tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post7393503722020293638..comments2024-03-27T20:28:38.015-04:00Comments on Reasonable Christian: Mike Horton on the "Myth" of the Inspired BibleCharlie J. Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-10168705535889196992012-09-26T20:40:15.492-04:002012-09-26T20:40:15.492-04:00Was C.S. Lewis An Anglo-Catholic?<a href="http://www.weswhite.net/2011/03/was-c-s-lewis-an-anglo-catholic/" rel="nofollow">Was C.S. Lewis An Anglo-Catholic?</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-24470227518932405162012-09-26T20:33:41.687-04:002012-09-26T20:33:41.687-04:00Thomas, that question is general knowledge and the...Thomas, that question is general knowledge and therefore I do not need to do research or provide footnotes to justify my position. Anyone who has read <b>Mere Christianity</b> and is familiar with the Anglo-Catholic emphasis on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-Lambeth_Quadrilateral" rel="nofollow">Lambeth Quadrilateral</a> knows that Lewis never even mentions the doctrine of Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-4727363166366575472012-09-26T17:47:33.448-04:002012-09-26T17:47:33.448-04:00Re: C. S. Lewis- where does he disavow or deny jus...Re: C. S. Lewis- where does he disavow or deny justification by faith alone, or affirm the contrary?Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-63696925488936482282012-09-26T14:17:42.551-04:002012-09-26T14:17:42.551-04:00Thomas,since I reviewed Horton's book as a who...Thomas,since I reviewed Horton's book as a whole, it follows that I based my views on the knowledge I have of his basic theology from a Van Tilian perspective and not just on one teeny weeny word. You seem to think that Horton's views are not generally known or that he hasn't given himself away many times over.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-8757073975557890512012-09-26T14:15:14.219-04:002012-09-26T14:15:14.219-04:00How do I know C. S. Lewis was unregenerate? Becau...How do I know C. S. Lewis was unregenerate? Because he believed a false gospel of works. How do you know a Mormon is unregenerate? Or a Buddhist? Do you see into their hearts/minds? OR do you judge by the doctrine they believe? Perhaps you believe that salvation is not based on doctrine but on some mystical experience??? Sorry, but mysticism isn't my theology. Salvation depends on Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-5543991912810046822012-09-26T12:45:58.970-04:002012-09-26T12:45:58.970-04:00I think you've misconstrued what I was talking...I think you've misconstrued what I was talking about with regard to logical necessity. You said you figured out their motives by logic, and I was saying that you could not get from their espousal of Van Tillianism to that knowledge of their motives by logic alone. The fact is, they may not see the implications of their view. People are frequently inconsistent, it doesn't mean they didn&#Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-13543153537991482632012-09-26T12:12:22.934-04:002012-09-26T12:12:22.934-04:00Thomas said:
"You keep carrying on about fab...Thomas said:<br /><br />"You keep carrying on about fables, myths and stories, but "fable" is a word introduced to the discussion by you, "myth" is clearly being used in an unconventional way by Horton and Lewis and "story" doesn't necessarily mean true or false."<br /><br />That would be odd because the Greek word used in the verses I quoted above is &Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-80968072420085188822012-09-26T12:05:13.913-04:002012-09-26T12:05:13.913-04:00I would further add that the case with C. S. Lewis...I would further add that the case with C. S. Lewis is much worse than you intimate. Lewis was unregenerate and promoted what can only be called "papist" like doctrines. Anglo-Catholism, Lewis' preferred religion, denies all five of the solas of the Protestant Reformation, including justification by faith alone. It is therefore highly misleading for Horton to quote Lewis as if he Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-57561165998795930112012-09-26T12:02:30.904-04:002012-09-26T12:02:30.904-04:00The logical "implication", Thomas, is th...The logical "implication", Thomas, is that if at "no single point" God's knowledge and our knowledge coincide or make any direct contact univocally, then we cannot know anything whatsoever. If 2 + 2 = 4 for us and something else for God then God must be irrational or illogical. In which case, that would lead to skepticism. I would suggest that you re-investigate the Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-42118340581288043762012-09-26T11:24:45.400-04:002012-09-26T11:24:45.400-04:00There is no logical necessity which leads from the...There is no logical necessity which leads from the premise of their espousal of Van Tillianism to the conclusion that they want to deny the authority of Scripture. That is unjustified speculation. They might, for example, want to protect God's transcendence and just be misguided in what that should mean.<br /><br />C. S. Lewis is a good writer and I believe some of his books contain valuable Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-73599963525974294282012-09-26T10:15:44.237-04:002012-09-26T10:15:44.237-04:00See also the comments of Dr. David Engelsma here: ...See also the comments of Dr. David Engelsma here: <a href="http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/genesis111.html" rel="nofollow">Genesis 1-11: Myth or History?</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-26442469609409304922012-09-25T23:42:28.846-04:002012-09-25T23:42:28.846-04:00Reminds me of Pentecostals telling stories or anec...Reminds me of Pentecostals telling stories or anecdotes about miracles. Of course most of them are speaking evangelistically. Benny Hinn can "raise the dead." It's an inspiring story and it's true. Depending on how you define truth, that is. Von Rad called Genesis 1-11 an inspired "saga". But he certainly didn't believe the world flood happened or that Adam Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-84237356984255370752012-09-25T23:35:45.626-04:002012-09-25T23:35:45.626-04:00Logic. It doesn't take a genius to figure out...Logic. It doesn't take a genius to figure out when someone has an agenda. It is not that Horton and other advocates of Van Til's theology do not understand Clark. It's that they refuse to accept the final authority of Scripture.