# Horton endorses Leithart's latest book..



## 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...


----------



## RamistThomist

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.


----------



## travis

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!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

travis said:


> 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?


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> travis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Montolio

Are those lectures online anywhere?


----------



## RamistThomist

Montolio said:


> 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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> travis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Right.


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
Click to expand...


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).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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).
Click to expand...


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


----------



## 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.


----------



## RamistThomist

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)?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> 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.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Spear Dane said:


> 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.


----------



## RamistThomist

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 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.


----------



## Kevin

I was an Arminian.

I read Jacob Arminius.

I knew Jacob Arminius.

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


----------



## Kevin

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"?


----------



## JohnOwen007

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.


----------



## Mushroom

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"?


----------



## DMcFadden

JohnOwen007 said:


> 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.


----------



## danmpem

DMcFadden said:


> 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.


----------



## JohnOwen007

DMcFadden said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.



DMcFadden said:


> 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.



DMcFadden said:


> 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.



DMcFadden said:


> 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.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Brad said:


> 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"?


----------



## Amazing Grace

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 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.


----------



## DMcFadden

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?


----------



## DMcFadden

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?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JohnOwen007 said:


> .
> 
> 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?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 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?!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JohnOwen007 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?!
Click to expand...


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


----------



## 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.



DMcFadden said:


> 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.


----------



## 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!



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 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

prespastor said:


> 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 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> prespastor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## 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

mvdm said:


> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prespastor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


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

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear brother Dennis, thanks for your contribution in this thread, I've found it really stimulating and helpful. But, I do have a question.
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Spear Dane said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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

ChristianTrader said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


CT,

*Go back and reread what I have said in the last few post*s. 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

PuritanCovenanter said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CT,
> 
> *Go back and reread what I have said in the last few post*s. 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.
Click to expand...


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

ChristianTrader said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 post*s. 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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

Spear Dane said:


> ... 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."
Click to expand...


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

Spear Dane said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Spear Dane said:


> 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

prespastor said:


> 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

py3ak said:


> 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

Spear Dane said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

travis said:


> 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?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I don't think we "need" to take time to endorse things if we need to then place diclaimers on them. That's the point.

Recommend Calvin, not Arminius.

If you are Ph.D. student, or writing a paper on Postmodernism, or anything else that "requires" you to read things of that sort, then you have to do that. 

Pastorally speaking, though, we don't need to be recommending or endorsing those other works. Why not just point someone to "A Confessing Theology for Postmodern TImes" by MICHAEL HORTON and eliminate the "doorway" problem altogether?

I've read a lot of books. I'd probably say that I've read too many. Its like being a "jack of all trades" and a "master of none." It would have been better for me to not read so many, and master more of the ones what are usefully needful and practical to my walk with Christ. If a Ph.D. student needs to read Leithart, then go read him, and be careful. But I don't know of anyone in the pew in any church I have been an elder in that I would recommend anyone outside of the trusted few. I'd recommend reading things that people should be mastering, and leaving the heavy hitting for things that scholars need to deal with responsibily.

"Read Leithart" is akin to saying, "Drink responsibly."


----------



## RamistThomist

> "Read Leithart" is akin to saying, "Drink responsibly."



I don't want to make matters worse or be the bearer of bad news, but large numbers of home school families read Leithart, given his popular works on Shakespeare and the classics. These are people who probably won't read a heavy theology book (good for them!) but have already read his English literature stuff and see him as a good communicator of Western literature who helped their family out.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Then they have to say "drink responsibily" when they give thier children reading material that could, later in life, be detrimental to thier growth on other avenues that may open up, like FV.

Is there someone better that has worked on Shakespear, etc., that they could read? Are they aware of his stance on FV? Shoudl they in turn use something else?

Just things to consider. The most difficult unwinding done is when subtle advances are made. The Devil is very patient. He'd love to see homeschoolrs use good books to later introduce, upon the possibility of it, bad ones.


----------



## RamistThomist

I really think we are overreacting. I know, I know--the dangers, but it just seems like this kind of advice is a rear-guard action and the "enemy" isn't pressing the attack. The ones I have talked with either: 1) have never heard of the FV; 2) don't care either way; 3) have bigger things to do than mess with intramural debates, or 4) openly disagree with the FV. 

And the problem is what?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Then they have to say "drink responsibily" when they give thier children reading material that could, later in life, be detrimental to thier growth on other avenues that may open up, like FV.
> 
> Is there someone better that has worked on Shakespear, etc., that they could read? Are they aware of his stance on FV? Shoudl they in turn use something else?
> 
> Just things to consider. The most difficult unwinding done is when subtle advances are made. The Devil is very patient. He'd love to see homeschoolrs use good books to later introduce, upon the possibility of it, bad ones.



