Thread: Horton endorses Leithart's latest book..

I just picked up Leithart's latest book "Solomon Amongst the Postmoderns" and was shocked to see an endorsement from him on the back.

That is all...

Not everything Leithart writes is a defense/presentation of the FV. For instance, if Leithart writes an article that defends the trinity, do we necessarily dismiss it for FV reasons?


I am not saying all of this as a defense of Leithart. I have my issues with him but let's not ignore good scholarship.

I do not know about the propriety of Horton endorsing Leithart's book. However, I know that he certainly is incredibly strong on the Christian being assured of his standing in Christ, which cannot be said of FV teaching...in a sense.

Well, just to let you know, I completely agree. I have always said that we should not discount everything that the FV proponents write, especially in regards to issues that do not fall within the sphere of the overall controversy. Personally I am huge fan of his writing style!

Originally Posted by travis

I just picked up Leithart's latest book "Solomon Amongst the Postmoderns" and was shocked to see an endorsement from him on the back.

That is all...

Is the book any good?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by travis

I just picked up Leithart's latest book "Solomon Amongst the Postmoderns" and was shocked to see an endorsement from him on the back.

That is all...

Is the book any good?

I've actually listened to the lectures which make up the book. they are very, very academic. He steps inside the postmodernists shoes and implodes his worldview.

Are those lectures online anywhere?

Originally Posted by Montolio

Are those lectures online anywhere?

Not for free. AAPC"s website used to link to where you can purchase them. AUBURN AVENUE MEDIA :: MP3 CENTER Scroll down halfway. But to catch the "gist" of it, go to their video Podcast, In Media Res (it will open in Itunes) and find Leithart.
AUBURN AVENUE MEDIA :: PODCASTS

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by travis

I just picked up Leithart's latest book "Solomon Amongst the Postmoderns" and was shocked to see an endorsement from him on the back.

That is all...

Is the book any good?

I've actually listened to the lectures which make up the book. they are very, very academic. He steps inside the postmodernists shoes and implodes his worldview.

Right.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Is the book any good?

I've actually listened to the lectures which make up the book. they are very, very academic. He steps inside the postmodernists shoes and implodes his worldview.

Right.

Horton is also a very mature theologian who is not given to reactionaryisms. Anyway, Leithart has read and interacted with some very hard and academic work on postmodernisms. How many people on this board are ready to critique John Milbank? I can assure you, it is not that easy. So when someone comes along and is able to do that we should be grateful (at least for the moment).

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

I've actually listened to the lectures which make up the book. they are very, very academic. He steps inside the postmodernists shoes and implodes his worldview.

Right.

Horton is also a very mature theologian who is not given to reactionaryisms. Anyway, Leithart has read and interacted with some very hard and academic work on postmodernisms. How many people on this board are ready to critique John Milbank? I can assure you, it is not that easy. So when someone comes along and is able to do that we should be grateful (at least for the moment).

Yes, its a pity there was not more stuff like this.

James Arminius has a really great article on the Trinity in his works. Every good Christian shoudl read it!

Not.

Well, actually, he does have good things to say on the Trinity. So shoudl we read him?

We want to remember that it would safer to read Calvin on the doctrine of the Trinity instead of Arminius, even though Arminius has good things to say about the Trinity.

Do we need to read Arminius on the Trinity? Not really. Actually, not at all. I'd opt for reading those who are theologically well rounded. Who knows how much or how little one is influenced by underlying subtelties of those who are not well-rounded theologically?

Like: "Wow, I just read an awesome artilce by Arminius on the Trinity. I guess he is not all bad. I wonder what else he has written that was good. Maybe I'll go check all his works out of the public library and read through them!"

When the devil invades the church, he does so by mixing truth and error. He never walks in with a pitchfork and forked tongue guising a red suit.

In other words, is there anyone out there that is better to read than endorsing Leithart on Postmodernism that does an equally well job even though he may say some good things? Then that begs the question as to make one wonder why one would want to endorse someone who is basically theologically off on matters of salvation, election, justification, historical theology, and a host of other theological paradigms.

There are far too many other theologically sound books and authors to read than dabbling on the edge between good and error.