<br /><br />Why else question the fact that Scripture IS God's univocal Word. Horton continually asserts that trying to understand God's Word Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-76192324636693640092012-09-25T17:20:15.981-04:002012-09-25T17:20:15.981-04:00Horton may, quite possibly does, misrepresent Carl...Horton may, quite possibly does, misrepresent Carl Henry and Gordon H. Clark. Doesn't make him neo-orthodox, I think it more likely means he hasn't taken the time to properly understand them.<br /><br /><i>Horton's attack is meant to be a smoke screen for his capitulations to neo-orthodoxy.</i><br /><br />How do you know what his motives are?Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-2384823087868325142012-09-25T17:20:08.669-04:002012-09-25T17:20:08.669-04:00Again, I refer you to Horton's book. And by t...Again, I refer you to Horton's book. And by the way, I am not the only one criticizing Horton. Lane Tipton was critical of Horton's application of speech-act theory to Scripture. After reading Horton's book I have to agree that there are problems with that theory, namely that Horton strips Scripture of practically all rational content and makes God's speech some sort of Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-70765399443318006202012-09-25T17:17:14.401-04:002012-09-25T17:17:14.401-04:00"John, tell them the story about the time you..."John, tell them the story about the time you accidentally poured custard all over our neighbour's elderly mother." Is the "story" in question necessarily false? To say so is to abuse the word.<br /><br />The word "myth" is clearly being re-figured here by Lewis and Horton. Once again, it's not fair to accuse them of neo-orthodoxy on this basis. They are Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-47929394508839929122012-09-25T17:17:10.527-04:002012-09-25T17:17:10.527-04:00Search Results for Horton's Book<a href="http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/#uds-search-results" rel="nofollow">Search Results for Horton's Book</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-59184049099591618452012-09-25T17:15:55.996-04:002012-09-25T17:15:55.996-04:00Well, NO, that is NOT what Horton is contending. ...Well, NO, that is NOT what Horton is contending. Horton on every other page of his systematic theology attacks the theology of Carl Henry and Gordon H. Clark as "rationalist". The charge is untrue but Horton's attack is meant to be a smoke screen for his capitulations to neo-orthodoxy. Scripture is univocally THE Word of God and is not an analogy of God's Word. Neither is Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-34311179917314834702012-09-25T17:13:06.984-04:002012-09-25T17:13:06.984-04:00That the "facts" don't speak for the...That the "facts" don't speak for themselves is exactly what Horton is also contending! And if we require the Bible to understand these events, as Horton says, then one can only assume that he believes it to be God's explanation thereof, which implies an orthodox doctrine of Scripture. You might say that an analogical doctrine of Scripture leads to neo-orthodoxy, but to accuse Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-5137236159501120552012-09-25T17:12:40.526-04:002012-09-25T17:12:40.526-04:00The Bible is not a "story" or a "fa...The Bible is not a "story" or a "fable" or a "myth". It is THE inspired Word of God and everything it records in every detail is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Genesis 1-11 is narrative history, not "inspired" saga or "story".Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-83263147346268867582012-09-25T17:11:16.281-04:002012-09-25T17:11:16.281-04:00Jack, the logical implications of saying that the ...Jack, the logical implications of saying that the Bible is an inspired "story" speaks for itself. The Bible is either factually and historically true or it is not. The idea that the Bible is "inspired myth" is a neo-orthodox doctrine. Barth could claim that the "facts" of the Bible are true. But Barth redefined salvation history as an existential encounter and Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-64712871113847111872012-09-25T17:03:28.491-04:002012-09-25T17:03:28.491-04:00The "facts" do not speak for themselves,...The "facts" do not speak for themselves, according to Gordon H. Clark. The special revelation of Holy Scripture is logical and rational and reason and faith are not opposed to one another. Faith precedes reason but faith seeks understanding and God can be known through the logical propositions and truth claims of the Scriptures.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-18581738243810503472012-09-25T17:01:33.595-04:002012-09-25T17:01:33.595-04:00I refer you to my review of Horton's book, The...I refer you to my review of Horton's book, <a href="http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2012/02/critical-review-of-christian-faith.html" rel="nofollow">The Christian Faith</a>. It's scattered around in various parts. <br /><br />My beef with Horton is his slim pretense of being in agreement with the old school Princeton theologians. However, he only briefly mentions B.B. Warfield Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-61354677346988845722012-09-25T16:49:24.534-04:002012-09-25T16:49:24.534-04:00Where does Horton say any of the things you claim ...Where does Horton say any of the things you claim he said? In particular, no phrase about "literal truth", or "inspired myth" (the latter of which you put in quotation marks yet where is it found?)<br /><br />I don't believe your claim is a reasonable exegesis of Horton. He is not denying the historicity of Christianity, but rather he is questioning whether it is Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-58607897851704379442012-09-25T16:49:05.097-04:002012-09-25T16:49:05.097-04:00Charlie,
I think you are misconstruing Michael Ho...Charlie,<br /><br />I think you are misconstruing Michael Horton's words. He nowhere states the position that you claim is his, i.e. <i>Mike Horton states plainly that he does not believe the Bible is literally true but is instead "inspired myth".</i> You put quotes around those last two words. They aren't in the passage you cite, neither does he state plainly what you claim Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.com