That is the whole problem, until modern Calvinists get out of their Reformed monasteries and start building a Christian world-view then we will be continually shamed by FVers.


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they have to say "drink responsibily" when they give thier children reading material that could, later in life, be detrimental to thier growth on other avenues that may open up, like FV.
> 
> Is there someone better that has worked on Shakespear, etc., that they could read? Are they aware of his stance on FV? Shoudl they in turn use something else?
> 
> Just things to consider. The most difficult unwinding done is when subtle advances are made. The Devil is very patient. He'd love to see homeschoolrs use good books to later introduce, upon the possibility of it, bad ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the whole problem, until modern Calvinists get out of their Reformed monasteries and start building a Christian world-view then we will be continually shamed by FVers.
Click to expand...


I actually saw this at seminary. The FV guys (perhaps wrongly) were well-read and gifted communicators, brilliant even. The normal student was warned how "bad" they were and not to read any literature that might even smack of FV (connect the dots theology, In other words,). An impression of this guy with hooves and horns built around an FV guy. 

Then...they actually talked with one. Even though disagreeing with the FV guy, doubts were planted. "If my superiors said _y_ about FV, and _y_ is clearly not the case, then what else could my superiors be wrong about?"

I saw this happen over and over again.


----------



## Amazing Grace

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Then they have to say "drink responsibily" when they give thier children reading material that could, later in life, be detrimental to thier growth on other avenues that may open up, like FV.
> 
> Is there someone better that has worked on Shakespear, etc., that they could read? Are they aware of his stance on FV? Shoudl they in turn use something else?
> 
> Just things to consider. The most difficult unwinding done is when subtle advances are made. The Devil is very patient. He'd love to see homeschoolrs use good books to later introduce, upon the possibility of it, bad ones.




1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. 2But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5(A) A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."


27(AQ) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28(AR) I give them eternal life, and(AS) they will never perish, and(AT) no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Even if a sheep becomes scatted by the enemy, scripture promises Christ will bring him back into the fold forever.


----------



## RamistThomist

Amazing Grace said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they have to say "drink responsibily" when they give thier children reading material that could, later in life, be detrimental to thier growth on other avenues that may open up, like FV.
> 
> Is there someone better that has worked on Shakespear, etc., that they could read? Are they aware of his stance on FV? Shoudl they in turn use something else?
> 
> Just things to consider. The most difficult unwinding done is when subtle advances are made. The Devil is very patient. He'd love to see homeschoolrs use good books to later introduce, upon the possibility of it, bad ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. 2But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5(A) A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."
> 
> 
> 27(AQ) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28(AR) I give them eternal life, and(AS) they will never perish, and(AT) no one will snatch them out of my hand.
> 
> Even if a sheep becomes scatted by the enemy, scripture promises Christ will bring him back into the fold forever.
Click to expand...


And if that be the case (and I believe it is), we should be cautiously open to reading helpful literature. Personal example: There was a time when I was very much tempted by NPP. I had read over 4,000 pages of NT Wright-and I had a lot of good reasons to become NPP. But something strange happened: I didn't become NPP. 

Now, could I have read better stuff? Probably. Was my time therefore wasted? I don't think so. One of his books was a 800 page survery/defense of the resurrection narratives. His first book _New Testmant and the People of God_ is a helpful defense of the canon and a critique of gnosticism. So, not all is wasted. 

Do I read NT Wright now? No, I haven't read/listened to him for almost a year. Am I scared of him? No, just don't have time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jacob,

No one is saying stick your head in a whole and never read a controversial author. We are talking about something other than that. We are talking about endorsements. We are not discussing book burning. You keep referring to a few people who have had contact with the FV and realized the FV guys were well read and your friends became intimidated or illumined to the fact that there was more out there. So what? No one is saying be scared. We are saying be warned. A General endorsement is bad. 

And it is obvious that bad theology is deceptive. It ruins lives. It pulls people away from the truth. That is something that you seem to dismiss in this whole discussion. Except for the fact that you almost slipped and didn't. Mine and Matthew's point is that a general endorsement is dangerous. The unconcerned or legitimately unaffected are effected whether you acknowledge it or not at some level. Whether it be a very minimal or a greater level. 

An example.....

My mother was a banker for most of her life. She didn't need to study the counterfeit to know one. She studied the real currency so she could recognize the counterfeit. If she started studying the counterfeits that were close to the real thing her focus would have started to vary. Especially if she neglected studying the real thing.

Spend your time with better books and you will be a better theologian. When the bad ones come along you will know them because they don't measure up. 

