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



## SolaGratia (Jul 23, 2009)

I have heard Michael Horton comment that God, just as he raised up Luther and/or Calvin, also raised up Francis of Loyola, The Society of Jesuit founder. 


I do not know exactly what Horton means with this, but his comment bothers me. First, I was raised as a papist and I want to minister to papist. Secondly, I feel that Horton shuts up or prevents people like me and others with his comment who want to bring people to the Truth of the Gospel as proclaimed in the Protestant Reformation. 


In the other hand, Michael Horton was raised as an Fundamentalist Evangelical and so for the most part his ministry (writings, radio show, journal, etc.) has been more about trying to influence such Neo-Evangelicals folks, as how he was raised, by targeting mainly Joel Osteen.

My Question is:

Should I now let Horton know that God *has also* raised up Joel Osteen, in His Providence. Therefore Horton should stop complaining about Joel Osteen, Horton should stop making fun at Osteen, Horton should stop comparing Osteen ministry to his, Horton should stop criticizing Osteen, Horton should stop being jealous of Osteen ministry, etc.???

Help!


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jul 23, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> I have more than once heard from Michael Horton comment that God, just as he raised you Luther and/or Calvin, also raised up Francis of Loyola, The Society of Jesuit founder.
> 
> 
> I do not know exactly what Horton means with this, but his comment bothers me. First, I was raised as a papist and I want to minster to papist. Secondly, I feel that Horton shuts up or prevents people like me and others with his comment who want to bring people to the Truth of the Gospel as proclaimed in the Protestant Reformation.
> ...



Hello Mr. Garcia, 

Do you have a reference where Mr. Horton said this, so his comments can be evaluated according to their context.

What does Mr. Horton say God raised up Loyola to do? 

Believing in "double predestination," I believe God raises up both the godly and the ungodly, to fulfill His purposes.

So the comment from Mr. Horton could simply refer to God's sovereignty over all men, could it not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 23, 2009)

God raised up the King of Assyria, the King of Babylon, the King of the Persians, ....

There's nothing remarkable about that statement taken by itself.

I could complete this sentence by saying:

God raised up Loyola to confirm the Roman Catholic Church in its sin and harden it against the Truth of the Gospel that seeing they may not perceive and hearing they may not understand. For His own glory.


----------



## Blue Tick (Jul 23, 2009)

> God raised up the King of Assyria, the King of Babylon, the King of the Persians, ....
> 
> There's nothing remarkable about that statement taken by itself.
> 
> ...



Good Point.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 23, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> I have more than once heard from Michael Horton comment that God, just as he raised you Luther and/or Calvin, also raised up Francis of Loyola, The Society of Jesuit founder.



_Ignatius_ of Loyola, the founder of the Society of _Jesus_ (otherwise known as the Jesuits).


----------



## mvdm (Jul 23, 2009)

You often hear the same lines parroted by different WSC profs, so perhaps Horton uses the Ignatius example in the same fashion Clark does here:

The Secret of Knowing God’s Will (6) Heidelblog


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 23, 2009)

Gil,

I don't know what Mike has said, but Mark's right, I've said this because it's true.

We don't live in a dualistic universe. There's only one sovereign God and all that comes to pass is the consequence of his mysterious providence.

The fact that, in his all-wise and perfect providence God "raised" up Loyola does not vindicate Loyola's theology. It's just a fact. My point is that we have to be careful about selective appeals to providence to justify this hero or that. Yes, God raised up Martin Luther (Amen!) but we must say that Loyola is also the consequence of providence or we're guilty of Manichaean dualism.

Luther's or Calvin's theology has to be vindicated theologically and exegetically not by appeals to providence. 

Better?




SolaGratia said:


> I have more than once heard from Michael Horton comment that God, just as he raised you Luther and/or Calvin, also raised up Francis of Loyola, The Society of Jesuit founder.
> 
> 
> I do not know exactly what Horton means with this, but his comment bothers me. First, I was raised as a papist and I want to minster to papist. Secondly, I feel that Horton shuts up or prevents people like me and others with his comment who want to bring people to the Truth of the Gospel as proclaimed in the Protestant Reformation.
> ...


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 23, 2009)

Horton, mention the above comment in one of his sunday school teachings at his church, but I do not remember which one at the moment ( I will try to look for it). 

Horton lectures found here:Audio Resources from Christ United Reformed Church - Santee

Of course, I totally agreed, God raised up such men as mention above, and I will add the devil as well, for His eternal purpose. 

