Horton endorses Leithart's latest book..

[Robert Truelove]

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!

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[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

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.

 

[py3ak]

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?

 

[RamistThomist]

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, For what it's worth).

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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.

 

[DMcFadden]

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

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?"

 

[DMcFadden]

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, For what it's worth).

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???).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

First off I don't think the topic for us should be, 'Should we read controversial authors so that we can answer or benefit from them?" That is a no brainer. I think the topic should be, "Should we read controversial authors and recommend them to the whole Christian community?". By endorsing a book you are endorsing a person for the most part. And isn't Peter Leithart under scrutiny right now?

 

[RamistThomist]

First off I don't think the topic for us should be, 'Should we read controversial authors so that we can answer or benefit from them?" That is a no brainer. I think the topic should be, "Should we read controversial authors and recommend them to the whole Christian community?". By endorsing a book you are endorsing a person for the most part. And isn't Peter Leithart under scrutiny right now?

But a stalwart like Michael Horton--a man who has rightly been a Champion of the Reformed Faith and a hero to many, including myself--recommended this book. And no, recommending a book is not the same as recommending a person. We separate the people from the issues.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

But a non suspecting audience who doesn't know Leithart won't know specifics. And that is where you and I are going to disagree.

I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book.

We are just going to disagree on this one Jacob.

And I am right btw.

I do think it was a poor decision on Horton's part.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

First off I don't think the topic for us should be, 'Should we read controversial authors so that we can answer or benefit from them?" That is a no brainer. I think the topic should be, "Should we read controversial authors and recommend them to the whole Christian community?". By endorsing a book you are endorsing a person for the most part. And isn't Peter Leithart under scrutiny right now?

I think we can say that he should not give it an official endorsement while nonetheless recognizing what is praiseworthy in it.

 

[ChristianTrader]

But a non suspecting audience who doesn't know Leithart won't know specifics. And that is where you and I are going to disagree.

I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book.

We are just going to disagree on this one Jacob.

And I am right btw.

I do think it was a poor decision on Horton's part.

What if the work is the best work available on an important issue. Are you going to say to a person, uh well, I'll get back to you at some point after someone that I agree with more writes a book? Until then, just know that such and such position is BAD or GOOD, as the case may be.

CT

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

But a non suspecting audience who doesn't know Leithart won't know specifics. And that is where you and I are going to disagree.

I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book.

We are just going to disagree on this one Jacob.

And I am right btw.

I do think it was a poor decision on Horton's part.

What if the work is the best work available on an important issue. Are you going to say to a person, uh well, I'll get back to you at some point after someone that I agree with more writes a book? Until then, just know that such and such position is BAD or GOOD, as the case may be.

CT

CT,

Go back and reread what I have said in the last few posts. I think you can tell what my position would be. BTW, you are making a hypothetical situation up that doesn't exist in my opinion. I know Jacob thinks N.T Wright does the best job on some issues but I would personally steer away from him for sure. He has to much baggage and I believe others have written on Topics that he has addressed with sufficiency.

 

[ChristianTrader]

But a non suspecting audience who doesn't know Leithart won't know specifics. And that is where you and I are going to disagree.

I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book.

We are just going to disagree on this one Jacob.

And I am right btw.

I do think it was a poor decision on Horton's part.

What if the work is the best work available on an important issue. Are you going to say to a person, uh well, I'll get back to you at some point after someone that I agree with more writes a book? Until then, just know that such and such position is BAD or GOOD, as the case may be.

CT

CT,

Go back and reread what I have said in the last few posts. I think you can tell what my position would be. BTW, you are making a hypothetical situation up that doesn't exist in my opinion. I know Jacob thinks N.T Wright does the best job on some issues but I would personally steer away from him for sure. He has to much baggage and I believe others have written on Topics that he has addressed with sufficiency.

Okay, what is a better book on postmodernism? I am relatively new to the issue (I have some ideas on it though). At the very least, if there were all these other better books, I would assume Baker would have had second thoughts on publishing it.

Also to be fair to Horton, if all these other books existed, he probably would never have endorsed the book. People do not endorse book just to see their name in print.

CT

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What if the work is the best work available on an important issue. Are you going to say to a person, uh well, I'll get back to you at some point after someone that I agree with more writes a book? Until then, just know that such and such position is BAD or GOOD, as the case may be.

CT

CT,

Go back and reread what I have said in the last few posts. I think you can tell what my position would be. BTW, you are making a hypothetical situation up that doesn't exist in my opinion. I know Jacob thinks N.T Wright does the best job on some issues but I would personally steer away from him for sure. He has to much baggage and I believe others have written on Topics that he has addressed with sufficiency.

Okay, what is a better book on postmodernism? I am relatively new to the issue (I have some ideas on it though). At the very least, if there were all these other better books, I would assume Baker would have had second thoughts on publishing it.

Also to be fair to Horton, if all these other books existed, he probably would never have endorsed the book. People do not endorse book just to see their name in print.