But that isn't really what this thread started out about. It is about endorsement. A general endorsement of an author that teaches contrary to sound doctrine is dangerous for the general public. And a general endorsement of a good book written by a bad theologian might be read as a general endorsement for the author. The devil does use bad doctrinal books to pull people away from the truth. Remember there is a devil. And he likes bad theology. And he wants people to be ruined by it. And whether it is a slow poisoning or a quick one it is only relevant to his purpose probably. I have a guy I discipled who was slowly pulled completely away by N. T. Wright. I don't know where he stands now but he use to love John Owen and started reading others and forgot Owen. He spent more time reading others thoughts about the scriptures and picked up on different views of the scriptures that were dangerous in my opinion. His downward spiral from sola scriptura started after reading Wright and his views on the scriptures. And he now calls himself a mystical Catholic. 

So there is a danger that you are not acknowledging. Quit being so defensive. 

An endorsement by a solid theologian upon an FV Theologians book to the general public is somewhat dangerous.


----------



## DMcFadden

> And it is obvious that bad theology is deceptive. It ruins lives. It pulls people away from the truth.



The line I have been trying to walk in this discussion is a slender one. Jacob always impresses me with his erudition. He didn't get that way without reading widely and deeply. He reminds me of my own youthful zeal 30 years ago. No, we don't want to be obscurantists. As several have mentioned, that is probably how Bart Ehrman ended up an agnostic.

But, the other side of the dilemma is also real. The intellectual environment of much Calvinist and Reformed life prizes the intellectual life to an inordinant degree. If you doubt this, check out the immense erudition present on this message board. In and of itself, this preoccupation with error could easily lead to the intellectual hubris of which our race is so prone. That would be bad enough. But, when it leads (young) people to drink deeply from the wells of erroneous writers just to say they are "up to date," "well read," and fully conversant with the intellectual climate, it runs the risk of doing real harm. 

The specific example Jacob cited was of an author who holds to inerrancy and seems orthodox in most respects. I would not put such an author in the same category as Tillich or Dawkins. 

However, when it comes to reading, it really is a zero sum game. Every book chosen means one less book I could have read instead. What would be wrong with the discipline of balancing one's reading with 75% solid classics and 25% or less modern challenges? In my humble opinion, I do not have anywhere near enough time to read all of the GREAT books I want to master during my lifetime. Why would anyone choose to fritter away their time with mediocre or seriously heretical volumes when there is so much God-honoring, soul-stirring, intellectually challenging material from the Reformation and Puritan periods to read???

With a limited lifespan, it just leaves me feeling really, really foolish to think of the purpose driven, church growth literature, etc. that ate up my time when Edwards, Owen, Baxter, Bunyan, and Spurgeon went unread. Talk about feeding on cotton candy and ignoring the t-bone steak!


----------



## danmpem

DMcFadden said:


> And it is obvious that bad theology is deceptive. It ruins lives. It pulls people away from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line I have been trying to walk in this discussion is a slender one. Jacob always impresses me with his erudition. He didn't get that way without reading widely and deeply. He reminds me of my own youthful zeal 30 years ago. No, we don't want to be obscurantists. As several have mentioned, that is probably how Bart Ehrman ended up an agnostic.
> 
> But, the other side of the dilemma is also real. The intellectual environment of much Calvinist and Reformed life prizes the intellectual life to an inordinant degree. If you doubt this, check out the immense erudition present on this message board. In and of itself, this preoccupation with error could easily lead to the intellectual hubris of which our race is so prone. That would be bad enough. But, when it leads (young) people to drink deeply from the wells of erroneous writers just to say they are "up to date," "well read," and fully conversant with the intellectual climate, it runs the risk of doing real harm.
> 
> The specific example Jacob cited was of an author who holds to inerrancy and seems orthodox in most respects. I would not put such an author in the same category as Tillich or Dawkins.
> 
> However, when it comes to reading, it really is a zero sum game. Every book chosen means one less book I could have read instead. What would be wrong with the discipline of balancing one's reading with 75% solid classics and 25% or less modern challenges? In my humble opinion, I do not have anywhere near enough time to read all of the GREAT books I want to master during my lifetime. Why would anyone choose to fritter away their time with mediocre or seriously heretical volumes when there is so much God-honoring, soul-stirring, intellectually challenging material from the Reformation and Puritan periods to read???
> 
> With a limited lifespan, it just leaves me feeling really, really foolish to think of the purpose driven, church growth literature, etc. that ate up my time when Edwards, Owen, Baxter, Bunyan, and Spurgeon went unread. Talk about feeding on cotton candy and ignoring the t-bone steak!
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> An endorsement by a solid theologian upon an FV Theologians book to the general public is somewhat dangerous.



