Dear Prof. Horton,
In view of your article "Can We Be Confessional and Catholic?" and in view of your recent blurb for a book on the theology of Benedict XVI by Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, we are wondering: Do you agree or disagree that Trent declared the Gospel of Christ to be Anathema and that Benedict XVI is the chief shepherd of another gospel?
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: A reader named ruberad provided the following quotation:
"As the gavel came down to close the final session of the council of Trent in 1563, Rome had officially, and according to her own commitment down to the present moment irreversibly declared that the gospel announced by the prophets, revealed in and by Christ, and proclaimed by the apostles, was anathema. The most relevant canons are the following..."
(source - 12'54" of this mp3)
SECOND UPDATE:
That seems to answer the issue of Horton's orthodoxy, although I'm still disappointed that he has decided to help Hahn sell that particular book. I'll "close" this question if I get any direct answer from Horton.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Just stopping by to ask if anyone knows if Michael Horton has responded to any of the questions that have been asked on the Turretin blogs about Horton. Has anyone tried to contact him? Where does he stand?
Horton's paragraph #5 would urge you to "grow up" ["mature Christians..."] and stop your "parochial naval-gazing".
But I think he's wrong. I think he ought to wake up. Roman Catholicism has a way of being all things to all men, in order to gain a lot of men. To the S. American Marxists, it takes on a Liberation theology flair, yet still deals in indulgences (attested to by missionaries in RC countries), and to Protestants it appears to hold to justification by grace alone. No doubt there are devout and pious folks in the RC Church, but qua Church, the RC is still the same, unreformed Church.
Sometimes, being limited in mind is a God send!
In this case, though, a lot of time to ponder and study to know might have gotten him out of bounds?
Still, the still same day and always Word is still:::>
2Jn 1:8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.
2Jn 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Peter's Words too:::>
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
It would be a certain thing for Mr. Horton to reply, at a minimum to this question:::>
"....Do you agree or disagree that Trent declared the Gospel of Christ to be Anathema and that Benedict XVI is the chief shepherd of another gospel?...".
Ok, I would answer it anyway this way, "yes, "indeed, ....another gospel is his, Benedict XVI"!
2Pe 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
Now, to be sure, I am not so sure of the way how the papacy interprets?
If Pope Benedict XVI interprets from his "own" counsel and not by the "council" of many and edicts from a multitude of counsel of the "council", then the counsel ought always, nevertheless, be disgarded for the Truth reigns by means of Grace and Truth through edification of the Triune God to Whom we all have our own duty to Their Allegiance::::>
Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
Ok? Let me hear him say: "Shibboleth" then! :)
TF,
Here's an interesting take on the subject at hand which juxtaposes Dr. Horton, Dr. James White and Hahn by exploring their mutual interconnections:
Popular Reformed author endorses Roman Catholic apologist's new book
In Christ,
CD
Do most of you have a clue who Horton is apart from tiles? Again I'm a bit flummoxed, you act as if he hasn't clearly defined his position on Rome in the past.
and no, the navel-gazing comment is not directed toward us, but toward those who find their worth in self etc.
Lockheed:
It is disconcerting to see him promoting a book by an enemy of the gospel about the theology of the leading living opponent of the gospel.
One explanation is that he thinks he's not helping out Hahn and Rome when he writes a blurb for their book.
Another explanation is that he doesn't see Rome as the enemy. I haven't seen anything from him lately that clearly expresses his position on Rome - which concerns me.
It is disconcerting to see him promoting a book by an enemy of the gospel about the theology of the leading living opponent of the gospel.
He's not "promoting" the book, he simply said that it was an excellent work documenting the theology of Benedict XVI, he never said he agreed with that (and has often over his long career as a Seminary Professor, Radio Host, and Reformed believer stated clear opposition to it). Do you not know who Horton is and his clearly stated position on these things for decades, or are you just wanting him to use stronger language in opposition in this piece?
One explanation is that he thinks he's not helping out Hahn and Rome when he writes a blurb for their book.
I don't understand, I read the occasional secular book and have written reviews on them, am I "helping" atheists by doing so?
Is simply stating the truth that Hahn has written a good book on the theology of Pope Benedict some how wrong?
Another explanation is that he doesn't see Rome as the enemy. I haven't seen anything from him lately that clearly expresses his position on Rome - which concerns me.
