Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Horton is Still Reformed
Although he doesn't directly answer the "open question" Horton affirmed his commitment to the Reformation in a new post, which is good enough for me (link), although I would really have wished for a stronger affirmation of the Reformation than the vague affirmations he provides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I was just on my way over here to post that link to Horton's comments.
I agree that he was a bit of a wet noodle in his blurb...and to me, it struck me as shameless self-promotion and all it cost was lending more credibility to Scott Hahn
I left the following comment there, which is awaiting moderation:
***
My own personal objection stemmed from the fact that Scott Hahn is not merely a “scholar” who is doing a “study.” Hahn is a person with a very clear agenda, and his agenda is not only well-known, but it is revered and imitated by scores of lesser known apologists, very many of whom bring nothing but mud to the show.
In lending your name to the legitimacy of Hahn’s work, you are lending your good name, and the name of Westminster, California, to this whole movement. (And since you know James White, why not ask him what he thinks about that movement?)
You may think that, in the spirit of Christian dialog, you will somehow accomplish something useful. But in dealing with Hahn, you are not dealing with a person who can make any concesions at all. Moreover, official Rome has very clearly re-articulated what it thinks of the churches of the Reformation. Equivocation on the part of individuals who have (with good intentions) tried to negotiate at any level at all with Catholicism — including Packer, Colson, George, and other — have seen absolutely no official budge at all from Rome.
How many Protestants, even your own seminary students, are well enough equipped to profitably read a work by Hahn, much less a work by Ratzinger, and to be able to deal with it adequately?
In the meantime, you are someone not unimportant at a very important Reformed seminary. Why not commission a study of Ratzinger’s work from a Reformed perspective, and endorse that?
Does the fact that Dr. James White or RC Sproul have an agenda in writing a book make what they say more or less true?
Here is my response to Prof. Horton over at his blog where he responds to what one may estimate to be your "open question"?
My response:
Well, I am not thankful. I find your response above rather distasteful Prof. Horton.
I believe the error is of the highest degree and not easily understood.
Here is a Biblical admonition for us all to consider as you weigh my comments, respectfully given:::>
Ecc 5:1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil.
Ecc 5:2 Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.
The Apostle, whom I am certain you have great affection for elucidated the error I speak of more carefully here:::>
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
In my estimation, what you have done is open a door of doubts and confusion, at a minimum, to those weak in the Faith, not necessarily for the highly trained and educated, as you are, but rather for the rest of us who rely upon our Teachers to be on the frontline making clear unequivocal distinctions between God’s Grace and our most deceitful enemy and their schemes.
For these things I say I believe it was error on your part and of poor judgment to have such a fly in the ointment of the wisdom and honor you have attained too by God’s Grace and Wisdom and Knowledge.
I like how people post their responses on here to Horton:
*Clapping* ...it's what you want right?
I think Horton cleared it up quite well for anyone not possessing a scalpel and butcher knife for every statement that comes out of someones lips.
For what it's worth I thought Mike's response was clear and direct enough, however I'm still left wondering what led him to make his endorsement in the first place.
It's not as though it was some sort of extemporaneous comment that simply spilled out as he was attempting to be gracious in casual conversation. It was a well considered, carefully crafted blurb. In other words it didn't "just happen".
In Christ,
CD
TF,
I went back and read through Horton's reply again and something occurred to me.
As an analogy it's hard for me to imagine a well known, expert, and respected child rape investigator endorsing the "study" of a book written by an earnest child rape enthusiast wherein he attempts to distill the thoughts of the world's most notorious and prolific child rapist into a useful guide for the benefit of other like-minded and would-be child rapists, and their erstwhile proponents.
"Even when one disagrees with some of his child rapes, Benedict’s insights, as well as his engagement with critical scholarship, offer a wealth of reflection. In this remarkable book, Hahn has drawn out the central themes of Benedict’s child rapes in a highly readable summary. An eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important child rapist of our time."
Is this analogy a category error? How is the Pope, who's leading countless millions of souls to eternal damnation by espousing the doctrines of demons less loathesome than the very worst criminal imaginable?
How can the satanic sewage that spills from his evil mind be worthy of reflection?
I'm I all wet on this?
In Christ,
CD
I think Horton could have been more specific than using the ambiguous qualifier of "some." Thing is that outside of doctrines such as the Trinity, Deity of Christ, Virgin Birth (that he was born of a virgin, but after that Romanists have it all wrong), the Crucifixion and other doctrines pertaining to the historic life of Christ, the Romanist position is highly perverse. It's not just "some" of Benedict's positions that he has to disagree with but most.
He agrees with some of Rome's positions, as all Christians must (until Rome receives further tradition on this which contradicts the Word), but as a Reformed man, he has to disagree with most. I just wish he'd said as much and then identified the key areas of disagreement in his response to the "open question."
However, TF, I'm still with you on saying that I'm convinced that Horton is still reformed. I just wish he'd taken a more definitive stance (like Dr. White often does when discussing Roman Catholicism, and we know that he treats his opponents fairly) in his response to us rather than vaguely dodge around the issue.
When it comes to subversive enemies of the faith such as the Roman Pontiff and his lackeys, one needs to play diplomatic hardball, not NERF flag football.
To put this in perspective, "Father" Mitchell Pacwa, a noted Roman Catholic apologist, endorsed Dr. James White's "The Forgotten Trinity". Quoting from the back of the book:
"My church is entering the new millennium with a the year focus on the Blessed Trinity. Dr. White highlights a vital truth: the Mystery of the Trinity is truly related to how we love God. Our faith in the Trinity is the same: One God, Three coequal persons."
Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J. Assistant Professor, University of Dallas
Post a Comment