tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post452332458819849362..comments2023-04-14T04:28:54.000-04:00Comments on Reformed Apologist: John Frame on Michael Horton's "Christless Christianity"Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-58798559407413576492014-01-05T21:17:37.949-05:002014-01-05T21:17:37.949-05:00I have little time to delve into both your blog ar...<i>I have little time to delve into both your blog archives and refer back to the sources to see how accurate you may be.</i><br /><br />Hugh,<br /><br />If you want to see if I'm accurate on R2K, for instance, there's not much more I can do than refer you to interactions I've had with people like Darryl Hart on this Blog. It would seem that you want to check whether I'm accurate yet you don't want to take the time to see whether I'm accurate. Seems a hopeless case. <br /><br /><i>I would have hoped you might provide me a link or two to your succinct synopses & insightful critiques.</i><br /><br />Try the tags that are on the sidebar. <br /><br /><i>That you had not read Horton, and merely presupposed his errors as well as the Frame review's soundness isn't terribly helpful, informationally.</i><br /><br />Ah, but I have read Horton and do interact with some of his mistakes on this site, like his mistakes about logical conditions and the covenant of grace. <br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-53358740703976875082014-01-03T11:34:53.114-05:002014-01-03T11:34:53.114-05:00Thanks, R.A.
I have little time to delve into bot...Thanks, R.A.<br /><br />I have little time to delve into both your blog archives and refer back to the sources to see how accurate you may be. I would have hoped you might provide me a link or two to your succinct synopses & insightful critiques.<br /><br />That you had not read Horton, and merely presupposed his errors as well as the Frame review's soundness isn't terribly helpful, informationally.<br /><br />So, I offer the following as one who's read <i>Christless Christianity,</i> to one who likes information: <br /><br />1. Was Frame's Review of Horton's "Christless Christianity" On Target? ~ <br />http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/11/11/was-frames-review-of-hortons-christless-christianity-on-target/<br /><br />2. Frame's anti-Hortonism weighed & found wanting: www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2009/10/22/a-response-to-professor-john-frame/<br /><br />3. One of your own <i>ecclesia</i> (and more fun than anyone): http://oldlife.org/2009/10/erdman%e2%80%99s-passive-aggressive-step-grandson-in-law/<br /><br />Yours,<br />Hugh McCannHugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-45752579509451297552014-01-01T13:46:27.435-05:002014-01-01T13:46:27.435-05:00Hi Hugh,
I'll assume you know their positions...Hi Hugh,<br /><br />I'll assume you know their positions on these matters. Accordingly, all that's left is to refute those positions, which I've done all over this Blog both positively and negatively. For the sake of progress, I might suggest you look for those discussions on this Blog. <br /><br />There is one exception to the matter, which would be the confusion over Middle Knowledge and Open Theism. That can be found on Scott's blog here.<br />http://heidelblog.net/2010/04/molinism-and-westminster-seminary-california/ <br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-27881947585828878792014-01-01T13:12:57.642-05:002014-01-01T13:12:57.642-05:00RE Ron,
Please indicate how these assertions are ...RE Ron,<br /><br />Please indicate how these assertions are true, <i>i.e.</i> please direct us to evidence & arguments for them.<br /><br /><i>WSC is wrong on Natural Law; <br />wrong on Two Kingdom theology; <br />wrong on the Covenant of Works; <br />wrong on Redemptive Historical preaching; <br />wrong on Molinism; <br />wrong on Law-Gospel; <br />wrong on John Frame...</i><br /><br />Thank you,<br />Hugh McCannHugh McCannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03267834741936303800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-12731828840961394742013-05-16T16:15:03.655-04:002013-05-16T16:15:03.655-04:00Tough? How so? Extreme remarks, as you put it, vio...Tough? How so? Extreme remarks, as you put it, violate the ninth commandment. We can work together best by not being downright reckless. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-60855324518076373692013-05-16T15:51:43.452-04:002013-05-16T15:51:43.452-04:00You guys are tough I also don't know if you mi...You guys are tough I also don't know if you mix with the church st large, I mix with many of the "other side" the charismatic, word of faith, missional and found Hortons remarks although a little extreme, very helpful, most of what Frame said would not even be understood by most ordinary Evangelicals, fact is we, all of us are in a mess, so let's try to solve the problem and beg God to help us :-) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-32516860779904941132012-12-12T20:22:44.443-05:002012-12-12T20:22:44.443-05:00Hi Puritan Lad,
I think Frame is accurate in his ...Hi Puritan Lad,<br /><br />I think Frame is accurate in his depiction. I don't agree with all the conclusions he draws but I do think he states the facts correctly. Horton is sloppy in his generalizations and as John points out Mike often ends up giving back with the other hand that which he took in the first place. Mike is a pop-theologian and radio host. I have no use for such a personality teaching at a seminary. He's an historian at best. <br /><br />As for Hart, I agree with many of his conclusions but how he arrives at them sometimes is another matter. He is not a critical thinker by any stretch. Both he and Mike should be sitting at John's feet. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-8787404408861478292012-12-12T17:12:03.320-05:002012-12-12T17:12:03.320-05:00I have read Frame's book "Escondido Theol...I have read Frame's book "Escondido Theology", and often wonder if both sides are painting each other with a Broad brush. On one hand, Horton's criticism (I haven't read the book either) of American Christianity may well be justified though I wouldn't necessarily refer to all churches as "Christless" though they may have serious errors.<br /><br />I think that Horton and D.G. Hart (whose book I have read) are reacting to "seeker-sensitive", entertainment based, man-centered worship. Maybe they take it too far, or maybe it's a matter of symantics. For example, Frame criticizes Hart for stating that the church should not seek to be "relevant". I guess it depends on what one means by "relevant". As Hart states, worship is the time when the church declares it's "other-worldliness", not it's "relevance". On that point, I agree with Hart.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-73988485451750164612012-08-20T14:01:23.464-04:002012-08-20T14:01:23.464-04:00Yes, Mike's broad brush gets him in trouble.Yes, Mike's broad brush gets him in trouble. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-10292937813292445692012-08-08T17:15:00.137-04:002012-08-08T17:15:00.137-04:00"5. God promises us no earthly blessings, onl..."5. God promises us no earthly blessings, only heavenly ones, and to desire earthly blessings is a “theology of glory,” deserving condemnation."<br /><br />Impossible to live consistently with this, thank God.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260090304918987038noreply@blogger.com