It looks like Michael Horton of Whitehorse Inn fame has his own systematic theology coming out next month; check out his verbal blurb:
I’ll be interested to see how he “does theology.” It’s obvious what confessional slant he’ll be coming from, but I’ll be interested to see if his style is more confessional; or more traditional scholastic/systematic.
Judging from his 4-volume series in covenant theology, I expect good things. Horton is aware of the difficulties in systematic theologies that lack a unitive focus and Christological center, so expect that he will consciously relate his doctrine of creation and anthropology to the Trinity. After Barth and after Torrance, he has no excuse not to. If he doesn’t, then he deserves a thorough thrashing from you, Bobby. π
By the way, he probably won’t use Barth and Torrance. Instead, he’ll use Vos and Ridderbos, to a similar effect, i.e., to correct the problems of strictly federal categories. Whichever way, I don’t care, as long as he advances Reformed theology.
Hey Kevin,
I’ve read parts of his volumes, so I kind of know what to expect. And I figured his christocentric/covenantal hermeneutic would be informative for providing the shape of his Systematic Theology. His prolegomena will be interesting to read! But yes, After Barth/Torrance no excuses; although, last time I checked, his “school” isn’t all that friendly to our Scottish and Swiss brethren π . Yeah, Vos/Ridderbos sounds more like it for Horton.
When have I “tried” to thrash anyone here at the blog π . Most people seem to think my thrashing work really falls short, esp. in re. to Muller — just recently I had a guy here (a guy who likes Muller) kind of dog me a bit in my reading of Muller. Of course, it’s always the same tune with these guys; they never engage anything I say about some of the apparent mis-steps or inconsistincies in Muller’s thesis; they just assert that I don’t really know what I’m talking about. Sure I do, he’s the post-Reformation Pope π (btw, I’m not saying that I don’t think Muller has provided some helpful corrective and balance to overstatements by our “brothers,” but then I think [from my humble abode] that he overstates at points too π ).
These guys will always intrigue, esp. since I “lost” π a really good friend to them way back (he goes to Riddlebarger’s church in CA — I visited there once, interesting experience). All of this stuff is kind of personal for me π .
I’ve come to realize that people will just assume that scholarship is strictly linear: so one movement follows another movement, correcting the previous movement, or one scholar revises some common reading which is followed by another scholar revising the revision, and so on. The assumption is that the most recent “corrective” is, well, correct. So, since Muller has done all this corrective work on neo-orthodox historical readings — more primary source work than those neo-orthodox hacks — then he must be right. In actuality, while the correctives usually do correct some overstatements and offer a more detailed and balanced picture, it is utterly naive to assume the “later is better” mentality and not delve deeper into the exegetical and dogmatic presuppositions at work in these historical interpretations.
As for “losing” your friend, at least he’s not a Pentecostal. π
Seriously, I think the great attraction of confessional Reformed theology, including the recent interest in post-Reformation dogmatics, is that there is actually an ecclesial association to go along with it. The URC, PCA, OPC, ARP, etc. have churches across the country and fairly unified sense of Reformed identity. In other words, there’s an ecclesial culture that “Scottish-Torrance-Evangelical Calvinism” lacks. There’s no significant denomination that holds to “Evangelical Calvinism” as explicated by Torrance. The PCUSA would be an option — and was at one point — but it has been taken over by postmodernists of various stripes. Without a church home, I’m beginning to think that the best an EC can do is to join a confessional Reformed church and push the dialectical tensions inherent within the Dortian-Westminster system.
Kevin,
1) I agree with you, clearly on your first comment; all I can say to that is “ditto!” π
2) And on your second comment, yep, I agree, my friend is in much better hands than the Pentecostal (when I met him we were roomates at Calvary Chapel Bible College — which is “semi/moderate-charismatic”).
And yes, right again, I agree; “EC” by definition really (which is how it will be defined in the book) is more of a loose-association of like-minded believers around a certain set of contours and doctrinal foci. But then within that “set” there is a range of expression relative to ecclesial identity (for example I’m “free church” Conservative Baptist in background — like you, except you’re Southern, eh π ). I don’t really think “EC” will ever take on the ethos that post-Reformational churches have today; but actually, I’m fine with that. I think that wherever “we” are, we can push for it at whatever level were presented with within our various ecclesial contexts. I do think you’re right about the PCUSA on all fronts from what I know of it as well. Andrew Purves (a contributor to our book) is PCUSA (and Partee might be as well). These are both good “EC’rs” from various emphases (Purves more Torrancean and Partee more Barthian/Calvinian); and so they provide a good voice within that environment still. But I can’t ever imagine “EC” taking off at like an OPC or something π . . . but you never know.