However, my somewhat quibble against Horton is that why doesn't Horton also mention or say anything concerning God also having to raised up Joel Osteen presently, like he did with Loyola. I have never heard Horton say anything about Osteen when it comes to God's related purposes or God's will from what we know has already occurred (history). Please, do not get me wrong, I am not saying that Horton should not go after Osteen. 

*From what I heard, Horton should had gone after Osteen, but also Loyola (or the papist) and not just leave his comment of Loyola as an excuse that it was God's purpose and will, and leave it there hanging.*


----------



## mvdm (Jul 23, 2009)

Of course Luther, Calvin, and Edwards' theology must be vindicated theologically and exegetically, but that does not *exclude* interpreting and attesting to the providential outworking of their theology, piety, and practice in history. We should reject such false dualistic choices.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 23, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Horton, mention the above comment in one of his sunday school teachings at his church, but I do not remember which one at the moment ( I will try to look for it).
> 
> Horton lectures found here:Audio Resources from Christ United Reformed Church - Santee
> 
> ...



Is it possible that, in fact, Horton didn't leave the comment there hanging, but actually in context said what is being said in this thread? If that possibility is there (and I think it quite likely) then perhaps you should have clarified the full context of what he said before sending out this critique, which paints Horton in a pretty poor light.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 23, 2009)

mvdm said:


> Of course Luther, Calvin, and Edwards' theology must be vindicated theologically and exegetically, but that does not *exclude* interpreting and attesting to the providential outworking of their theology, piety, and practice in history. We should reject such false dualistic choices.



I have no problem with Luther, Calvin, Edwards' OR God's Providence. 

My concern is with Loyola (representing the papist teaching) and with Horton's concern, Osteen (representing today's American Evangelical's) and him not also emphasizing that God also raised up Osteen, like he did Loyola.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 23, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > Of course Luther, Calvin, and Edwards' theology must be vindicated theologically and exegetically, but that does not *exclude* interpreting and attesting to the providential outworking of their theology, piety, and practice in history. We should reject such false dualistic choices.
> ...



Must someone mention every possible bad teacher in order to satisfy you? I'm really not sure why you're seemingly so bent out of shape over Horton's choice to discuss Ignatius (as opposed to Osteen, or Creflo Dollar, or Katherine Jefferts-Schori)... he was making a statement and using one example. Why excoriate him for his choice of using only one example? 

Again, too - if you're not sure about the context, or sure exactly about what he said, why are you giving Horton the business without making sure your facts are straight?


----------



## mvdm (Jul 23, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > Of course Luther, Calvin, and Edwards' theology must be vindicated theologically and exegetically, but that does not *exclude* interpreting and attesting to the providential outworking of their theology, piety, and practice in history. We should reject such false dualistic choices.
> ...



I'm not suggesting you had this dualistic problem, Gil.


----------



## MW (Jul 23, 2009)

When recognising that it is God's providence which governs all things we are obliged according to the promises of Scripture to affirm a special providence for the church. Obadiah Sedgwick's work on Providence Practically Handled brings this point out. In observing providence we must recognise God has a specific and beneficial purpose for His people -- Christ is head over all things to the church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 23, 2009)

Gill,

I think I understand your concern. Let me give you a caution here though. You presented something that was troubling to you and you seem to want us to discern something in a context which we can not discern because the context is missing. You are also implying a shortfall in Dr. Horton's life. This is problematic. Especially since you have not presented us with the context to which you are bringing accusations against Dr. Horton with. This is close to sounding slanderous in my book. 

If you are really struggling with this and are concerned that Dr. Horton has done a disservice to the Body of Christ shouldn't you try to find a way to communicate with him before you bring it here? Maybe he can clarify this for you.

Here is his Westminster Faculty site. It has a contact link. I would encourage you to try to communicate with him. 
Westminster Seminary California faculty

You might also try to find someone on the PB who can help hook you up with a means of contacting him. 

Be Encouraged brother.


----------



## Edward (Jul 23, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> I have heard Michael Horton comment that God, just as he raised up Luther and/or Calvin, also raised up Francis of Loyola, The Society of Jesuit founder.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...



To answer your question, "NO". 

Are you sure you have the statement right? It is possible that Horton made an error as to the name, but without a link to a source, it's also possible that the error is on your part. 

If you want to pursue this, the first thing you need to do is verify the quote. 

The next thing you need to do is to examine the context of the statement. 

And finally, you should quit trying to go to bat for Osteen.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 23, 2009)

Edward said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard Michael Horton comment that God, just as he raised up Luther and/or Calvin, also raised up Francis of Loyola, The Society of Jesuit founder.
> ...