So, was Dr Horton wrong to endorse a Leithart book for the second time (since he had prevously endorsed Leithart's book on the Lord's Supper)?

In other words, is there anyone out there that is better to read than endorsing Leithart on Postmodernism that does an equally well job even though he may say some good things?

The problem is that FVers like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart have been given free reign due to the cloister Calvinism that prevails among most orthodox Reformed thinkers.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

So, was Dr Horton wrong to endorse a Leithart book for the second time (since he had prevously endorsed Leithart's book on the Lord's Supper)?

Was JI PAcker wrong to endorse ECT?

Yes, Dr. Horton has better things to do, and we all have better books to read on both Postmodernism and the Lord's Supper.

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Yes, Dr. Horton has better things to do, and we all have better books to read on both Postmodernism

That begs the question. Perhaps there are other books that we should read on PM, but you can't determine that with your a priori judgments. Why turn down a .44 magnum just because it has a lot of recoil?

Leithart's book Against Christianity was a tour de force against post-liberal theologians Lindbeck and Milbank (men whom the larger scholarly world take seriously). They are not easy reads and even worse, Milbank's challenges to evangelicalism and calvinism, while I think wrong-headed, are not easily dismissed.

EDIT: I say this as someone who probably won't read Leithart's book due to time and money constraints.

I need to clarify something. My statement earlier was about Dr. Horton, NOT Leithart. L's 9 responses (or however many there were-can't recall at the moment) were just terrible. My point concerning Horton was that I don't think he comes close to being Pro FV, particularly given his teachings on Law/Gospel and Assurance.

I was an Arminian.

I read Jacob Arminius.

I knew Jacob Arminius.

And let me tell you, Peter Leithart is no Jacob Arminius!

All joking aside...

At what point are we in danger of slipping into some form of Steeliteism?

If we are to banish the works of ministers ("in good standing") are we really that far from the Steelite (false) doctrine of " occasional hearing"?

I would not want to recommend that infants in the faith read certain heretical books. But as believers mature in the faith I would think it's important to read books from other perspectives. This is so we can interact with different perspectives faithfully.

Don Carson has noticed that the PhD students who turned to liberalism, were those that had read from only one perspective in their undergraduate years.

As I mark undergraduate essays I want the student to have read other positions with which they don't agree. I want them to faithfully represent these other positions, and not knock down straw men.

It raises the issue of when a group of Christians become a cult. No one tradition has everything right. If all we do is read books from one perspective we retain the blinkers of that perspective (i.e. we retain a certain blindness). The only way to have our blinkers removed is if we read other perspectives. If we can't read the works of people with whom we don't agree that's moving in the direction of a cult. How can we ascertain if we do or don't agree with them? If truth is on our side what is there to fear?

We don't fight error by banning books. We do so by exposing error cogently.

If Leithart's attack on postmodernism is a good one why not recommend it?

Every blessing.

Perhaps we should declare Horton a heretic as well? Pronouncing anathemas is a favorite pastime among us Reformed folk, so we ought to be able to have a little fun with it, right? How 'bout a lecture series entitled "Horton Hears a Hooretic"?

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Don Carson has noticed that the PhD students who turned to liberalism, were those that had read from only one perspective in their undergraduate years.

I find myself torn on this one. As a lifelong evangelical my training taught me to look at all sides of every issue. Indeed, one of the weaknesses of the "progressive evangelical" training program is that it breeds "on the one hand . . . on the other hand" paralysis.

However, I guess this is one place where my view differs a bit from Dr. Carson (a first in my experience!). Yes, sheltered students often make a pilgrimage left (e.g., Bart Ehrman from Moody to Wheaton to Princeton to agnosticism). But, almost equally dangerous is the hubris of intellectual evangelical, and, a minore ad maius, practically ANY Reformed student.

My successor at one church was a solidly Calvinistic Jonathan Edwards devotee. But, he flattered himself in believing that he was capable of evaluating error of all types in an honest and open way. When he encountered a view he couldn't answer (Scott Hahn in this case), he ended up apostasizing to Rome. Now he goes around giving "apologetics" lectures on how to defeat Protestants and win them back to the mother church.