I have been reading a sample of the book on Kindle for mac. You can too for free. I have been waiting for this work for sometime. I loved his 4 volume work on Covenant. Bobby, you can read the whole prolegomena for free (if you use a mac) if you want to save the money.
Here’s the first little hint to how he starts – “The opening claim of this systematic Theology is that the Triune God is the object of theology and that this god is knowable because he has revealed himself to us.” What’s not to like (at least on the surface of this statement) if you are an “EC” disciple.
I like Vos and Ridderbos, but I would love it if someone like Horton brought them together with Barth and Torrance, and trounced the NPP brigade. Many in the Vos/Ridderbos Biblical Theology camp already sneak over to the Barth/Cullman camp from some of their insights, just read the IVP Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
The comments on denominational allegiance are to the point – esp when there is so little Reformed in Englad – and what there is is firmly Westminsterised. Starting a new denom would be totally against the spirit of Barth, and I guess Torrance. Semper Reformanda, and you can only do that from within. Even Calvin wanted to Reform the church, not start a new one.
I would love it if someone like Horton brought them together with Barth and Torrance, and trounced the NPP brigade.
Sorry, Bobby, if this is terribly off-topic, but I assume NPP=New Perspective on Paul, which I’ve seen referenced here with regard to a couple other postings. I’m still kind of lost as to what this is and why it is “bad”.
@Kenny,
Thanks for the heads up. And thanks for sharing that quote. On the face there is nothing to balk in re. to Horton’s opening salvo. And I’m not saying I won’t or can’t learn anything from Horton. But I also know how his broader confessional commitments are situated, and they are “Federal.” Of course, I’ve noticed with Horton (on his WHI), that he is a little more soft than someone like R. Scott Clark on such things.
@SG,
I’m not totally familiar with Vos/Ridderbos. What do you think of NT Wright, then?
@Heather,
It’s a little involved to explain here. Let me see if I can’t find somewhere where I’ve already done so, and I’ll copy and paste it over here . . . hang on π I’ll be back.
Bobby,
Thanks for the heads up. My hunch is more along the Confessional. I have his several of his works, including An Introduction to Covenant Theology, which has a Confessional touch to it.
At any rate, I think it will be a good Reformed addition. π
I’ve read his Intro to Covenant Theology; I think it was a good “Intro” π .
And yes, even though I’m averse to “Federal Theology,” I think his Systematic will be a good contemporary source for those wondering what a “Covenant Theologians'” Theology looks like in this form.
But given his other writings, yes, I don’t expect it to be Turretin’s Enlectic Theology or anything π .
Kevin,
It seems to me that Grace Communion International, formerly Worldwide Church of God, would qualify as an ecclesial association for the evangelical calvinist point of view. If you haven’t already, check out their webpage, especially the interviews under the “You’re Included” tab. What do you think?
Hi Greg,
Welcome, yeah, I’ve watched many of their interviews; they are certainly taken with Torrance, Barth and all the appropriate scholars and pastors (like the Torrances, Molnar, Kettler, Purves, Hunsinger, et al).
Although, I’m not totally sure what GCI doctrinal statement is; so I’m not totally sure if they would be “EC” per se, I’ll have to look into that. Thanks π
Bobby,
Thoughts on the GCI doctrinal statement? I’d like to hear your comments.
-Greg
Hi Greg,
I didn’t see that statement, I’ll have to look it up. Do you have the link?
Greg,
Let me take a look at that, and get back to you. I should maybe do a post on that, thanks π .
http://www.gci.org/aboutus/beliefs
Hi Bobby,
Here is the link to GCI beliefs. I gather from your last post that you’ll be moving to your other blog. Whether or not you have time to dig into and post on this particular item, I’ll be reading over there at your new spot. I’ve enjoyed reading this blog, thanks for sharing your thoughts and gifts. I empathize with your restless mind, poring over the doctrinal statements, wondering about who gets to say what calvinism is, wondering about who gets to say who God is, thanking God for TF Torrance. So yes, I thank you too for your own unique participation in the life of God. Blessings to you.
-Greg
Greg,
Thank you, brother!
I’ll definitely take a look at gci, thanks for the link that makes it easier π . I look forward to hearing from you over at the other blog. Blessings!
Greg,
I scanned the gci statement. It seems quite good! I did have an issue with the language here:
. . . Jesus Christ provides the perfect human response to God. Since he died for all, all died in him, and all will be made alive in him.
The language I’ve emboldened implies an openness, at least, to “universalism.” Although this could be qualified in such a way that it does not need to mean this (and it “seems” that’s done as it each point is elaborated upon, later); but this language, for me, would need to be sharpened.