I think this is correct; while we may benefit from the writings of a controversial author, it surely sends out the wrong message to endorse their writings in such a manner.


----------



## Stephen

I saw in a thread recently that GreenBaggins is a friend or personally knows Doug Wilson. I find this disturbing that he is associating with a known heretic. Perhaps we should tar and feather him and put him on a stake outside the PCA offices in Atlanta. We should not tolerate this behavior.


----------



## wsw201

Stephen said:


> I saw in a thread recently that GreenBaggins is a friend or personally knows Doug Wilson. I find this disturbing that he is associating with a known heretic. Perhaps we should tar and feather him and put him on a stake outside the PCA offices in Atlanta. We should not tolerate this behavior.



One problem with that idea.......he lives in North Dakota!!! I try not to go any farther north than the Red River. Since you're in Nova Scotia, maybe you can swing by and pick him up? We'll meet you in Atlanta.


----------



## Theogenes

I'm In North Dakota!!!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Stephen said:


> I saw in a thread recently that GreenBaggins is a friend or personally knows Doug Wilson. I find this disturbing that he is associating with a known heretic. Perhaps we should tar and feather him and put him on a stake outside the PCA offices in Atlanta. We should not tolerate this behavior.



I am glad I am not in the PCA; your church discipline sounds extreme.


----------



## greenbaggins

The reports of my excommunication for fraternising with humans have been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## DMcFadden

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw in a thread recently that GreenBaggins is a friend or personally knows Doug Wilson. I find this disturbing that he is associating with a known heretic. Perhaps we should tar and feather him and put him on a stake outside the PCA offices in Atlanta. We should not tolerate this behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad I am not in the PCA; your church discipline sounds extreme.
Click to expand...


I thought that living in North Dakoka WAS the church discipline.


----------



## Stephen

wsw201 said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw in a thread recently that GreenBaggins is a friend or personally knows Doug Wilson. I find this disturbing that he is associating with a known heretic. Perhaps we should tar and feather him and put him on a stake outside the PCA offices in Atlanta. We should not tolerate this behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One problem with that idea.......he lives in North Dakota!!! I try not to go any farther north than the Red River. Since you're in Nova Scotia, maybe you can swing by and pick him up? We'll meet you in Atlanta.
Click to expand...


Sounds good. I will meet you in Atlanta.


----------



## Stephen

DMcFadden said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw in a thread recently that GreenBaggins is a friend or personally knows Doug Wilson. I find this disturbing that he is associating with a known heretic. Perhaps we should tar and feather him and put him on a stake outside the PCA offices in Atlanta. We should not tolerate this behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad I am not in the PCA; your church discipline sounds extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that living in North Dakoka WAS the church discipline.
Click to expand...


----------



## danmpem

DMcFadden said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw in a thread recently that GreenBaggins is a friend or personally knows Doug Wilson. I find this disturbing that he is associating with a known heretic. Perhaps we should tar and feather him and put him on a stake outside the PCA offices in Atlanta. We should not tolerate this behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad I am not in the PCA; your church discipline sounds extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that living in North Dakoka WAS the church discipline.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephen

I have a solution to settling this debate. I recommend that we appoint a committee of five brothers to approach Michael Horton and ask him why he recommended the book. The committee would report their findings to all of us in this discussion and that should settle our concerns. I recommend that we appoint Jacob to be the chairman of this committee. Do I hear a second on appointing a committee of five with Jacob as the Chairman?


----------



## Pilgrim

Jeff Downs said:


> travis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


Is this book part of the series of academic books by Horton that are published by WJK press? If so that may have something to do with it.


----------



## DMcFadden

You Presbyterian brothers sure do like committees, don't you? Why doesn't someone who knows Dr. Horton simply e-mail him and ask the question?


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen said:


> I have a solution to settling this debate. I recommend that we appoint a committee of five brothers to approach Michael Horton and ask him why he recommended the book. The committee would report their findings to all of us in this discussion and that should settle our concerns. I recommend that we appoint Jacob to be the chairman of this committee. Do I hear a second on appointing a committee of five with Jacob as the Chairman?



If nominated, I will not run.
If elected, I will not serve.


----------



## RamistThomist

DMcFadden said:


> You Presbyterian brothers sure do like committees, don't you? Why doesn't someone who knows Dr. Horton simply e-mail him and ask the question?



Conspiracy theory theology is a lot more exciting.


----------



## Stephen

DMcFadden said:


> You Presbyterian brothers sure do like committees, don't you? Why doesn't someone who knows Dr. Horton simply e-mail him and ask the question?