Regardless of how smart we are, few of us are so sophisticated that we can handle exposing ourselves to every manner of theological disease and toxicity without picking up a bit of a bug ourselves. Between age 16 and 52, I tried to major in every current trend and thought form out there. Now during the past two years, I have been migrating to reading the dead guys . . . much more edifying and a lot safer.

Am I advocating a head-in-the-sand avoidance of difficult issues? No, not really. But, a little humility would be a wise thing for budding young theologs to pick up before they find their "egos writing checks their souls can't cash" or some such mixed-up metaphorical reference. Too many friends have committed themselves so completely to the esoterica of error that they found themselves becoming apostate themselves.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

I find myself torn on this one. As a lifelong evangelical my training taught me to look at all sides of every issue. Indeed, one of the weaknesses of the "progressive evangelical" training program is that it breeds "on the one hand . . . on the other hand" paralysis.

Roy Hargrave once said that the greatest threat to the church today isn't Semi-Pelagianism but non-theology. I know countless young Christians who have the very mindset you just described. So many of my peers and church leaders are blindly falling to the emerging church mindset. I'm just waiting to see who buys into the FV's views.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Don Carson has noticed that the PhD students who turned to liberalism, were those that had read from only one perspective in their undergraduate years.

I find myself torn on this one. As a lifelong evangelical my training taught me to look at all sides of every issue. Indeed, one of the weaknesses of the "progressive evangelical" training program is that it breeds "on the one hand . . . on the other hand" paralysis.

I'm not sure you actually disagree with Carson. What we must be careful to do here is identify the extremes, and stay away from them.

One extreme: we only read from one tradition.

Other extreme: we read everything and evaluate nothing.

Carson eschewed the first extreme, but it doesn't mean he affirmed the second extreme. To unpack this:

[1] There is a difference between infant and mature Christians (Heb. 5:11-14). Infant Christians need milk, and not a plethora of views. They need to be grounded in the foundations of the faith, and not confused by a cacophony of opinions. Hence, I also see that the early years in theological education are critical for laying good foundations, and to keep students from a variety of opinions. Get them grounded in the truth.

[2] However, following Heb 5:11-14 believers must move on from "milk" to "meat" if they are to persevere. Thus, once foundations are laid, then we can move on to learning to listen to other points of view carefully and present faithfully (be quick to listen and slow to speak), as well as understanding how to evaluate them carefully.

[3] We can't teach by just giving a bunch of views and stopping there. We must argue for what we believe is correct, which models something critical. If we never draw conclusions then we model that truth is not important. On the issues of "indifference" in Rom. 14-15 Paul says that "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind". Hence, even on adiaphora we need to draw a conclusion for ourselves.

[4] It's critical to learn how to discern the importance of a theological issue. Is it worth dying for? Or is it an adiaphoron? Or is it something in-between.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

However, I guess this is one place where my view differs a bit from Dr. Carson (a first in my experience!). Yes, sheltered students often make a pilgrimage left (e.g., Bart Ehrman from Moody to Wheaton to Princeton to agnosticism). But, almost equally dangerous is the hubris of intellectual evangelical, and, a minore ad maius, practically ANY Reformed student.

One of the values of understanding other points of view is that it creates an epistemic humility, we recognize that no one person (no matter how smart) can grasp it all precisely because:

(i) we are still sinners even as believers and are prone to bias; and
(ii) as Paul says "we know in part"; there is a veiling until the eschaton that we can't possess now.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

My successor at one church was a solidly Calvinistic Jonathan Edwards devotee. But, he flattered himself in believing that he was capable of evaluating error of all types in an honest and open way. When he encountered a view he couldn't answer (Scott Hahn in this case), he ended up apostasizing to Rome. Now he goes around giving "apologetics" lectures on how to defeat Protestants and win them back to the mother church.

Yes, one of my best friends did exactly the same thing. It's heart-breaking.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Am I advocating a head-in-the-sand avoidance of difficult issues? No, not really. But, a little humility would be a wise thing for budding young theologs to pick up before they find their "egos writing checks their souls can't cash" or some such mixed-up metaphorical reference. Too many friends have committed themselves so completely to the esoterica of error that they found themselves becoming apostate themselves.

