Does Mike Horton really expect us to believe this crap???? PUH-leeze! The internet is the greatest thing that has happened since Gutenberg invented the printing press and the Bible was widely distributed! Now theology can be openly debated; bullshit can be immediately revealed as bullshit all in a matter of hours. Why? Because what folks write in print can now be quoted openly and spread widely in a matter of hours. In short, what you say, write, or whatever else can now be checked against the standards and writings available on computer. The technological revolution has given the laity the power to question the authority of those in power in denominational leadership positions and even question the authority of their pastors, elders and sessions. It's no longer true that the local church is the only source of information in theological and biblical matters. If that bothers Mike Horton, Matt Chandler, and the heresiarch, Tim Keller--so be it.
This article makes me wonder if Horton had anything to do with R. Scott Clark's removing of the Heidelblog? If the truth really matters then blogs by folks like R. Scott Clark are invaluable to the end of convincing the elect who are yet to be converted. Horton seems to think he and his cronies should have a monopoly on theology. Sorry guys. It's too late:) God is sovereign and God would have it that the free exchange of theological ideas would take place. As the cliche goes, "Iron sharpens iron."
“I found the internet to make quiet people extremely brave and people who are not informed really emboldened in their opinion and the ability to add things and say things anonymously,” said Chandler who otherwise agreed that the internet is the future.
Keller observed that internet has reduced the time lapse between publication of a book, its review and the feedback it got from peers and general readers. In the pre-internet era responses to a book were generally measured, though they might have been occasionally nasty. But with the internet, respondents are breaking all the rules necessary for a well-thought-out feedback and the comments are coming in short order.
“It’s a good place to get information but a terrible place to do debating,” Keller said.
Read the rest of Horton and the gang's remarks here: Pastors Outline How Christians Should Disagree, Christian News
Posts
15 comments:
Hear! Hear!
I don't believe most theological blogs are anonymous. I have always openly acknowledged who I am. In fact, I anticipated that excuse when I decided to be completely open about who I am.
Professional theologians tend to be more like politicians than anything else. The Protestant Reformers, on the other hand, were willing to die for their doctrinal and theological disagreements with Rome and the papists. Too bad we don't see any professional theologians with that sort of conviction these days.
Dr. Rod Rosenbladt is a professional theologian, I admire, respect and listen to. I am also glad the internet allows me to read the Book of Concord online.
Exactly, Eric. If someone claims the Reformed or Lutheran confessions say so and so it is fairly easy to check that online. If someone quotes Calvin or Luther, it's fairly easy to find the context of the quote online or in some low cost electronic book format.
If someone writes a book that causes a furor, everyone can read firsthand and secondhand what the issue is about. I fail to see why Horton, Chandler or Keller would find themselves beyond critical review on the internet. Welcome to the real world.
The internet has given us the opportunity to spread the Protestant Reformation again. Calvinism is no longer on the sidelines. Neither is Lutheranism. Albeit, I think Lutherans are illogical and inconsistent.
Your theology on the priesthood of all believers is wrong. It does not give you the authority to question anyone and everyone. It gives you the capability of petitioning God himself, through Christ, in humility. To get to the point where you are directing profanity at appointed shepherds who are simply pointing out that the internet has a way of causing knee-jerk reactions from people who feign themselves learned, kind of proves the point.
Thank-you for once again demonstrating that you have no clue as to what the Protestant Reformation was all about, Billy. Thanks also for summarizing for us the papist position.
Pentecostal and charismatics try the same "touch not mine anointed" bullshit. But it's still bullshit. The Scriptures are the final authority, not popes, churches, councils, bishops or presbyteries. While creeds and confessions of faith are authoritative, they are subject to Scripture and not the other way around. Creeds and confessions can and do err just as church councils do.
What is more, Ligon Duncan, Mike Horton, Tim Keller, and Matt Chandler are not popes nor do they have any authority over believers. While they may have limited authority in their own congregations and/or denominations that is the extent of their authority.
Charlie
Luther utilized blunt language. I don't see anything wrong with using a word that expresses exactly what I think about the matter. It conveys and communicates rather nicely, does it not?
