Readers of Ref21 will know that, given my understanding of the importance of the church and her courts, I don't like trials by blog, petition, or tabloid press.  When someone has an issue with an office bearer in their denomination, the courts of the church are the way to pursue the matter, decently and in order.  Thus, it was a pity that our friends over at the Old Life Theological Society published an article recently in the Nicotine Theological Journal that called into question the integrity of my friend and colleague, Richard Gaffin, and appeared to place me at odds with him on the matter of confessional boundaries, but good that, when challenged, they published an unconditional apology on their website for misrepresenting him.  I print the text here:

With reference to the article "Priorities" in the last NTJ(Winter 2009), the editors unreservedly apologize for implying thatthere is any tension between the position of Carl Trueman and RichardGaffin on the matter of justification regarding the bounds ofconfessional orthodoxy; we also apologize for the fact that Dr. Gaffinwas quoted out of context in the article in a manner that distorted hisviews, and we affirm that his recent response to John Fesko in Ordained Servant(March 2009) represents a satisfactory clarification of the comment wemisquoted; we further apologize for implying that Dr. Gaffin's viewsare contrary to the Protestant confessional consensus on justificationand for writing that they constitute "a new perspective on Paul," whichuses eschatology to overturn the consensus of the Reformers and theReformed creeds; and we acknowledge that the biblical notion of unionwith Christ does not contradict or contravene, directly or impliedly,anything taught in the Westminster Standards.

D. G. Hart and John R. Muether