Having just written a book in response to N.T. Wright's latest, and still clearly noting the deep problematic issues between the Law and Gospel therein, I don't think Horton's view of Rome is truly in question.
I note that Dr. White has blurbs on his books from Roman Catholics (Forgotten Trinity, for example). The point being, a book doesn't have to be written by "our side" to carry within it truths about a specific subject. A Chilton car manual could be written by a Roman Catholic, but if it is true in what it says about that car, it's a good book.
Notice what that one little blurb does state: Horton disagrees with "some of" Benedict's conclusions but the book offers a "wealth of reflection" etc. specifically in regards to what Benedict believes and that the book is a useful guide to understanding his thought. There's nothing in the blurb even suggesting a recanting of Horton's historic position on these issues and I find this almost hysterical response to a tiny endorsement on a book a very strange response from normally solid, clear thinking folks.
Exactly what in the blurb suggests anything but that the book is useful for knowing what Benedict believes and that Hahn did a good job writing it?
Also TFan, note that the article you ask Horton about was written in 2005...
Also, did you read THIS post?
http://deregnochristi.org/2009/10/20/why-rome-is-not-my-enemy/
If what Horton wrote gets your goat, this should cook it and serve it with pita bread.
Lockheed:
Why do you think Hahn wanted to get Horton's name on the book? You don't have to answer this in the comment box - just something for you to think about.
-TurretinFan
Horton said:
“Even when one disagrees with some of his conclusions, 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 teaching in a highly readable summary. An eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important theologian of our time.”
Michael Horton, Westminster Seminary California.
Many are shocked that Horton would praise any Pope, much less do so in endorsement of a theological treatise written by a Roman Catholic apologist.
It would seem that Dr. Horton fails to recognize that by issuing such glowing endorsements he is in fact spreading the selfsame seeds of confusion as ECT!
Pray tell, what "insights", "conclusions" and "engagement with critical scholarship" coming from a mouthpiece of Satan are worthy of a "wealth of reflection" by the blood-bought children of God? What communion hath darkness with light?
And what exactly does Dr. Horton find so "remarkable" about a tome written by an apostate apologist of an apostate false religion?
Should we expect Dr. Horton to provide dust jacket blurbs for the next round of LDS or Watchtower apologetic literature? Are their theologians not also profound and insightful as they articulate their damnable doctrines of demons and engage with critical scholarship?
In Christ,
CD
I would say that it's a far different thing to interact with opposing theological literature by giving a review of it than by a virtual endorsement of it.
I do have to wonder what Hahn gains by Horton's endorsement. A Protestant like Horton clearly is not allowed to interpret theological Romanist writings. How many times have Protestants like Horton and James White been told they have no business interpreting Roman Catholic doctrine?
So, why would Hahn trust Horton's opinion on these theological writings and take/seek the endorsement?
Do this also mean Horton's critiques of the Pope's gospel compared to Scripture is also valid? It should be valid enough for Hahn if Horton has a good enough grasp on the Pope's theology.
Just some thoughts...
"Pray tell, what "insights", "conclusions" and "engagement with critical scholarship" coming from a mouthpiece of Satan are worthy of a "wealth of reflection" by the blood-bought children of God?
Should we expect Dr. Horton to provide dust jacket blurbs for the next round of LDS or Watchtower apologetic literature? Are their theologians not also profound and insightful as they articulate their damnable doctrines of demons and engage with critical scholarship?"
Amen.
"Pray tell, what "insights", "conclusions" and "engagement with critical scholarship" coming from a mouthpiece of Satan are worthy of a "wealth of reflection" by the blood-bought children of God?
Well, I'm sure that learning what people believe by reading their own writers is taboo in your view, however, I tend to find that most "insights" into others belief's come from reading their own writing.
I'm so glad you're capable of determining Horton's heart by reading a short blurb about a book about someone's theology and not from actually reading his own writing... I didn't know Christians had God's ability to do so.
Should we expect Dr. Horton to provide dust jacket blurbs for the next round of LDS or Watchtower apologetic literature?
Firstly, this isn't "apologetic" literature, this is a summary of the theology of P. Benedict and his writings. Secondly, if a book contains relevant information about a particular topic, then stating a fact that something can provide insights is by no means "endorsing" what is written. He's saying that Hahn has written a useful survey of Benedict XVI's/Ratzinger's theology, he is not saying he agrees with any of it.
