Michael Horton, "God also raised up Loyola" and Question

[toddpedlar]

Todd,

I mention that Horton was raised as an "American Evangelical" and that I, as a Hispanic, was raised as a Roman Catholic. I can see now how you can make the race connection, but I tell you again it has nothing to do with race.

This does not accurately reflect the series of posts made, to which I responded. I have been racking my brains for 24 hours trying to figure out how I misread you and inserted race somehow into the conversation... I was beginning to think I had gone mad, but I now understand what happened.

You yourself in fact have deleted the post in which you claimed that you had a problem with Horton going after Loyola because he was "an American" (not "American Evangelical") whereas you could/should do so because you were "Hispanic" (and not because you were raised RC). It is to that post, which is now gone, that I was referring. I will avoid the temptation to reproduce your deleted post here, but only refer to it in order to make the point that it was not simply a case of me making "the race connection" as you say I did. I was responding to what you actually posted, wherein you made the race connection. I wish you had just admitted this fact, instead of letting me twist in the wind.

I am satisfied to let this issue rest, but wanted to make clear why I posted what I did about race. It was not an insertion on my part.

 

[toddpedlar]

I think we may simply need to close discussion on this thread. I'm not sure it's getting anywhere. Here is what I and others have tried to point out. Nobody, including Horton, is doubting God's providential raising up of all leaders anywhere - in fact, that is precisely what Horton was trying to point out by bringing up Ignatius of Loyola. I cannot fathom the offense taken at his statement.

Michael Horton has every reason to have an issue with Ignatius of Loyola, as a Reformed Christian - and to point out, in appropriate context (which has never been discussed here beacuse the original poster did not know the context) that Ignatius was raised up by God. The Jesuit order is well known as a persecuter of Reformed Christians and a destroyer of truth. Yet God raised him up. Horton, no doubt, had this in mind when he made his statements about him. No reason whatsoever for anyone to complain about his reference (despite the fact that Horton was not raised Catholic).

Horton indeed references Osteen often, because of the culture in which Horton ministers - wherein Osteen is so highly regarded by many. However, this does NOT mean that whenever Horton wants to make a point about God's providential raising up of evil leaders, he has to make reference to Osteen. I'm not sure why anyone would want to set such encumbrances upon Horton.

Osteen is a puny man, and if one wanted to compare Osteen's impact on world Christianity to that of Ignatius of Loyola, Osteen comes up woefully short. He wields very little actual influence - and I am sure has not caused one death through persecution of true believers by his followers. The Jesuits, on the other hand, were involved both in persecution and rampant quashing of the Reformation cause. Ignatius's influence continues to this day through the order he founded.

I still don't understand why, Gil, you seemed so offended that Horton would use Loyola as an example, even if you did NOT know or remember the context of the comments. Your stated reasons for starting this thread and making your comments make little sense.

 

[mvdm]

Osteen is a puny man, and if one wanted to compare Osteen's impact on world Christianity to that of Ignatius of Loyola, Osteen comes up woefully short. He wields very little actual influence - and I am sure has not caused one death through persecution of true believers by his followers. The Jesuits, on the other hand, were involved both in persecution and rampant quashing of the Reformation cause. Ignatius's influence continues to this day through the order he founded.

I would say the opposite is true: the influence of Osteen's "health and wealth" gospel far outstrips Ignatius. This growth of this self-centered religion is well documented in David Wells' work and elsewhere-- and likely that is why Horton himself devotes such attention to the man and his apostate religion. You can see it in churches everywhere across North America. I believe it was the main topic of Horton's book "Christless Christianity" as well.

I suspect relatively few people in the last 100 years have even heard of the Jesuit order, let alone are influenced by them.

 

[toddpedlar]

Osteen is a puny man, and if one wanted to compare Osteen's impact on world Christianity to that of Ignatius of Loyola, Osteen comes up woefully short. He wields very little actual influence - and I am sure has not caused one death through persecution of true believers by his followers. The Jesuits, on the other hand, were involved both in persecution and rampant quashing of the Reformation cause. Ignatius's influence continues to this day through the order he founded.

I would say the opposite is true: the influence of Osteen's "health and wealth" gospel far outstrips Ignatius. This growth of this self-centered religion is well documented in David Wells' work and elsewhere-- and likely that is why Horton himself devotes such attention to the man and his apostate religion. You can see it in churches everywhere across North America. I believe it was the main topic of Horton's book "Christless Christianity" as well.

I suspect relatively few people in the last 100 years have even heard of the Jesuit order, let alone are influenced by them.

I'm not talking about contemporary relevance of discussing Osteen... I'm talking about the historical impact of the men. My only point was to say that Horton was entirely correct to use Ignatius as an example. In context (which we still don't know) Horton may have been discussing those who were violent persecuters of the church - which Osteen is not.

 

[puritansound]

If one listens to The White Horse Inn with any regularity, they would find example after example where the hosts compare orthodox reformed historical theology with the heresies of today to let people know how errors of the past keep getting recycled over and over. That most heresies are not new, but keep getting recycled. In general they use the term 'Rome' when speaking of the Roman Catholic teachings. The RC's teachings are always shown to be in error.
Mike goes after Osteen because of the influence he has on contemporary christian culture. Like the RC, Olsteen's errors pull people away from true saving faith by giving something other than the Gospel.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. This is something that God has laid on Mikes heart. It's his niche so to speak. We all have some ministry that we are drawn to more than others. This is Mikes. Give the guy a break, so he didn't nail Loyola hard enough for you; Most Christians have not heard of Loyola. He is dead and the battles of our time is the the Olsteen types.

With all Christian brotherly love

 

[Wayne]

There's the Wading Pool, and then there's wading into deep water when you don't have to. Oh well, here goes.

I think what Gil is trying to say (don't you hate it when people do that on your behalf?), is that Horton gives the appearance of an inconsistent application of the doctrine of providence. Gil has said that it doesn't matter who Dr. Horton uses as a negative example (Loyola in this case).

And I'm fairly sure that Gil has no problem with Horton's criticisms of Osteen.

But what I think is going on here is that Gil detects, or thinks he detects, something in Horton--some lack of ultimate trust in God's sovereignty--in regards to dealing with the errors bound up with Osteen and the Word of Faith movement. That Horton's emotional involvement with the present danger gives the appearance at times that he is out beyond a proper reliance upon God's sovereignty.

[As an aside, it's great that Horton does address the errors of that group. Too often seminary professors only fight the battles of the previous generation.]

In short, I think Gil's point might be analogous to something many of us have seen, where a pastor is careful to teach that salvation is entirely God's work, but then when witnessing to an unbeliever, gets argumentative and emotional, behaving as if that person's salvation depended upon his, the pastor's, ability to convince and persuade.

Put another way, Horton is properly descriptive of how the Lord may have used Loyola in His greater plan, but when it comes to Osteen, Horton's words seem at times to lack that same confidence in God's sovereignty.

Or to put it another way, Gil regrets having ever brought this whole thing up.