Magnificently put! Thank you brother.

Originally Posted by Brad

Perhaps we should declare Horton a heretic as well? Pronouncing anathemas is a favorite pastime among us Reformed folk, so we ought to be able to have a little fun with it, right? How 'bout a lecture series entitled "Horton Hears a Hooretic"?

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

James Arminius has a really great article on the Trinity in his works. Every good Christian shoudl read it!

Not.

Well, actually, he does have good things to say on the Trinity. So shoudl we read him?

We want to remember that it would safer to read Calvin on the doctrine of the Trinity instead of Arminius, even though Arminius has good things to say about the Trinity.

Do we need to read Arminius on the Trinity? Not really. Actually, not at all. I'd opt for reading those who are theologically well rounded. Who knows how much or how little one is influenced by underlying subtelties of those who are not well-rounded theologically?

Like: "Wow, I just read an awesome artilce by Arminius on the Trinity. I guess he is not all bad. I wonder what else he has written that was good. Maybe I'll go check all his works out of the public library and read through them!"

When the devil invades the church, he does so by mixing truth and error. He never walks in with a pitchfork and forked tongue guising a red suit.

In other words, is there anyone out there that is better to read than endorsing Leithart on Postmodernism that does an equally well job even though he may say some good things? Then that begs the question as to make one wonder why one would want to endorse someone who is basically theologically off on matters of salvation, election, justification, historical theology, and a host of other theological paradigms.

There are far too many other theologically sound books and authors to read than dabbling on the edge between good and error.

Brother matthew: The issue I have with this stance is I do not know of any man who has encompassed a complete truth on every subject perfectly, and exhaustively. I believe the Spirit will guard His own on what to read and them be swayed to believe. We are blessed to have many who have gone before us and are presently alive to have a grand smorgabord(sp) to pick and choose. Arminius is fantastic on the trinity, so one should read it if they so desire. The problem is we have been indoctrinated with McCarthyism in our reading. Those who have been blacklisted, have nothing true to say. This is very false. We can glean truth in many areas and remain as pure as humanly possible on doctrine.

Nicholas,

I agree with your concern over "blacklisting." That is what our brother was referencing (I think) in adducing Carson's concern for only reading one side of an issue. Too many folks end up giving up the faith as soon as they hear the other side. Incidentally, it is common knowledge that most of the Moody Bible Institute grads who attend Gordon Conwell for seminary surrender their dispensationalism post haste, converting to Calvinism within months of matriculation. Having never heard a good case for Calvinism, they are shocked at how persusasive it can be.

However, I have had WAY too many friends immerse themselves in understanding every strain of error known under the sun. In doing so, they developed not an epistemic humility, but rather EITHER of two pernicious diseases.

1. They came away saying: "If all these smart people can't agree on these foundational issues, what makes me think I can figure them out either? They just coast through life with a "on the one hand . . . on the other hand" kind of paralysis. In my limited experience (interviewing several hundred ordinands from a "caffeteria" seminary where every view was held by one professor or another), you can't go very far in pastoral ministry substituting "on the one hand . . . but on the other hand" for a "sure word from the Lord."

OR . . .

2. They end up encountering a position, the logic of which they are unable to defeat with their own intellectual tools and equipment. They deny their former confidence, embrace the new error, and proceed blithly along the heretical track.

As a Baptist, I acknowledge one of the greatest weaknesses of my movement (in its broadest historical expression) to be the lack of confessional boundaries to check individualism and the eccentricities and perversities of a single conscience. The more progressive Baptists in the U.S. hail this as the essence of being a Baptist. Put bluntly, they exalt in the notion that I have "soul liberty" to believe any fool thing I want to believe and nobody has a right to tell me otherwise or correct my error in any way. It's "me and Jesus."

One of the greatest virtues of confessional Christianity is the awareness that it is not "me and Jesus" but a received tradition hammered out in obedience to the Spirit and to the Word over centuries. Knowing the limits of my own fallen intellect, I delight in knowing that the Westminster Divines (corrected of course by the London Baptist Confession of 1689 ) prayerfully labored over these things. Unlike some of my Baptist peers, the Three Forms of Unity (generaly) and the LBCF (more specificially) are greatly comforting to me. They represent a safety net to protect my fallen intellect (or more properly my fallen ego with its intellectual hubris) from taking a header off the high wire of theological speculation onto the cold, hard asphalt below.