I can say that reading Mormon authors is a good way to get to understand Mormonism... even while abhorring the system. But according to you, no one should bother reading what non-believers and schismatics write... I'm glad the best apologists of the Christian faith don't accept your viewpoint as valid.
Lockheed,
it seems to me you make to much of this, maybe not?
I would observe some verses, imply them as you will, with regard to both yourself and Prof. Horton:
Ecc 10:1 Dead flies make the perfumer's ointment give off a stench; so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.
Ecc 10:2 A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left.
One, in my estimation, ought to be open to a good reproof, especially if you are as one as Prof. Horton is with both wisdom and honor.
The gravity of what we speak is such that to make it confusing to many or to some is the point here, is it not?
We would like clarification from Prof. Horton.
It would be a special moment if Prof. Horton got wind of this herein and on and answered the question put over clearly in this combox to remove all equivocations and doubts, especially when you put this matter into the same context as the Apostle when we read his extreme admonition to the Corinthian Church, here:
1Co 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
1Co 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
1Co 10:33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
If this blog isn't appropriate for him, possibly another forum would be better to become unequivocal about his association with the RCC and the present Pope and apologist Scott Hahn?
Mike's endorsement of a book describing the views of an important Romanist theologian is just that. He's saying that it's a good survey of an important writer. He's not saying that Ratzinger's distinctively Romanist views are correct nor is he endorsing Ratzinger's distinctively Romanist views.
Are you suggesting that Reformed systematic theologians should not read and interact with contemporary Romanist theologians?
"Are you suggesting that Reformed systematic theologians should not read and interact with contemporary Romanist theologians?"
No. I'm not certainly not suggesting that.
"He's not saying that Ratzinger's distinctively Romanist views are correct nor is he endorsing Ratzinger's distinctively Romanist views."
True. He's also not actually disagreeing with Ratzinger on anything in the blurb, either. Of course, it's just a blurb.
Admittedly, this may be nothing, but I haven't seen much critical of Rome from Prof. Horton lately. I'd love to have my concerns (provoked by Prof. Beckwith's move) put to rest, but of course Prof. Horton may choose instead to ignore the issue.
Lockheed,
Your comments herein, as well as in TF's other thread have literally dripped with venemous ad hominem.
You need to check yourself, brother.
In Christ,
CD
I think Lockheed is just bewildered by criticism (express or implied) of Michael Horton in this regard. As for me, if I could just find something recent by Michael Horton acknowledging the rather simple comments I identified above, I'd be satisfied. I still don't think endorsing any book by Hahn is a smart move, but at least it would just be a matter of me disagreeing with Horton's judgment.
Sounds like TF didn't get a "harumph" outta that guy. Give the governor a harumph, Horton.
TF,
You may have already seen it but Horton has replied here:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/220.html
@TF One explanation is that he thinks he's not helping out Hahn and Rome when he writes a blurb for their book...Another explanation is that he doesn't see Rome as the enemy. I haven't seen anything from him lately that clearly expresses his position on Rome - which concerns me.
Maybe, but it is nothing more than what it says, a recommend of the scholarship. He does see Rome as it is an enemy. But... would we like to see the RCC repent as a whole? I would. I haven't found anything in Horton that vaguely signifies his willingness to move in Rome's direction.
if I could just find something recent by Michael Horton acknowledging the rather simple comments I identified above, I'd be satisfied. I still don't think endorsing any book by Hahn is a smart move, but at least it would just be a matter of me disagreeing with Horton's judgment.
Agreed, it appears to be bad judgement. Not because it is a problem endorsing scholarly work, but because the political fallout is too costly. And that is too bad. How about what I said about Craig? Would you recommend any of his books knowing fullwell that some might think it an endorsement of his heresies? I have gone so far, (damn me all to hell), as to lend his works to others. I even read the Tanakh written and edited by all Jewish scholars and would recommend it to any wishing to see what Jewish scholars say about their own works.
You haven't seen anything recent by him? Broaden your parameters and your language, and you'll find it. Addressing directly the Magisterium and the papa? TF, you're just not paying attention to the grounding of his most recent work, are you? It is easy to draw out of what MH has done and see that he has not taken a single step toward Rome. I haven't seen anything recently about how you have repented of your love of all things worldly. I think I should start worrying about your soul;) Are you saying that without explicit content, you would not accept what the texts may implicitly mean given their overarching context?
ST:
Try to watch your tone, even when exasperated.
