A Daily Dose of Horton

Since announcing my decision to read Horton’s new Christian Faith, I’ve found myself reading it almost daily.  You know, just small portions with a pencil in hand, marking a few things as I go along.

For example, as a justification of the volume’s subtitle, A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way,  and the goal of good theology, Horton writes,

As we will see more fully, the older theologians of the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras were so convinced that their interpretations fell far short of the majesty of God that they called their summaries and systems “our humble theology” and “a theology for pilgrims on the way.”  (p. 13)

Or regarding the contrast between what the sixteenth-century Reformers like Martin Luther termed the theology of glory, on the one hand, and the theology of the cross, on the other:

While a theology of glory presumes to scale the walls of God’s heavenly chamber, a theology of the cross will always recognize that although we cannot reach God, he can reach us and has done so in his preached and written Word, in which the Incarnate Word is wrapped as in swaddling cloths”  (p. 51, italics added)

Now back to Horton…

This entry was posted in Martin Luther, Michael S. Horton, Theology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A Daily Dose of Horton

  1. Brian LePort says:

    So I take you are enjoying Horton’s work? Do you recommend it? How does it stack up to Erickson and other evangelicals?

  2. T.C. R says:

    Yeah, Horton is good and I do commend it. But I still think Grudem’s remains the more user-friendly of the two. As for Erickson’s, I think it will continue to fill its niche. As a side note, Horton has engaged your friend Gadamer at the epistemological level. 😉

  3. Bobby Grow says:

    I don’t think Horton compares to either Erickson or Grudem in theology. I’m positive that Horton would see Erickson and Grudem as “Evangelical Theologies” and his as historically “Reformed Theology.”

    Have you given up on Evangelical Calvinism, TCR? Also, would you consider yourself “Covenantal” in the Horton shape?

  4. T.C. R says:


    Yes, Horton writes from a Reformed perspective. In fact Horton says, “This volume is an attempt to explore that faith [Christian faith] as it is summarized in the confessions of Reformed Christianity” (p. 30).

    I’ll have to explore EC at a later time. As for being “Covenantal” in a Horton shape, only as a model but differences as to specifics, largely in the area of applications.

  5. Bobby Grow says:

    Probably in a more Wright[ian] applied way, would you say 😉 ? Just playing, a little. If you ever get sick of me messing around about Wright or anything (because I do with you), let me know; and I’ll stop, TC! Seriously.

    Yeah, Horton and the WHI crowd are usually rather vocal about their approach to theology.

  6. Brian LePort says:

    @T.C.: Does he take a position favorable toward the great Gadamer? If not, he is starting on my bad side! 🙂

    I am still exploring Gadamer myself. I plan on reading Ricoeur soon as well.

  7. T.C. R says:


    Not good – a kind of “demythologizing” charge. But he does interact with Ricoeur more favorable. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s