Some of the folks doing the most reading on postmodernism, etc., are exactly the ones who should not be doing such reading. I have found in my old age the sweetness of examining the truth in order to discern error rather than to immerse myself in error in hopes of discerning truth.

Perhaps the rule should be 3 classics of truth for every modern example of error??? Regardless of the percentage, I think that expertise in all of the details of modern heresy is greatly overstated. How much neo-orthodoxy does one need to read before you realize the bankruptcy of abandoning a biblical standard?

In the interests of total disclosure, I probably still read WAY too much of the "other side" in order to be "educated" on the state of contemporary theology. Honestly, how much of that is necessary to refute error and how much of it comes from a fleshly desire to play in the sandbox of the libs? Truth be told, they will NEVER treat you as a peer or an equal as long as you hold to inerrancy or to confessional Protestantism. You can read all of the books they publish, but unless you cave in to their progressive bias, you will never be treated as much more than an ignorant fundamentalist.

R.C. Sproul tells the story of people asking him: "Surely you don't interpret the Bible literally do you?" He indicates that the person ususally asks in a tone of voice that implies that only someone married to his first cousin could possibly hold to such a ridiculous position. Sproul reports that it used to bother him to have people challenging his learning in this way. Now, he recognizes the way the game is played. He says, "I answer, 'Why of course. How else would any rational person be expected to take it?'"

I suspect we need to be less insecure about what secularists think of our learning and more concerned to glorify God with our minds by making the major part of our intellectual diet selections from those great classics which will edify.

Last month my wife gave me 1,600 Puritan and Reformation classics on CD. There is no way on earth I can juggle my professional responsibilities, tend to family obligations, keep up with all of the heresy abounding, and make any kind of dent in these good books. How much do you think that Derrida book is worth eschatologically compared to Owens or Perkins or Turretin?

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

.

Don Carson has noticed that the PhD students who turned to liberalism, were those that had read from only one perspective in their undergraduate years.

I am wondering Marty, are you one of those Australians who when Don Carson visits them and preaches at their churches/lectures at their seminaries, he exchanges countless insults with?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I am wondering Marty, are you one of those Australians who when Don Carson visits them and preaches at their churches/lectures at their seminaries, he exchanges countless insults with?

Dear Daniel, you know us Aussies too well!

Actually, I'm currently in Perth (the West coast of Australia) and when Don Carson visited our seminary last year he commented on how we don't insult each other in jest like the Eastern Aussies (Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne) do. I'm not sure if that was a good or bad thing?!

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I am wondering Marty, are you one of those Australians who when Don Carson visits them and preaches at their churches/lectures at their seminaries, he exchanges countless insults with?

Dear Daniel, you know us Aussies too well!

Actually, I'm currently in Perth (the West coast of Australia) and when Don Carson visited our seminary last year he commented on how we don't insult each other in jest like the Eastern Aussies (Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne) do. I'm not sure if that was a good or bad thing?!

Oh right, the western Aussies are different from the eastern in terms of jesting. I better bear that in mind.

Dear brother Dennis, thanks for your contribution in this thread, I've found it really stimulating and helpful. But, I do have a question.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

2. They end up encountering a position, the logic of which they are unable to defeat with their own intellectual tools and equipment. They deny their former confidence, embrace the new error, and proceed blithly along the heretical track.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If one becomes convinced "according to their own intellectual tools and equipment" shouldn't they follow it? Wouldn't not doing this be going against our own conscience? Wouldn't following the 1689 against our conscience be tantamount to a Roman Catholic view of tradition? Surely we're called to make up our own minds about what we believe, and not have someone else do that for us (whether the 1689 divines or the Roman Catholic magisterium).

I'm assuming the reason why you didn't follow your predecessor to Rome, is not simply because Reformed divines eschew Catholicism, but fundamentally because you yourself believe that Hahn is wrong.