I haven't read this whole comment thread, but Michael Horton was keynote speaker at a Reformation conference at my church just a few weeks ago. The audio is available here.
You will find this quote at 12:54 in the .mp3 for Plenary Address 1:
"As the gavel came down to close the final session of the council of Trent in 1563, Rome had officially, and according to her own commitment down to the present moment irreversibly declared that the gospel announced by the prophets, revealed in and by Christ, and proclaimed by the apostles, was anathema. The most relevant canons are the following..."
and then proceeded to quote from Trent. So obviously, Michael Horton affirms that Trent declared the true gospel of Christ to be anathema. Also, it is easy to find quotes of Horton "praising" the new pope, because "at least he's really a Catholic!", by which he means at least you know where he's coming from, because he is consistent with Trent; so there's no worry that Horton somehow thinks Ratzinger is coming around on this Justification thing. This remark has popped up a number of times on WHI, I don't have time to chase it down.
I hope you find the audio to be helpful in confirming that you will find no more firm and eloquent defender of the Reformation. (Please also enjoy the other conference .mp3s!)
Also, I recommend you update your post with this quote, for the public record, and to make it easier for new visitors to see how Horton's own, recent words address your open question.
Thanks, ruberad!
No problem. Glad to defend a solid reformer.
BTW, by now you've probably seen this, which is probably as close as you'll get to a personal response to your open question. I'm sure Horton's kinda busy.
And thanks for elevating the quote to the main post.
TF- you deleted my post? Wow... just wow...
ST:
Just the one that employed an excretory name for someone else. It was just deleted for the use of off-color language.
If you'd like to repost your thoughts with different words, feel free.
-TurretinFan
Depends on what you mean by color.
I don't think I have a copy, and at this point it doesn't much matter. The point added by ruberad sufficiently wiped clean the issue.
agreed
Coram Deo - No, the ones who need to check themselves are those who seem able to judge the heart of a person many admittedly know nothing of.
ie: Should we expect Dr. Horton to provide dust jacket blurbs for the next round of LDS or Watchtower apologetic literature?
My response was directly purely at this kind of rhetoric and not toward the more level-headed questions of such as Turretinfan.
Micah Burke
Turretinfan,
Now that Horton has explicitly addressed your concerns, do you think that you have a responsibility now to delete this post (and any similar ones)?
Brandon
What purpose would that serve, Brandon?
Turretinfan,
I actually don't think our reasoning needs to proceed as far as 'the effects' (or "purpose") to see why it would be appropriate for you to do this. I see it as a simple matter of fairness and justice.
You publically asked a question that, whether you intended it to be or not, is filled with implicit suspicion and criticism of a minister of the Gospel who has tirelessly defended the doctrine of justification by faith alone. (Quite frankly, I think that even five minutes of internet research on your part would have been sufficient to answer your question before posting it, as he has within the last two months defended JBFA against the NPP on the whitehorseinn blog). You said you simply wanted a recent statement from Horton that he still believed that Rome was in error regarding the Gospel. He gave it to you today. He has answered your question. I think you have a responsibility to delete these posts, now.
It is not because I think Horton should be immune from critique (I don't think anyone should be). It is because this man has been a faithful servant of Christ and His Gospel, and still is. His character and doctrine are impeccable. For you to leave these questions available for public-viewing after the matter has been resolved promotes strife and contention among Reformed Christians where there should not be any.
You, surely, know how the internet works. The questions, scandals, and criticisms are more titillating--even to Christians--than are the answers, sad as that is. As a result, these posts memorialize on the internet a criticism of a faithful servant of Christ that is completely unfair and without merit. I think that most charitable people are able to see the problem with this.
You asked why Hahn would want Horton's endorsement. I don't think the answer is nearly as insidious as you suggest. Horton is a world-renowned theologian (not just on the conference circuit, but also in the academy). Within the last two years he has engaged Benedict XVI's theology of the covenant in great detail in his critically-acclaimed WJK series (and he provided a trenchant critique of it too). Hahn would be foolish not to covet this kind of endorsement of his own study of Benedict XVI's covenant theology.
These are my reasons why I think you have a responsibility to pull these posts. It's about charity and truth-telling.
Peace in our Lord,
Brandon
I can't see deleting a post for merely asking questions. The discussion was worthwhile and TF seems mostly satisfied with the answers he received from several people who did some research into the issues at hand.