Gill is not going to bat for Osteen. You have totally misunderstood Gill. And I think my post above to him rectified what he should do.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 23, 2009)

He also raised up Pope Benny and according to this obscure prophecy by the Medieval St. Malachy of Ireland he's going to be last Pope 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes]Prophecy of the Popes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> God raised up the King of Assyria, the King of Babylon, the King of the Persians, ....
> 
> There's nothing remarkable about that statement taken by itself.
> 
> ...



That's not what I'm talking about guys!

-----Added 7/23/2009 at 11:14:03 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Gill,
> 
> I think I understand your concern. Let me give you a caution here though. You presented something that was troubling to you and you seem to want us to discern something in a context which we can not discern because the context is missing. You are also implying a shortfall in Dr. Horton's life. This is problematic. Especially since you have not presented us with the context to which you are bringing accusations against Dr. Horton with. This is close to sounding slanderous in my book.
> 
> ...



I appreciate you trying to help me with my concern!


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm concerned about your concern, Gil. Are you offended that Mike Horton would choose to use Ignatius of Loyola as an example of an evil leader God nevertheless raised up because he is NOT a Hispanic (as you intimated)? Is it your contention that he should only go after Caucasian Americans because he is a Caucasian, but has no right to (or need to) express his distaste for Ignatius of Loyola - but that you, as a Hispanic, can rightly go after him? This is highly troubling, if it is your true concern...


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 24, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> I'm concerned about your concern, Gil. Are you offended that Mike Horton would choose to use Ignatius of Loyola as an example of an evil leader God nevertheless raised up because he is NOT a Hispanic (as you intimated)? Is it your contention that he should only go after Caucasian Americans because he is a Caucasian, but has no right to (or need to) express his distaste for Ignatius of Loyola - but that you, as a Hispanic, can rightly go after him? This is highly troubling, if it is your true concern...



Todd,

Your post is totally not my concern, not at all. It is has nothing to do with race. I appreciate your concern though, its a funny sterotypical post, but I appreciate your concern. 

I think one needs to listen to some of Horton’s lectures (see link provided above) and you will find out how much Horton likes to talk about Joel Osteen. I have listened to all of Horton lectures from the link I provided above and from the MP3’s series of Michael Horton found at Monergism.com . 

I saw an inconsistence with Horton’s thinking when I heard him talk about God’s Providence. During one of Horton lectures, I heard him mention that God, in His providence, has brought up Loyola (or any other popular heretic, it does not matter to me) the same way God, in His providence, has also brought up Luther and/or Calvin. So I put two and two together and concluded that maybe it has not come to Horton thinking that God has also brought up Osteen like he did with Loyola. I made that conclusion since Horton, again, likes to talk about Osteen so much, yet I have not heard Horton say anything that God, in His providence, has also brought up Osteen, like he did with Loyola. 

I am sure Horton will acknowledge that indeed God has also brought up Osteen. However, and again, I have not heard Horton say anything concerning that God has also brought up Osteen, like He did with Loyola, since Horton, again, likes to talk about Osteen so much.

From Horton’s lectures himself, I understand that he was brought up as a Fundamentalist and I understand why he is worry for that kind of teaching and how it has affected many folks with false understanding of the Scriptures.


----------



## rpavich (Jul 24, 2009)

Brother,
I've read through this whole thread and I still don't understand what your concern is...there's something missing in the context or just the communication...sorry.

I'm going to have to agree with Puritan Covenentor on this one; 



> "...shouldn't you try to find a way to communicate with him before you bring it here?
> You might also try to find someone on the PB who can help hook you up with a means of contacting him."



We're not ganging up on you brother but as a person who get's pretty riled up at times myself, I think that's good advice.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 24, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > I'm concerned about your concern, Gil. Are you offended that Mike Horton would choose to use Ignatius of Loyola as an example of an evil leader God nevertheless raised up because he is NOT a Hispanic (as you intimated)? Is it your contention that he should only go after Caucasian Americans because he is a Caucasian, but has no right to (or need to) express his distaste for Ignatius of Loyola - but that you, as a Hispanic, can rightly go after him? This is highly troubling, if it is your true concern...
> ...



I'm not sure what's funny or stereotypical about it on my part, since you are the one who brought up race. You said Horton should be going after Osteen instead of Ignatius, since he was "American", and that you had the prerogative, being Hispanic, to go after Ignatius of Loyola. 



> I think one needs to listen to some of Horton’s lectures (see link provided above) and you will find out how much Horton likes to talk about Joel Osteen. I have listened to all of Horton lectures from the link I provided above and from the MP3’s series of Michael Horton found at Monergism.com .
> 
> I saw an inconsistence with Horton’s thinking when I heard him talk about God’s Providence. During one of Horton lectures, I heard him mention that God, in His providence, has brought up Loyola (or any other popular heretic, it does not matter to me) the same way God, in His providence, has also brought up Luther and/or Calvin. So I put two and two together and concluded that maybe it has not come to Horton thinking that God has also brought up Osteen like he did with Loyola. I made that conclusion since Horton, again, likes to talk about Osteen so much, yet I have not heard Horton say anything that God, in His providence, has also brought up Osteen, like he did with Loyola.
> 
> ...



Do you think it's possible there was a valid reason for Horton to make his point about God raising up evil leaders by using the example of Ignatius of Loyola, rather than Osteen? Perhaps because Osteen is a fool who truly wields very little influence, whereas Ignatius of Loyola, through the order in the Roman Catholic church that he founded, wields massive influence by comparison? Is it possible that Horton was completely reasonable, and, for some reason, you are getting upset about it for inappropriate reasons? Perhaps you are mistaken. (and as others have also noted, I still can't fathom why this bothered you so much)

At any rate, I mentioned this at the outset and several have commented on it before - but you have totally blown off the concern. You have admitted not knowing the context of Horton's remarks, and not even being sure exactly of what he said - yet you used the forum here to call him out because you thought he was erroneously referring to someone when he should have referred to someone else. That is inappropriate. You should have checked your facts first before posting a critique of a good man in the Reformed church that is more than tinged with a mocking spirit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 24, 2009)

I read this early this AM and have been musing on it and am disturbed by the thread.

I am bothered that you either have a very poor understanding of Providence or that you think Mike is extremely slow.

1. You do realize the _historical_ reason why Loyola would be mentioned in the same breath as Luther and Calvin, yes? In other words, these are _historic_ men and if Mike is making a point to Christians who typically have a view of Providence that God only raises up the good people and all the others are simply instruments in Satan's hands, then pointing out that even Loyola was raised up in God's Providence for His own purposes is instructive. It causes the shock to the senses because while two of the men were lions of the Reformation, Loyola is the lion of the _counter_-Reformation.

In other words, it would never occur to me to speak of Luther and Calvin as historic figures and then talk about Osteen to make a point. It's like the Sesame Street song: _"One of these kids is not like the other/One of these kids just isn't the same/Can you guess which kid is doing his own thing/Now before my song is done/And now my song is done"_

2. What I really wonder is whether you believe that the fact that Mike states that God raised up Loyola implies that Mike would never _criticize_ Loyola.

In other words, you keep bringing up the fact that Mike criticizes Osteen and the implication is that if he just thought about what he was doing for a moment he might realize that God raised up Osteen and criticism would immediately cease.

This concerns me that you believe that the idea that God raises up men implies that they are above criticism or complaint because, after all, God raised them up. I really hope I'm misreading you but I get that vibe based on what you're writing. The Assyrians (raised up by God) were condemned and complained about by the prophets. It's one thing to note that God decrees all things and it's another to call wickedness what it is according to the things revealed.

3. Assuming it is not 2, then, I might conclude that you believe Mike is really thick. Do you want me to ask Mike to read this thread and then get feedback as to whether he gasps with the self-realization that God even raised up Osteen? Seriously, I've thought about pointing out this thread to him because it is so silly. I am willing to give you my next paycheck if this realization actually surprises Mike.


----------



## Cranmer1959 (Jul 24, 2009)

God raised up Pharaoh, Pontius Pilate, and Herod Agrippa and even Nero. Horton's point is that God raises up the reprobate for his own purposes. I would suggest that Romans 9 deals with this doctrine well enough.

Charlie



SolaGratia said:


> I have heard Michael Horton comment that God, just as he raised up Luther and/or Calvin, also raised up Francis of Loyola, The Society of Jesuit founder.
> 
> 
> I do not know exactly what Horton means with this, but his comment bothers me. First, I was raised as a papist and I want to minister to papist. Secondly, I feel that Horton shuts up or prevents people like me and others with his comment who want to bring people to the Truth of the Gospel as proclaimed in the Protestant Reformation.
> ...



-----Added 7/24/2009 at 09:26:39 EST-----

I think you're over-reacting here. The person asking the question may not be as well versed in Scripture. The simple answer is God raised up Pharaoh for his own purposes as well. Romans 9. Of course Mike Horton knows this.

I have criticized Horton as well but for other reasons. He seems to think that it is somehow wrong to push for general equity in our governmental laws dealing with ethics and morality, specifically laws against homosexuality and abortion and maybe even p0rnography?

Charlie



Semper Fidelis said:


> I read this early this AM and have been musing on it and am disturbed by the thread.
> 
> I am bothered that you either have a very poor understanding of Providence or that you think Mike is extremely slow.
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 24, 2009)

Charlie,

Perhaps you ought to restrict the thread to what this is about and also read the forum rules and our special section on the 9th Commandment. If anything I am under-reacting because I believe Gil is being very uncharitable toward Mike.

I don't know if you simply skimmed over every other post before you posted your own about Romans 9 but you added no new information that has not been provided to Gil. God's superintendence of all things has already been established in this thread. You might want to read from beginning to end.

There's no rule against criticizing public teachings but there are parameters for it. I'm getting to the bottom of it as an Administrator on this board.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 24, 2009)

Todd, 

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

Rich,

My problem with Horton is not about me not understanding God's Providence as has been reveal in the Scriptures. My problem with Horton is a loophole that I have observed in his teaching.

For example;

1.) Horton enjoys talking about Osteen 

2.) Horton said that God raised up Luther and Calvin ( I agreed)

And

Horton said that God has also raised up Loyola ( I agreed)


----------------------------------------------

I concluded using Horton own reasoning that God has also raised up Osteen.


Now why is this such a big deal?

This a big deal to me because I have been listening to Horton lectures and in his lectures he often goes after Osteen or Evangelicalism (as found in America). 

Now, in one of Horton's lectures, I heard him mention that God, In His providence, raised up Loyola as God has also raised up Luther and Calvin. However, I did not hear Horton say anything against Loyola like he often speaks against Osteen or Evangelicalism. This is the case, especially since it sounded that Horton had no issued with God having raise up Loyola. 

This bother me because How can Horton not make a big deal about Loyola when Horton often makes a big deal about Osteen. 

I understand that maybe Horton did not say anything about Loyola, since he was not raised as a Roman Catholic. However, Horton was brought up an Evangelical, which Osteen happens to be one. Therefore, I see a loophole (that's it) in Horton when he does not mention anything against Loyola, like he does with Osteen.

I have nothing major against Horton, I am not saying that he is a false teacher or not a good teacher, I am definitely not trying to bring up charges against Horton for anything, I guess I'm going to have to deal with it and give Horton the pass.

If I find the lecture I will provide it so that you guys can hear it for yourselves. 

Sorry guys for all the confusion, I apologized.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 24, 2009)

Gil,

So you really are confirming my second concern. Of course Mike has a problem with Loyola. The Jesuits pretty much led the way in counter-Reformation theology and denying Sola Fide. You only have to look at the corpus of Mike's work to know that he's very much against Roman Catholic theology and doesn't need to re-state it every time he mentions Loyola. It goes without saying.


----------



## Edward (Jul 24, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> And I think my post above to him rectified what he should do.



You are correct. You have set out the Biblical approach. My 'no' is wrong. But I still think my points that he should verify the quote and the context first is good advice. 



> You have totally misunderstood Gill.



Reading on down the thread, I'm not sure that I have. If the Osteen comments aren't the issue, what is?


----------



## Curt (Jul 24, 2009)

Like it or not, God also raised up Barack Obama.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 25, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 25, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## mvdm (Jul 25, 2009)

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

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

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


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 25, 2009)

mvdm said:


> _Osteen is a puny man, and if one wanted to compare Osteen's impact on world Christianity to that of Ignatius of Loyola, Osteen comes up woefully short. He wields very little actual influence - and I am sure has not caused one death through persecution of true believers by his followers. The Jesuits, on the other hand, were involved both in persecution and rampant quashing of the Reformation cause. Ignatius's influence continues to this day through the order he founded._
> 
> I would say the opposite is true: the influence of Osteen's "health and wealth" gospel far outstrips Ignatius. This growth of this self-centered religion is well documented in David Wells' work and elsewhere-- and likely that is why Horton himself devotes such attention to the man and his apostate religion. You can see it in churches everywhere across North America. I believe it was the main topic of Horton's book "Christless Christianity" as well.
> 
> I suspect relatively few people in the last 100 years have even heard of the Jesuit order, let alone are influenced by them.



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


----------



## puritansound (Jul 25, 2009)

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

With all Christian brotherly love


----------



## Wayne (Jul 25, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------