The reason why I didn't follow Scott Hahn into Rome is because I thought his arguments were far from convincing. And having spent 4 hours talking with 3 Catholic apologists several weeks ago, I'm even more convinced than ever that Hahn's positions on Scripture and Justification are deeply flawed.

In my mind there's a big difference between individualism and individual conscience.

God bless you brother.

I suppose my thoughts are closest to Matthew McMahon's regarding this subject.

Generally, I no longer recommend any works written by the Federal Vision advocates (even the many great early books Doug Wilson wrote before going FV). Before FV came on the scene there were already more books in print on nigh any subject one could imagine than any one person could read in their lifetime.

I believe the books that are actually good books written by Federal Vision advocates are the 'gateway drug' into the Federal Vision movement.

I don't think the average person in the pew goes from being sound in their theology to becoming a Federal Vision advocate without having first been introduced to the men behind the Federal Vision through other non-FV books they have written.

In conclusion, is it wrong for Horton to endorse Leithart's book? I will let God judge the matter. If I were Horton, would I have endorsed the book? Not on your life!

Originally Posted by C. Matthew McMahon

James Arminius has a really great article on the Trinity in his works. Every good Christian shoudl read it!

Not.

Well, actually, he does have good things to say on the Trinity. So shoudl we read him?

We want to remember that it would safer to read Calvin on the doctrine of the Trinity instead of Arminius, even though Arminius has good things to say about the Trinity.

Do we need to read Arminius on the Trinity? Not really. Actually, not at all. I'd opt for reading those who are theologically well rounded. Who knows how much or how little one is influenced by underlying subtelties of those who are not well-rounded theologically?

Like: "Wow, I just read an awesome artilce by Arminius on the Trinity. I guess he is not all bad. I wonder what else he has written that was good. Maybe I'll go check all his works out of the public library and read through them!"

When the devil invades the church, he does so by mixing truth and error. He never walks in with a pitchfork and forked tongue guising a red suit.

In other words, is there anyone out there that is better to read than endorsing Leithart on Postmodernism that does an equally well job even though he may say some good things? Then that begs the question as to make one wonder why one would want to endorse someone who is basically theologically off on matters of salvation, election, justification, historical theology, and a host of other theological paradigms.

There are far too many other theologically sound books and authors to read than dabbling on the edge between good and error.

Originally Posted by prespastor

I suppose my thoughts are closest to Matthew McMahon's regarding this subject.

Generally, I no longer recommend any works written by the Federal Vision advocates (even the many great early books Doug Wilson wrote before going FV). Before FV came on the scene there were already more books in print on nigh any subject one could imagine than any one person could read in their lifetime.

I believe the books that are actually good books written by Federal Vision advocates are the 'gateway drug' into the Federal Vision movement.

I don't think the average person in the pew goes from being sound in their theology to becoming a Federal Vision advocate without having first been introduced to the men behind the Federal Vision through other non-FV books they have written.

In conclusion, is it wrong for Horton to endorse Leithart's book? I will let God judge the matter. If I were Horton, would I have endorsed the book? Not on your life!

Tell me, who wrote any really good books on family matters and courtship etc. before Doug Wilson brought out his books? I am not endorsing his FV errors now, but the fact that FVers have written on these issues while the orthodox have retreated into Cloister Calvinism is a sad reflection on the state of the Reformed faith.

I tend to think that one can endorse a book if that book is worthy of endorsement, i.e., it is helpful, faithful, and free of the recognized errors found in the author's work elsewhere on other topics.

In regard to your comment that the orthodox have retreated into Cloister Calvinism, I'm wondering if you could expand on that a bit more. Could that characterization apply to the "two kingdom" thought being advanced of late?

Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC, DeMotte

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by prespastor

I suppose my thoughts are closest to Matthew McMahon's regarding this subject.

Generally, I no longer recommend any works written by the Federal Vision advocates (even the many great early books Doug Wilson wrote before going FV). Before FV came on the scene there were already more books in print on nigh any subject one could imagine than any one person could read in their lifetime.

I believe the books that are actually good books written by Federal Vision advocates are the 'gateway drug' into the Federal Vision movement.

I don't think the average person in the pew goes from being sound in their theology to becoming a Federal Vision advocate without having first been introduced to the men behind the Federal Vision through other non-FV books they have written.