CT

CT,

I am having a hard time believing a man such as yourself is relatively new to the issue of postmodernism. Especially since you have spent a lot of time in the philosophical and apologetical discussions on this forum. You are well read and very intelligent. You have to be pulling my leg on this one. If not I am surprised.

Another thing. I didn't make a judgment on the book. I have no idea what it is like. I don't know why Baker published it. But Postmodernism is not a new subject. David Wells started writing about it years ago. I know D. A. Carson has written on it. Let me make myself clear. I still think Dr. Horton made a poor decision by endorsing the book in front of everyone in general. I didn't say He shouldn't ever recommend the book to a friend. But I would personally rather find another author on the subject.. How about the Gagging of God by Carson for starters.

I also want you to acknowledge that I said....."I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. (meaning a person I am talking to personally) But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book."

I believe a blanket endorsement of a poor theologians book can be dangerous. Even if the book I am endorsing is very good. As an example, a person may know who Horton is but not who Leithart is? An unsuspecting reader may mistake Horton's endorsement of Leithart's book as saying this guy is okay with me in general, when in fact Leithart's views are very opposed to what I believe is sound biblical teaching in a lot of his federal vision thinking.

Let me make myself clear about another thing. I can not judge the motives of Baker Bookhouse nor of Dr. Horton. You are running me into an uncharted area. I don't know either of them. The book might be good. Leithart is not an ignorant man. But that still doesn't change my thinking concerning a general public book endorsement.

I hope I made myself clearer.

Be Encouraged brother,

 

[RamistThomist]

How about the Gagging of God by Carson for starters.

It is good but it was also written 12-ish years ago. Things change. Sometimes the arguments that worked then don't quite address the same issue. And also Carson's book is huge, which would deter (perhaps wrongly, but still...) the man in the pew. Leithart's book isn't even 200 pages.

I also want you to acknowledge that I said....."I may personally recommend a controversial writer to someone in front of me. (meaning a person I am talking to personally) But I wouldn't put a blanket endorsement upon a controversial authors book."

Let's be fair to the context, and separate the man from the issues (multiple ones, to make it worse) involved. Would Horton see his comments as a blanket endorsement? Doubtful. Is Horton mature enough to separate men from (other irrelevant) issues? Of course.

I believe a blanket endorsement of a poor theologians book can be dangerous. Even if the book I am endorsing is very good. As an example, a person may know who Horton is but not who Leithart is? An unsuspecting reader may mistake Horton's endorsement of Leithart's book as saying this guy is okay with me in general, when in fact Leithart's views are very opposed to what I believe is sound biblical teaching in a lot of his federal vision thinking.

If someone is as unsuspecting as you say they are, then I doubt they will really understand what Leithart is saying on FV issues. I read his blog occasionally and I consider myself somewhat schooled in philosophy, and I can barely keep up with him.

Let me make myself clear about another thing. I can not judge the motives of Baker Bookhouse nor of Dr. Horton. You are running me into an uncharted area. I don't know either of them. The book might be good. Leithart is not an ignorant man. But that still doesn't change my thinking concerning a general public book endorsement.

No, you are walking into an uncharted area. You are considering--and I don't believe this is fair to Messrs Horton and Leithart, not to mention Baker, to read back motives into their actions.. No offense meant.

It also appears that some are assuming that Leithart is going to "sneak a little FV in on the side." I am not convinced.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jacob,
I believe you are doing to me what you did to me in the Theonomy thread. You are going beyond what I am saying. Reread what I wrote. Read it more slowly. Don't react emotionally. Just for example... in this quote,...

No, you are walking into an uncharted area. You are considering--and I don't believe this is fair to Messrs Horton and Leithart, not to mention Baker, to read back motives into their actions.. No offense meant.

... you seem to be implying that I am reading back motives into their actions. Where have I done this?

One more thing. You know of books that would be comparable and being more updated and contemporary. You read more than I do. You can give some recommendations besides Leithart. My point was that this subject has been written about. CT said he was new to this.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob,
I believe you are doing to me what you did to me in the Theonomy thread. You are going beyond what I am saying. Reread what I wrote. Read it more slowly. Don't react emotionally. Just for example... in this quote,...

I realize that I sounded emotional. I wasn't. I just worked out. I can't get too excited either way at the moment.

... you seem to be implying that I am reading back motives into their actions. Where have I done this?

As I understand it, I am seeing people fail to separate the men from the issues. I was understanding you to read Leithart's FV back into this book and then judge this book accordingly. Forgive me if I read it wrongly. Here is how I would handle it: If I knew a better, contemporary response to PM, I would first recommend that (see below). If there wasn't one, I would first summarize said arguments and have coffee with someone and just "talk about it." I think I am good at that with people. But, the above two don't work, and they still want to "read" something, perhaps even Leithart, ok, I might recommend this and say, "Here is what he says is good, bad, whatever."

One more thing. You know of books that would be comparable and being more updated and contemporary. You read more than I do. You can give some recommendations besides Leithart. My point was that this subject has been written about. CT said he was new to this.

