From a fan of the blog

Once in a while you get an entertaining comment like this one, from my review of Robert Letham’s book on the Westminster Assembly:

This Torrancian drivel is pathetic. Get over Torrance and his second-rate, second-hand neo-neo-orthodoxy. Union with Christ is a modern Centraldogma used to judge the WA according to the standards of a small number of vaguely Barthian Scots who can’t distinguish history from theology. If you want to take on Muller, man up, read some Latin, and publish something besides these whiney, self-congratulating blogs. Pathetic! Moreover, scholastic in this context means academic, with all the positive, negative, and neutral connotations of today’s term. Get a life, neo-Amyraldians.

Bobby, I know you loved that one!



    • I don’t think there is a drift, except his disdain for Barth and Torrance. This sort of vitriol is usually couched in the slightly more modest rhetoric of Van Til.

      Of course, there is nothing second-hand about Torrance, who branched-out far and away from Barth’s project. Even within the same dogmatic investigations (e.g, doctrine of election), Torrance did his own historical research and came to similar conclusions as Barth. It is from these studies and from his own unique conceptual framework, and not from a parroting of Barth, that he developed his criticisms of Scholasticism.

  1. @Kevin,

    Beautiful, I have a similar fan commenting right now at the blog. I actually know my fan, though; went to Bible College with him. Anger like this is a sad thing to watch; it just shows these types have been confronted with something they know not what to do 🙂 !

  2. When I first read this comment, it seemed so over the top that I thought maybe it was tongue in cheek or something intended in jest. I take it though now that the guy really despises T.F. Torrance. Geeesh.

    Having just finished Torrance’s “Incarnation” and “Atonement” just last week and being in a state of awe over his accomplishment, I can only sadly shake my head.

    • Yes, it does sound like an OT tribe.

      Moyse Amyraut was a Reformed theologian in the 17th century who rejected limited atonement. His position — known as Amyraldism — is often considered a mediating position between Arminius and the Synod of Dort. But, depending on how you nuance Dort’s position on limited atonement, Amyraut’s views can be seen as fitting within the parameters of Dort and, thereby, within Reformed orthodoxy. A favorable reading of Amyraut interprets him as pushing the antinomies inherent within the Reformed canons at Dort (and Westminster for that matter). A less favorable reading of Amyraut interprets him as falling prey to the humanistic premises that ultimately led to the downfall of the academy at Saumur. I think the first (favorable) interpretation is the better, but Saumur did become (like Geneva) scarcely orthodox of any sort in the 18th century.

  3. great post! i trust the comment didn’t get you down. let’s throw a torrancite neo-amyraldian party and mr poopoopants isn’t invited. on second thought, exclusive guest-lists aren’t very nice, are they? okay then, everybody is invited. we’ll watch chariots of fire. (still haven’t seen it, but i watched lawrence of arabia yesterday). hope you’re well, g.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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