Not to be nit picky (okay, maybe a little), but Michael Horton is not Presbyterian and is writing from more of a Dutch Reformed/Lutheran point of view in regards to the use of the Law and his view on two-kingdom theology. I would point people to Robert Reymond’s New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith or even Frame’s four-volumes on Theology of Lordship for a concise Presbyterian view.

Okay, enough of that, back to your regularly programmed comments :) Thanks for all you do, Tim!

P.S.- I tried to post the other day and could not get past the Capthca question ‘Do you like spam?’. I kept answering yes. How judgmental and narrow-minded of you to tell me that there is a wrong answer to that question! Spam and eggs are GREAT! /s

Not a great start for Dr. Erickson there! Thankfully things get better from that point.

TGraham, I’ve never seen John Frame referred to as “concise” before, but maybe that’s just my perspective. :-)

(And thus I meet my monthly quota for stupid theologian jokes).

TGraham: “Dutch Reformed?” What is your definition of Dutch Reformed? I tend to think of Kuyper, not Horton. I guess it depends on which end you’re coming from. I’ve always considered “Dutch” = to or similar to Neo-Calvinism. Guess this is why we need to be careful with labeling and such.

Robert Reymond’s reference to the world’s space scientists in his opening sentence is interesting in light of the fact that he comes out strongly in favor of a young earth (p. 396). Is he slamming the world’s space scientists twice?

I’m interested to see what Michael Horton’s take on the age of the earth and biological evolution is in his new systematic theology, for which I have already received my shipment notification from Amazon.

Thank you for putting together an interesting list.

Anon: Dutch Reformed simply refers to the continental Reformed tradition — that is to say, those church subscribing to the Three Forms of Unity (Canons of Dordt, Heidelberg Catechism, and Belgic Confession) as opposed to the British Presbyterian tradition that subscribes to the Westminster Standards.

There is no disagreement in doctrine between the two. Westminster profs subscribe to *both* sets of standards. The Westminster Standards, being developed later in history and under different circumstances are more detailed than the TFU but one could very rightly refer to the whole lot as the Six Forms of Unity.

Lutherans scoff at the notion of Horton being Lutheran on anything (except maybe justification, but, then, I think everyone can agree that we’re saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone).

That works for me.

Fairly or unfairly, I use that issue as a test of a theologian’s judgment. If he or she falls for the stuff that comes out of the Institute for Creation Research or Ken Ham and company, then I have to question their judgment in general. If they at least admit that there is more than one possible way to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis, then I’m okay with reading about his or her views on other issues.

You are too humble, Tim Challies

Don’t you read approximately one book per day? Otherwise, how could you have accumulated the number of book reviews you have on Amazon.com?

So couldn’t you wolf down the new Horton in about a week, rather than weeks?

I just do not have the theological background to offer anything more than the most cursory review. Really? How many people can whip out a dozen systematic theologies from their bookshelves, if only to check and report the first sentences written therein? Presumably, you must have read at least significant portions of most these Systematics. And it’s not as if you haven’t weighed in on matters of theological controversy on your blog—quite a bit, in fact.

I’m aware of my limitations. Really? You have no training or advanced degrees in media studies yet you’re coming out with The Next Story in April. You’re not a trained counselor or sex therapist but you wrote Sexual Detox, which by almost every assessment has been very helpful to a lot of men struggling with pornography addiction. You’re not a pastor or trained theologian and yet Kevin DeYoung tapped you to write a chapter for Don’t Call it a Comeback.

So come on, Tim: you’re “the world’s most famous Christian blogger,” and well on your way to becoming “Mr. Christian Media.” Man up. Review the book. We’re all counting on you.

If you don’t believe that Genesis 1 and 2 mean what they say, what chapter to you “check in” at? Genesis 3? Psalms? Matthew? At what point do the words of Scripture become true if not at the beginning?

Of course there is more than one way to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. There are also multiple ways to interpret John 3:16, Eph 2:8-9, and the rest of scripture. That’s why we have the Catholic church, the Mormons, etc. There are always multiple ways of interpretation, but never more than one that is correct. If there are multiple “correct” interpretations of some verses, why not all of them?

If properly interpreting the Bible constitutes “falling for stuff,” then sign me up for falling classes.

Btw, I’m not trying to be snarky or sarcastic. We need to hold the line on Biblical interpretation. Either it is sufficient or it isn’t. My theology has a foundation of Scripture alone; not Scripture + science.

@Anonymous #16: I don’t agree with the “slippery slope” argument. ” That is a red herring. I do agree with what Augustine said around 400 AD: “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion’. (1 Timothy 1.7)” [Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (De Genesi ad Litteram), Book 1, Chapter 19; from Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, No. 41, (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press), 1982 (A.D. 408)]

@Michael #19: Nice comeback! My problem is that promoting Young Earth Creationism (YEC) as the only viable option for a Christian is very detrimental to Christian evangelism. No one has been saved by belief in YEC, but many have been turned off on Christianity when faced with the false dichotomy of either old earth or God but not both.

Thanks, Tim. Agreed… Calvin is still the defending champion.

Thanks also for helping pin-point my long-standing hesitance with Erickson. I mean, who begins a systematic theology with “Humans…”?

Anon (#21): My point was merely that the Dutch Reformed tradition is about 300 years older than Kuyper (and Kuyper was no neo-Calvinist). Dr. Horton is an ordained minister of the URCNA and is, thus, Dutch Reformed (though he is not a Kuyperian himself — Dr. Godfrey is, who is also a URCNA minister, but not Dr. Horton, and neither are neo-Kuyperians). There are a good number of Dutch Reformed believers out there who would not at all appreciate hearing their tradition being equated with neo-Calvinism. Many neo-Calvinists are Dutch Reformed; not all Dutch Reformed are neo-Calvinists.

This is a reply to Paul Bruggink’s first comment.