This is tricky because postmodernism has morphed. First of all, Gene Edward Veith wrote Postmodern Times. It was good 5 years ago. It is probably too basic but it would be the first book I give to the man in the pew.

A Christian defense of postmodernism (don't ask why) would be James KA Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? I probably wouldn't recommend this one.

I am not dismissing Carson's Gagging of God. He makes good points.

For a more academic read, see Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition. This isn't responding to postmodernism, per se, but to its step-cousin.

there are a few others that slip my mind. I used to know the answer to this question. Good question. Sorry if I came across angry.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

... you seem to be implying that I am reading back motives into their actions. Where have I done this?

As I understand it, I am seeing people fail to separate the men from the issues. I was understanding you to read Leithart's FV back into this book and then judge this book accordingly. Forgive me if I read it wrongly. Here is how I would handle it: If I knew a better, contemporary response to PM, I would first recommend that (see below). If there wasn't one, I would first summarize said arguments and have coffee with someone and just "talk about it." I think I am good at that with people. But, the above two don't work, and they still want to "read" something, perhaps even Leithart, ok, I might recommend this and say, "Here is what he says is good, bad, whatever."

Go back and read me again. I forgive you. Just slow down a bit. Watch the accusations also. You accused me of judging motives and I wasn't judging anyone's motives.

You are tired. I can tell.

 

[py3ak]

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, For what it's worth).

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.

Sure: the present reality is that people will often read undesirables (of course, another present reality is that there are far too many undesirables to be familiar with all of them). But my point is that I think the evangelicals have often fostered a culture of reading and supporting (by buying in order to refute, and so forth) what is pretty much worthless. And we kowtow to their academic credentials --we act as if so and so must have something worthwhile to say just because he got his Ph.D. under Sanders, or whatever. I'm questioning our long term strategy. And I say that as someone who has at least sampled Wright, Sanders, Dodd and Schweitzer.

 

[Poimen]

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, For what it's worth).

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.

You are probably right. Steve Schlissel said as much when he was on one of his tirades against Reformed theology. And, as much as I have a problem with Mr. Schlissel, I tend to agree. Instead of getting angry at him there needs to be an intelligent and loving response to some of these off the cuff answers to the genuine 'inquiring minds want to know' sort.

I love our confessions but we also need to engage the spirit of the age. This can be done (and should!) with our confessions in hand but not in the manner which your friend experienced.

 

[timmopussycat]

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!

If I were Horton and asked for an endorsement, I would write the endorsement, but include a strong disclaimer of Leithart's other books and insist that I would allow publication of my endorsement only if the disclaimer was included!

 

[Pilgrim]

For a while it seemed that J.I. Packer endorsed every book that came out.

 

[RamistThomist]

Leithart aside, my posts in this thread was a reaction against what I deemed to be a, as I think Marty hinted at, a blossoming Steelite mentality.

 

[py3ak]

I think I can make my point a little more clearly by putting it like this. We should be, within reason, familiar with significant thinkers (either in the sense of being helpful or in the sense of being influential). But we should not give worthless people significance by constantly interacting with them (which to some degree involves popularizing their work).

 

[RamistThomist]

I think I can make my point a little more clearly by putting it like this. We should be, within reason, familiar with significant thinkers (either in the sense of being helpful or in the sense of being influential). But we should not give worthless people significance by constantly interacting with them (which to some degree involves popularizing their work).

I would agree--and i don't think you are implying the following--but I would not put Leithart in the same following with Bart Erhman:

1) Leithart believes in the inerrancy of Scripture.
2) Leithart believes in the divinity of Christ.
3) To the extant that Leithart reads the bible in English, he is probably a Textus Receeptus man.


I know, I know--Arminius believed in all of that.

Second. I would be hesitant to use words like "worthless," since he has been exonerated and is in good standing. I am not defending his positions, just calling for charity in discussion.

EDIT: Changed TR to Textus Receptus.

 

[py3ak]

No, I wasn't implying that Leithart is comparable to Ehrman.

 

[DMcFadden]

I think I can make my point a little more clearly by putting it like this. We should be, within reason, familiar with significant thinkers (either in the sense of being helpful or in the sense of being influential). But we should not give worthless people significance by constantly interacting with them (which to some degree involves popularizing their work).

I would agree--and i don't think you are implying the following--but I would not put Leithart in the same following with Bart Erhman:

1) Leithart believes in the inerrancy of Scripture.
2) Leithart believes in the divinity of Christ.
3) To the extant that Leithart reads the bible in English, he is probably a TR man.


I know, I know--Arminius believed in all of that.

Second. I would be hesitant to use words like "worthless," since he has been exonerated and is in good standing. I am not defending his positions, just calling for charity in discussion.

I am no fan of the FV or their advocates, and I have written several posts arguing against exposing oneself to toxic heresy. However, my library has plenty of books by orthodox Christians with whom I have SIGNIFICANT disagreement. So, please put me in the category of wanting to exercise discretion before wallowing in error but NOT in the Steelite camp please.

 

[Jeff Downs]

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...

Horton's latest has an endorsement from postmoderist John Franke. I wonder what that means?