I am in favor of that, but don't we need to appoint someone to email him?


----------



## Pilgrim

Spear Dane said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Presbyterian brothers sure do like committees, don't you? Why doesn't someone who knows Dr. Horton simply e-mail him and ask the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theory theology is a lot more exciting.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's almost as exciting as conspiracy theory politics!


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Presbyterian brothers sure do like committees, don't you? Why doesn't someone who knows Dr. Horton simply e-mail him and ask the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theory theology is a lot more exciting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's almost as exciting as conspiracy theory politics!
Click to expand...


touche!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> The reports of my excommunication for fraternising with humans have been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## danmpem

DMcFadden said:


> You Presbyterian brothers sure do like committees, don't you? Why doesn't someone who knows Dr. Horton simply e-mail him and ask the question?



Who here has even _read _the book?


----------



## RamistThomist

danmpem said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Presbyterian brothers sure do like committees, don't you? Why doesn't someone who knows Dr. Horton simply e-mail him and ask the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has even _read _the book?
Click to expand...


I have read other non-FV stuff by Leithart so I felt qualified to talk. I probably won't read the book because I am not interested in Pomo right now (although I have a book seller in town, and if the book is under ten dollars, I will read it).


----------



## RamistThomist

For better or worse, I have read the book (just finished it today). It was interesting. It corrected some misunderstandings I had about postmodernism, and pointed me to some critiques of it that I haven't seen anyone else raise (for instance, pomo lives in sustained anti-climax because while following Marxist categories, it denies a Marxist--or any--eschatology. The end result for a pomo is an eternal dystopia). 

I didn't see anything radical in the book. I looked hard for denials of justification by faith, and found none. Likewise, while it was a good book, if that were the only book someone had read by Leithart, it is doubtful they would come to the conclusion, "Wow, I must read everything this guy has written." It was good, but not that good.

Extra thoughts:
The critique of democracy was quite good. 
The reading of hebel as vapor, instead of vanity, made better sense of Ecclesiastes. Think: If God is a God of order and meaning, and his universe has meaning because it is his universe, then it seems counter-productive for holy writ to say it is meaningless. 

I would give the book 4/5 stars.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Kevin J. Vanhoozer has done excellent work on postmoderinism and its inroads into hermeneutics and meaning. He's a brilliant theologian.


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Kevin J. Vanhoozer has done excellent work on postmoderinism and its inroads into hermeneutics and meaning. He's a brilliant theologian.



I just started reading Vanhoozer and listening to his messages. Very good stuff.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Ivanhoe said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin J. Vanhoozer has done excellent work on postmoderinism and its inroads into hermeneutics and meaning. He's a brilliant theologian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just started reading Vanhoozer and listening to his messages. Very good stuff.
Click to expand...


This one's also a good resource.

The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology - Cambridge University Press


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin J. Vanhoozer has done excellent work on postmoderinism and its inroads into hermeneutics and meaning. He's a brilliant theologian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just started reading Vanhoozer and listening to his messages. Very good stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This one's also a good resource.
> 
> The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology - Cambridge University Press
Click to expand...


It's next on my list. 



Paul,
How many of the "Cambridge Companion" series would you might have? They have always looked interesting but I have never bought one.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Ivanhoe said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just started reading Vanhoozer and listening to his messages. Very good stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one's also a good resource.
> 
> The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology - Cambridge University Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's next on my list.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> How many of the "Cambridge Companion" series would you might have? They have always looked interesting but I have never bought one.
Click to expand...


Only a few. I happen to like the Blackwell Companions and the Oxford Handbooks a lot.

I just started this page a couple months ago, and I'm just getting started loading things on to it, but you can ckeck out some of my books on my good reads site:

Goodreads | Paul's profile


----------



## Christusregnat

Ivanhoe said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


It is interesting that the ONE man that Leithart acknowledged as understanding his basic point in "Against Christianity" was John Robbins:

Here are Robbins' thoughts:

Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.

Here's Leithart's response:

Leithart.com | Robbins and <i>Against Christianity</i>


Cheers,

Adam


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> This one's also a good resource.
> 
> The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology - Cambridge University Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's next on my list.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> How many of the "Cambridge Companion" series would you might have? They have always looked interesting but I have never bought one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a few. I happen to like the Blackwell Companions and the Oxford Handbooks a lot.
> 
> I just started this page a couple months ago, and I'm just getting started loading things on to it, but you can ckeck out some of my books on my good reads site:
> 
> Goodreads | Paul's profile
Click to expand...


Thanks Paul!
I am going to have a lot of fun reading the reviews at your site!


----------