Brandon,
While I am glad to hear that Horton is still willing to acknowledge that Trent anathematized the gospel, I still think his endorsement of Hahn's book was a dumb move.
I disagree with his judgment to recommend the book, since I think it will only (in my judgment) encourage folks who have an incomplete view of Roman Catholic theology and not the sort of people for whom Ratzinger's thoughts would be a necessary evil.
In short, I think Hahn outwitted Horton - but I am glad to see it was that, and not Horton acting in concert with Hahn.
-TurretinFan
I think it would be appropriate to remove articles that were posted in bad faith; that is, something written with the intention of injuring another's reputation. I see no evidence of bad faith here--no evidence that Horton's reputation has been harmed. TF didn't deliberately lie about Horton. He did not intentionally misrepresent him. He asked for a clarification and he got it. End of story.
This hysterical notion that some terrible injustice was done here is frankly rather silly. No one's name was "dragged through the mud" for TF's (or anyone else's) self-aggrandizement. If TF's goal is real-world recognition for his views, he could easily get it by revealing his real name.
If we can't ask important questions of our (arguably) popular Christian spokesmen, we might as well drink the Kool-Aid like some have in our society and never question our "leaders" at all.
Turretinfan,
Then you are changing the rules in the middle of the game. Your original post was about whether Horton had capitulated to Rome's view of the Gospel, and he has not. In fact, he has quite recently given full-scale defenses of JBFA. Now you are saying you are justified to leave up this scandalous question because you don't think he acted wisely. This seems pretty cheap and irresponsible to me.
You think he acted unwisely, fine then let love cover a multitude of (perceived) sin and take down the post, anyway.
I don't know if you have somekind of personal gripe with the man, but I see this as quite simply about Christian charity and truth-telling. I would've figured an internet apologist would have understood the importance of such things.
FWIW your namesake thought more highly of studying Roman theologians than you do.
"Your original post was about whether Horton had capitulated to Rome's view of the Gospel, and he has not."
No, my original post was expressing disappointment that Horton blurbed for Hahn.
"Now you are saying you are justified to leave up this scandalous question because you don't think he acted wisely."
a) The question isn't scandalous.
b) I'd rather leave the question up in its modified form as far as addressing any concerns regarding Horton's orthodoxy.
c) My view that Horton acted imprudently is the reason that I'm still disappointed he took the action he did. It's the reason that this is not a complete non-issue.
"FWIW your namesake thought more highly of studying Roman theologians than you do."
You seem either to be under the mistaken impression that my namesake thought everyone (even impressionable young people) should study Romanist theologians or under the mistaken impression that I think that seminary students should not study Romanist theologians.
Which is it?
"I don't know if you have somekind of personal gripe with the man, but I see this as quite simply about Christian charity and truth-telling."
I don't have any kind of personal gripe with Horton. I think he exercised bad judgment, and I'm glad to hear it was just naivete and not false ecumenicism. I didn't call Horton a heretic, I just asked him a question in view of his cooperation in helping to sell a book of Romanist theology. It was a legitimate question, and it has been answered (though - oddly enough - not directly by him).
One more comment: "You think he acted unwisely, fine then let love cover a multitude of (perceived) sin and take down the post, anyway."
What?? How is it a violation of love for me to publicly denounce publicly given Reformed assistance of Romanist proselytizers like Hahn? Whereas it is not (we presume) a violation of love for you to publicly criticize me for denouncing unwise behavior.
I'm very interested to hear about this.
-TurretinFan
Turretinfan,
That is apples and oranges.
You think that by leaving your criticisms of Horton up for all to see, all you are doing is suggesting he acted unwisely (I think you are naive to believe this, by the way).
I am saying that the nature of the criticisms you have raised about Horton illegitimately cast a shadow over his good name and his many years of work defending the Gospel and JBFA.
If you can somehow fit our dinky little conversation in to that mold, you should change your name to Houdinifan.
"I still think his endorsement of Hahn's book was a dumb move."
As I said the political fallout was too costly. But that is because of the ignorance of Christians. I don't think it was ever a consideration by MH.
TF questions were appropriate. Clarification is a necessary beastie these days especially when this kind of stupid reaction is forthcoming from an immature church. The request to remove his post points to the same kind of challenges that MH and others face whenever, in print or digital, something is written. Though there shouldn't have been any problem with MH's blurb, there was. Though there isn't anything wrong with TF asking for clarity, it is perceived as an attack. My position was that there is plenty of information to the contrary in either MH's case or TF's that prove the opposite of any suspicious or pejorative intent. With ruberad's reference link all questions are answered. With MH's blog article, there isn't really any need for more.