In conclusion, is it wrong for Horton to endorse Leithart's book? I will let God judge the matter. If I were Horton, would I have endorsed the book? Not on your life!

Tell me, who wrote any really good books on family matters and courtship etc. before Doug Wilson brought out his books? I am not endorsing his FV errors now, but the fact that FVers have written on these issues while the orthodox have retreated into Cloister Calvinism is a sad reflection on the state of the Reformed faith.

In the interests of total disclosure, I probably still read WAY too much of the "other side" in order to be "educated" on the state of contemporary theology. Honestly, how much of that is necessary to refute error and how much of it comes from a fleshly desire to play in the sandbox of the libs? Truth be told, they will NEVER treat you as a peer or an equal as long as you hold to inerrancy or to confessional Protestantism. You can read all of the books they publish, but unless you cave in to their progressive bias, you will never be treated as much more than an ignorant fundamentalist.

I suspect we need to be less insecure about what secularists think of our learning and more concerned to glorify God with our minds by making the major part of our intellectual diet selections from those great classics which will edify.

I have often wondered about this. If conservatives hadn't bought Julicher and Schweitzer and Dodd and Sanders and Ehrman in order to refute them if they wouldn't have died under their own weight. Is there enough interest in liberal insanity to support them without conservatives spending money on their books? They don't typically read us (Machen was an exception): why should we read them?

why should we read them?

Simply from reading the Confessions very few of us have the intellectual acumen to already know how to refute the entire system en toto.

Little Sally at church has been reading _____________. She asks you questions about them. You suspect they are wrong, but not quite sure how to refute them. Since you are intellectually honest, you know that facile, simplistic answers along the lines of, "Our tradition teaches x, so he's obviously wrong" will not give her cognitive rest.

Personal anecdote: I had a dear friend of mine (who was a member of this board at one time) become infatuated with NT Wright. She asked probing questions of conservative reformed folk, and they dismissed her by saying "He's stupid. Heretic. Go read the Confession." While that may be true in the long run, that is insulting the intelligence of our bright, young minds. (She is now at Harvard Law School, fwiw).

Now, I saw the trainwreck coming. I began to discuss, calmly and without invective, the Reformed view of salvation, Wright's view, where they converge and where they diverge. She did not go over to NPP.

Now, I could have insulted her intelligence and told her to read Reformation21 Blog and not worry about stupid heretics. She would have become NPP by the end of the week (and probably rightly so). Fortunately, that didn't happen.

Originally Posted by mvdm

I tend to think that one can endorse a book if that book is worthy of endorsement, i.e., it is helpful, faithful, and free of the recognized errors found in the author's work elsewhere on other topics.

In regard to your comment that the orthodox have retreated into Cloister Calvinism, I'm wondering if you could expand on that a bit more. Could that characterization apply to the "two kingdom" thought being advanced of late?

Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC, DeMotte

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by prespastor

I suppose my thoughts are closest to Matthew McMahon's regarding this subject.

Generally, I no longer recommend any works written by the Federal Vision advocates (even the many great early books Doug Wilson wrote before going FV). Before FV came on the scene there were already more books in print on nigh any subject one could imagine than any one person could read in their lifetime.

I believe the books that are actually good books written by Federal Vision advocates are the 'gateway drug' into the Federal Vision movement.

I don't think the average person in the pew goes from being sound in their theology to becoming a Federal Vision advocate without having first been introduced to the men behind the Federal Vision through other non-FV books they have written.

In conclusion, is it wrong for Horton to endorse Leithart's book? I will let God judge the matter. If I were Horton, would I have endorsed the book? Not on your life!

Tell me, who wrote any really good books on family matters and courtship etc. before Doug Wilson brought out his books? I am not endorsing his FV errors now, but the fact that FVers have written on these issues while the orthodox have retreated into Cloister Calvinism is a sad reflection on the state of the Reformed faith.

