Comments on: Horton on Hahn

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:30:26 +0000

My hyperlink for my attempted argument didn’t go through. It’s here http://hereiblog.com/scott-hahns-book-endorsements-protestants/

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:27:44 +0000

Could we actually used Dr. Horton’s endorsement, as I’ve tried to state, to argue for correction to Rome’s doctrines? That is, if Protestants so well understand Hahn’s and the pope’s theology to endorse it we can now use such endorsers to critique such theology.

By: Zrim

Zrim — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:51:25 +0000

John Bugay et. al.,

While your points about potential confusion or “enhancing the credibility” of the unorthodox are well taken, I am not so sure that they are sound grounds for your criticisms. If anyone thinks Horton could ever be construed to endorse anything other than Reformed orthodoxy that is actually their problem, not Horton’s. It very well could be that what the confused might take away from their confusion is that they must read Horton closer, instead of suggesting the onus is on him in some way.

The problem for the orthodox is not when he endorses the unorthodox for explaining himself well, but when the orthodox begins to agree with the unorthodox. The difference is huge, and I’m not sure the detractors here understand it.

By: Sara H

Sara H — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:00:30 +0000

Dr. Horton,

When I read your endorsement of the book I understood immediately what you were saying. However, I was also immediately concerned that this endorsement would be misunderstood on both sides simply because in our current society endorsement of a book is believed to be endorsement of a person or an idea contained in the book. What Alithea wrote is exactly what I’m referring to.

If, instead of writing a sales endorsement, which is what a book blurb is, something that will encourage people to buy the book, you had written a review or perhaps mentioned it in some other way, there would not have been the confusion.

Sincerely in the Faith, but very disappointed,

By: Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:08:37 +0000

Here on display is the difference between bigotry and informed discussion.

If students as Westminster aren’t in a position to evaluate Hahn’s stuff, then the Reformation is in serious trouble. Hahn isn’t the deep end of the ppol for crying out loud.Its not like reading Lonergan, Rahner or Lubac.

If the objectors would actually sit down and read some Aquinas or Scotus they’d save us all a routine headache.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:04:15 +0000

Michael.

Suggest you check yourself. Calling Catholics ‘unbelievers’ certainly doesn’t help. The arrogance that we est. 500,000 reformed Christians throw at the world in regards to being able to determine where the elect are located based on whomever we thinks articulates the mechanics of salvation perfectly is pretty disgusting.

By: Rick E.

Rick E. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:37:43 +0000

Dr. Mike Horton, you forgot to mention your role in the The Cambridge Declaration.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:38:29 +0000

The sky isn’t falling, Horton isn’t ditching the Reformed faith for Rome, and Westminster California isn’t a hotbed of closet Papists. Whew!

Thank you Dr. Horton for your witness and scholarship. Your books and broadcasts have been a huge blessing to me and my family.

By: tim prussic

tim prussic — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:27:28 +0000

Wait, wait, wait… if you quote him, then he must agree with you. IMPEACH THE POPE!

By: M Burke

M Burke — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:10:38 +0000

Both Calvin and Luther were well versed in their opponents writing. Someone in the position of Prof Horton would be remiss to not study and comment on the writings of the opponents of the faith.