Recently Time Magazine had Palin on the cover. The use of the photo according to reports violated contractual agreements. Nevertheless, it is too late remove the picture and undo the harm. Harm that should never have been. Is there anything wrong with the photo? No. Was it at all wise. Not at all. That is the milieu we live in. It is a political world. I suspect she has handlers who should know better. MH on the other hand is not a celeb and doesn't (I don't think). The fallout shouldn't occur with him, but it did, and it is not he but others who are at blame. And that is a problem with evangelicalism's ubiquitous cultic culture that operates not much differently than the fan-rag culture in the world. Associations if only in name and not in anyway one of allegiance is all that is necessary to guillotine the political stawman.
Which criticism casts a shadow. Please be specific.
I'll give you some options:
1) Is it actually not a criticism at all, but simply a question that you have in mind?
2) Is it the criticism of exercising bad judgment in blurbing for Hahn?
If it is the latter, I don't really see how this casts a shadow, but perhaps you disagree, and that's your right.
If it is the former, I think you're reading some of your own assumptions into the question - treating it is as though it were a rhetorical question, which it was not.
ST:
I do think Mike Horton is viewed as a celebrity within Reformed circles. Obviously nothing like Mrs. Palin, but his public actions have consequences.
"illegitimately cast a shadow over his good name"
See. You should take a look at the title of my post if you think TF is off base.
Turretinfan sees the widespread popularity of MH and the impact it could have. He asks a question as a concerned observer. Any question I had of TF was in not challenging the character assassins that then jumped the shark and took this where it should not have gone. MH responded to that lunacy and was evermore gracious to belay worry and assure the blogosphere that he is still soundly Reformed. Nuff said...
Yes he is a celebrity, but not by profession. What I intended was that unlike the celebrities, political and non who have agents who screen their public statements and appearances, MH, I would quess, doesn't because he is transparent and not putting on aires for poplularity's sake. And the fact remains that there was nothing wrong with the blurb. What was wrong were suspicious minds too willing to be factionalized by the rumor mill.
I thought your question appropriate because (not being suspicious of you but knowing you to have studied RC well despite the critic's claims) it was seeking clarification. And I agree. In today's "perverting of truth world," it is not very prudent to act in almost any manner in public that can be twisted even by "well meaning Christians." But think what that would leaving us with. Should Palin cowtow to the fascist Democrat propaganda machine? Should Christian scholars capitulate and fear reprisal from a politicized church- even from their own camp? Well things are changing. There is more and more to be reckoned with in such an innocent act in both sphere and that is sad. Perhaps the catacombs are the safest place.
Once the question has been asked on the open interwebs, it's kind of difficult to unring that bell. People that hear of a rumor that MH has gone rogue and is currently backstroking the Tiber will try to Google it, and even if deleted, a cached copy of this post will be around for a while.
So in my opinion, the most honorable thing to do would be to further amend the original post with a note that the Open Question is no longer open. As it is, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. TF, I'd like to see your affirmation that the quote answers the mail not just buried in the comment thread, but on the post.
Maybe you will find this helpful:
Open Question for TurretinFan:
Dear Mr. Fan,
In view of your post "Open Question for Michael Horton," and your subsequent comments in the ensuing thread, we are wondering: Do you agree or disagree that Horton is completely orthodox and Reformed in his understanding of the Gospel of Christ and justification sola fide, and that you, however, are still disappointed that he endorsed a book by Catholic apologist Scott Hahn?
Yes, I'm still disappointed and yes, I think he's orthodox.
See how easy that was?
Easy for you to say, but not so easy for somebody to find, if they have to read through 50 comments
I've updated the post twice. Hopefully that addresses any outstanding issues.
This discussion, and others like it, shows how insecure many Protestants are in their faith. While they continually cry "Christ Alone", there is nothing in their practice that suggests that such Protestants have a semblance of assurance that Christ is in charge of the destinies of men. Somehow, their war and defensiveness are required to safeguard God and his truth from the attack of “Rome”.
a) Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
b) You must not be a very good observer to see "nothing in their practice" to that effect.
c) Rome will be destroyed by the spirit of the mouth of the Lord; whether a particular minister stands for or against Rome won't change the outcome of the battle.
Post a Comment