You might want to read this excellent article over at Wikipedia on the priesthood of believers: The Priesthood of All Believers.
Great stuff, Charlie.
How in the world is it papist to criticize a method of communication which allows people who aren't always bright to speak dogmatically and without consequence?
Your mind is so steeped in anti-Roman everyting, that you somehow make it the Vatican's fault that three Protestant ministers are questioning the internet as the best means of doing scholarship. I do understand the Protestant Reformation though I don't always agree with it. But I don't need to in order to understand this isn't even a problem of Christianity.
Every Christian has the duty to preach the Gospel and to call out those who preach false doctrine, Billy. I'm calling you out. You are a pelagian, not a Christian.
Sorry. In order to be a Pelagian I would have to believe that my will was unaffected by the Fall of Adam. I would have to believe that my soul at birth was tabula rosa, and not infected with original sin. I would have to believe that I could choose Christ without the grace of God first intervening in my heart and upon my will. I would have to believe that my Lord suffered on the cross only as an example and not as a substitute for my transgressions. Since I steadfastly reject all these things, I am not a Pelagian.
Furthermore, you are still not addressing the question. Of course, every Christian has the duty to preach the gospel-it follows plainly from the Lord's commission to the disciples. But the question here is whether or not those who are untrained have the right to question those who have been. For instance, I read a commenter who quoted Justin Martyr's remark that Satan had placed the myths of Ancient Rome and Greece into the world to cause people to disbelieve the true story of the Messiah. The commenter was pointing it out gleefully to show how silly Christians are. Regardless of whether Martry's assertion is correct, the commenter needed to be refuted. Had I not stopped by the blog, no such refutation might have taken place. The point is, the internet can have the exact opposite affect that you write about. It can allow an amateur with an agenda to pull quotations out of context and go unchecked. Five people stop by and they assume what the commenter said is true and continue to believe and spread falsity. This is the problem the internet can pose. It's not ivory towerism...just a plea for good scholarship.
Billy, ok you got me. You're a semi-pelagian. Same thing. Pelagianism is still pelagianism. The fact that you think Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics are "saved" and "Christian" is proof enough that you have no clue what the Gospel is about.
Secondly, your premise is still wrong. When a plow boy knows the Bible better than the pope then we have a great example of the priesthood of believers and sola Scriptura.
I might also point out that untrained lay persons often understand the Gospel while folks like yourself equivocate, dissimulate, and conflate the truth with lies. It does not take a genius to understand that justification is by faith alone, that Christ died for the elect alone, and that Scripture alone is the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Yes, often lay persons get this while the scribes and Pharisees understand nothing except endless quibbling and endless rabbit trails leading to nowhere.
Finally, I should point out to you that I have been trained by the finest false prophets in the world. Maybe that's why I call it bullshit. Because that is what it is.
Yes, I've heard James D. G. Dunn lecture. I've heard Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jergen Moltmann lecture as well. My opinion of them is that they are educated idiots who have no clue what the Gospel is about. I've heard redneck Baptist preachers who knew the Bible better than those fools.
Untrained? Yes, maybe those who are untrained do not know all the ins and outs of Hebrew and Greek or systematic theology. But they often know the Reformed catechisms and confessions better than the scribes and Pharisees.
Another point is that you forget that God is sovereign. Not one of God's elect will be finally deceived by any false teaching--whether it be on the internet or in your local papist synagogue of satan.
I for one will never compromise with Arminians, semi-pelagians, Anglo-Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic papists. Yes, this means you, Billy. You seem to refuse to wear the spiritual scarlet letter "A". It doesn't matter. Facts are facts. You're a papist sympathizer. I stand for the Gospel of grace and the sovereignty of God.
I might add that one does not need to be a scholar to understand theology. That's why the internet is so valuable. Sure, there is disinformation out there. But most folks know how to use discernment in these matters.
Sean Gerety makes some excellent points in a comment posted over at Johannes Weslianus: Sean Gerety on Free Press or Internet Repression?
Post a Comment