCann Says:

    Dear Steve M,

    Typical unloving, mean-spirited, hate-mongering, vindictive, vitriolic, belligerent, abusive, baiting, mocking, nasty, sectarian, divisive, rationalistic, hyper-calvinist, neanderthal, troglodyte, angry type of response we’d expect from you lot.

    In Christian Love,
    The Van Til Society

  10. Steve M Says:

    Dear Van Til Society

    I am glad to know that your knowledge of me and God’s do not coincide at any point. I also assume that you consider the contradiction of everything you have said is also true or could be apparently so and will make no effort to resolve said paradox (i.e. apparent contradiction). I, therefore, thank you for all you kind thoughts.

    Steve M

  11. Hugh McCann Says:

    Steve thru the Van Til Glass.
    {With apologies to Lewis Carroll}

    Part One:

    ‘Don’t stand chattering to yourself like that,’Corny Van Dumpty said, looking at him for the first time, ‘but tell me your name and your business.’

    ‘My NAME is Steve, but —’

    ‘It’s a stupid name enough!’ Corny Van Dumpty interrupted impatiently. ‘What does it mean?’

    ‘MUST a name mean something?’ Steve asked doubtfully.

    ‘Of course it must,’ Corny Van Dumpty said with a short laugh: ‘MY name means the shape I am — and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.’

    ‘Why do you sit out here all alone?’ said Steve, not wishing to begin an argument.

    ‘Why, because there’s nobody with me!’ cried Corny Van Dumpty. ‘Did you think I didn’t know the answer to THAT? Ask another.’

    ‘Don’t you think you’d be safer down on the ground?’ Steve went on, not with any idea of making another riddle, but simply in his good-natured anxiety for the queer creature. ‘That wall is so VERY narrow!’

    ‘What tremendously easy riddles you ask!’ Corny Van Dumpty growled out…

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    Part Two:

    ‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Steve said.

    Corny Van Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

    ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Steve objected

    ‘When I use a word,’ Corny Van Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Steve, whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Corny Van Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

    Steve was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Corny Van Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
    ‘Would you tell me please,’ said Steve, ‘what that means?’

    ‘Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Corny Van Dumpty, looking very much pleased. ‘I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’

    ‘That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Steve said in a thoughtful tone.

    ‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Corny Van Dumpty, ‘I always pay it extra.’

    ‘Oh!’ said Steve. He was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

  12. Denson Dube Says:

    Hi Hugh,
    Thou ignorant villian, it is allowed that van Tillians are often troubled with redundant, ebullient, and other peccant humors; with many diseases of the head, and more of the heart; with strong convulsions, with grievous contractions of the nerves and sinews in both hands, but especially the right; with spleen, flatus, vertigos, and deliriums; with scrofulous tumors full of fetid, purulent matter; with foul, frothy ructations, with canine appetites and crudeness of digestion, besides many others needless to mention.
    All this a result of their apothecaries administered to each of them, paradoxies, tensions, the now and not as yet, lenitives, aperitives, abstersives, corrosives, restringents, palliatives, laxatives, cephalalgics, icterics, apophlegmatics, acoustics, and apparent contradictions.
    (Apologies to Jonathan Swift, Chapter VI, A Voyage to Laputa, Gulliver’s Travels)


  13. Hugh McCann Says:

    Dear 2D,

    I will admit to this ignorance: My Dumpty post should have read ‘Steve in Wonderland,’ not ‘Thru the Looking Glass.’

    As for the rest of your rant, excuse me while I go search for my dictionary…

    But I at least understood and greatly appreciated THIS one: “scrofulous tumors full of fetid, purulent matter.” Now THAT’s juicy (pun intended!)

    {Could the Van Tilians EVER have this much fun?}

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: