Horton endorses Leithart's latest book..

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[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.

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.

Sounds good. I will meet you in Atlanta.

 

[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.

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

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

 

[danmpem]

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.

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

 

[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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

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

touche!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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