I am sorry I cannot answer Mark, but since I do not know anything about the school of thought you are referring to it would be unwise of me to comment.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Dear brother Dennis, thanks for your contribution in this thread, I've found it really stimulating and helpful. But, I do have a question.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

2. They end up encountering a position, the logic of which they are unable to defeat with their own intellectual tools and equipment. They deny their former confidence, embrace the new error, and proceed blithly along the heretical track.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If one becomes convinced "according to their own intellectual tools and equipment" shouldn't they follow it? Wouldn't not doing this be going against our own conscience? Wouldn't following the 1689 against our conscience be tantamount to a Roman Catholic view of tradition? Surely we're called to make up our own minds about what we believe, and not have someone else do that for us (whether the 1689 divines or the Roman Catholic magisterium).

I'm assuming the reason why you didn't follow your predecessor to Rome, is not simply because Reformed divines eschew Catholicism, but fundamentally because you yourself believe that Hahn is wrong.

The reason why I didn't follow Scott Hahn into Rome is because I thought his arguments were far from convincing. And having spent 4 hours talking with 3 Catholic apologists several weeks ago, I'm even more convinced than ever that Hahn's positions on Scripture and Justification are deeply flawed.

In my mind there's a big difference between individualism and individual conscience.

God bless you brother.

Like most of us, I do have a day job and only sneak away to post as time permits. My words were not well stated, at least not fulsomely so.

My point was that some of us lack the intellectual horsepower to tackle every possible objection in the marketplace of ideas. The hubris that led my successor to insist on trying to refute EVERY argument by EVERY controversialist in the world contributed greatly to his apostasy. Bottom line, he was not as smart as he fancied himself, and could not hold his own against superior intellects.

I would suggest that, yes, one must act in accord with conscience. However, just because someone can "win" a debate does not equate with saying that they are correct. Some of us pride ourselves in thinking that we are more capable than we are. Subjecting ourselves to continual argumentative attacks on our faith will only lead to greater doubt and uncertainty. And, yes, when someone "betters" me in a debate, I find comfort in knowing that those far brighter than I have prayerfully worked on the issue at much greater depth than I have.

A good argument will make me re-think my position. However, in some cases, the culture of intellectual one-upmanship prevalent in some Reformed circles reminds me of children playing with gasoline to see who can demonstrate the greatest fire. Fun to engage in, but ultimately dangerous.

One of my classmates in seminary was clearly one of the brightest ones in the bunch (of more than 600 graduates). She went on to obtain her PhD from a prestige grad school. Upon her entrance into teaching following her PhD, she held any number of views picked up in grad school from her mentor. I vividly remember when she told a class that Jesus did not know he was divine until after the resurrection. A friend of mine asked, "Didn't Peter like tip him off at Caserea Philippi?"

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

why should we read them?

Simply from reading the Confessions very few of us have the intellectual acumen to already know how to refute the entire system en toto.

Little Sally at church has been reading _____________. She asks you questions about them. You suspect they are wrong, but not quite sure how to refute them. Since you are intellectually honest, you know that facile, simplistic answers along the lines of, "Our tradition teaches x, so he's obviously wrong" will not give her cognitive rest.

Personal anecdote: I had a dear friend of mine (who was a member of this board at one time) become infatuated with NT Wright. She asked probing questions of conservative reformed folk, and they dismissed her by saying "He's stupid. Heretic. Go read the Confession." While that may be true in the long run, that is insulting the intelligence of our bright, young minds. (She is now at Harvard Law School, fwiw).

Now, I saw the trainwreck coming. I began to discuss, calmly and without invective, the Reformed view of salvation, Wright's view, where they converge and where they diverge. She did not go over to NPP.

Now, I could have insulted her intelligence and told her to read Reformation21 Blog and not worry about stupid heretics. She would have become NPP by the end of the week (and probably rightly so). Fortunately, that didn't happen.

I agree with everything you say. That is why I have tried to be well-read. My warnings were an attempt to add the perspective of balance. You have your anecdotes, I have mine. Too many of my friends were formerly orthodox but have gone apostate under the influence of "great scholars" on the left.

The pride that leads us to think we can be "smarter than thou" also animates the craven desire to fit in with our more progressive peers. The progressives will never permit us to play in their sandbox unless we cave to their positions. Yet, the climate of some of our circles leads us to want that kind of acceptance (cf. Bart Ehrman???).