What do you think?
Rate this book
Covenant series
People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology
In this final volume of a four-volume series, Michael Horton explores the origin, mission, and destiny of the church through the lens of covenantal theology. Arguing that the history of Israel and the covenant of grace provide the proper context for New Testament ecclesiology, Horton then shows how the church is constituted through the ascension of Christ, the Pentecost, and the Parousia and how it continues to live by the Word and sacraments. Horton's goal is to demonstrate the potential of a covenantal model for integrating the themes of the church as people and as place, with an urgent concern for contemporary practice.
336 pages, Paperback
First published September 2, 2008
15 people are currently reading
154 people want to read
About the author
Michael Scott Horton
86 books333 followersDr. Horton has taught apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1998. In addition to his work at the Seminary, he is the president of White Horse Inn, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. Before coming to WSC, Dr. Horton completed a research fellowship at Yale University Divinity School. Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than twenty books, including a series of studies in Reformed dogmatics published by Westminster John Knox.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 28, 2021
Constructive theology of the church at its best.
June 16, 2021
2021 reads: #19
Rating: 4.5 Stars
This is a rich and fascinating exploration of covenant ecclesiology. There is much to be gained even if the whole covenantal framework is not embraced.
This book is filled with insights as Horton both engages the best minds from church history as well as challenging contemporary expressions of church.
This requires focus and attention, but is ultimately richly rewarding as we consider the great gift of salvation found in Christ, and the life of gratitude that flows from it in anticipation of our Saviour's glorious return.
Rating: 4.5 Stars
This is a rich and fascinating exploration of covenant ecclesiology. There is much to be gained even if the whole covenantal framework is not embraced.
This book is filled with insights as Horton both engages the best minds from church history as well as challenging contemporary expressions of church.
This requires focus and attention, but is ultimately richly rewarding as we consider the great gift of salvation found in Christ, and the life of gratitude that flows from it in anticipation of our Saviour's glorious return.
January 16, 2014
Horton finishes his unique project by examining the role that “covenant” plays in ecclesial discussions, yet the book is not simply another exercise in “how covenant theology proves infant baptism.” It is much more nuanced and detailed. Horton has demonstrated more than any other recent Reformed theologian in capably responding to recent movements in theology from Radical Orthodoxy, a renewed Eastern Orthodox apologetics, and the contributions from more anabaptistic thinkers.
Horton’s whole project is taken from a line of Paul Tillich’s philosophy of religion (Horton is simply illustrating a point, not using Tillich’s theology!). Tillich saw two ways of “doing religion:” overcoming estrangement (varieties of Platonism) and meeting a stranger (Horton’s more covenantal approach. Horton continues this analysis into the church and shows us an ecclesiology that is based off the announcement of the Ascended Lord.
While it is common to assert that the Church is a creature of the Word, Horton points out the similarities between this position and speech-act theory. God’s word is not only pedagogical, but performative: it (He!) creates the Church (Horton 39 n.3). This theory helps us overcome the (supposed) impasse between actual reality and forensic declaration (which lies at the heart of critiques of justification by faith alone as legal fiction): “When God declares something to be so, the Spirit brings about a corresponding reality within us” (45). This means, as Horton puts it, that reality’s character is “linguistically mediated” and that speech is effectual.
If we see the Word as a creation of the Church, then we can’t avoid the conclusion: “Wherever the totus Christus idea conflates Christ as head with his ecclesial body, Christ’s external word to his church can easily become an instance of the church simply talking to itself” (84). Horton then draws the devastating conclusion: “And since we are dealing wtih speech about salvation, can this mean anything other than the church saving itself (and perhaps the world?) by its good praxis?”
Ratifying the Treaty: Signs and Seals
The Bible does not speak of sacraments in metaphysical language but in language that connotes eschatological presence.
Words and signs create a covenant. They do not “fuse” essences (101).
There is no nature-grace problem but a sin-grace problem.
Horton recapitulates the argument of his book in chapter 6. Chapter 1 argued the where of Christ’s presence (Ascension), chapters 2-5 argued the how of Christ’s presence (Covenantal Speech-Act), and chapter 6 argues the what of identity on earth. In what sense is the church one and many?
Horton makes several key distinctions between “unity” and “unicity.” Unity is a healthy respecting of differences best seen in a covenantal community. This can only be by the Spirit. Noting Leslie Newbigin’s poignant remark, when we make the church an “extension of the Incarnation,” we confuse sarx (Christ’s flesh) with soma (his body as the church). In such a move any union is at the level of fused essences flowing downward in a hierarchy (as is necessary in all Platonic and Dionysian visions; 187). Rather, our union with Christ is through the Spirit in anticipation of the age to come.
This has important practical applications. When faced with high-church claims to “unity over Protestant divisions,” one may rightly ask if unity is even possible on a Roman or Orthodox position? Does not their own version of unity reduce all to sameness, in a sense losing unity altogether for unicity? If they hold to a Dionysian ontology in which differences are overcome through an ascent on the divine ladder (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 34), do they not lose the many to the one? Indeed, to borrow a line from the postmoderns, does not differance become violence?
Throughout this discussion Horton engages in some very important analyses of John Zizioulas and Miroslav Volf, thus adding a particular relevance to his work
Poignant remarks:
Low church versions confuse Christ with the believer, while high church versions collapse Christ into the community (92).
Webb: Words could spring forth as praise because God has already said the Word that releases us from our sin (The Divine Voice, 107).
Some critical remarks:
Horton tries to read Jenson as a thorough Hegelian because Jenson denies our participation in God is not an instantiation of an eternal form but rather a vehicle for the divine (92-93). Granted, Jenson’s Hegelian language isn’t the best, but Horton’s critique is odd since Jenson seems to be criticizing the same Platonism as Horton is.
Horton correctly condemns the political maneuvering of Urban II (259ff), but fundamentally misses the point and result of the first crusade. While many knights did see themselves as waging war against the infidel, the first crusade is better seen as a sustained defensive measure against Islam (remember, the Muslims invaded first). Further, he then invokes--ironically, in almost a religious manner--liberal democracies litany of “bad guy countries:” South Africa, “colonialism,” and Serbia.
Normally, I would let it slide but since I probably know more about Serbia than 90% of Americans, I feel compelled to expand the point. Serbs before 1999 simply did not see themselves as King David. Milosevic remained an atheist until shortly before his murder in The Hague. He only claimed the mantle of Tsar Lazar on Kosovo Poltje in the final days of the war--and that for political, not religious reasons. As Orthodox theologian Vladimir Moss points out, Serbia was the most secular post-Communist country in the 1990s (with also the highest abortion rate). As C.I.A. analyst John Schindler (Unholy Terror) remarks, “The sad irony is that Serbia was already close to Hilary Clinton’s vision of a secular state in the new world order.” To make the irony worse, Serbia only became interested in its religious heritage as a response to Hillary’s War. I only belabor the point because it seems to contrast with Horton’s earlier (and admirable) resisting the collapse of cult and cultus. Is not his endorsing--however seriously he meant the statement--the litany of liberal democracy a similar collapsing? (To be fair, he later critiqued the nigh-ubiquitous equation of the Kingdom with liberal democracy, p. 287 n.100) I share his suspicion to Christian Reconstructionism, for example, and I am equally skeptical of Van Tillians’ chanting “No neutrality,” but this may be the one area they actually have a point.
Concerning the Temple (or “Temple-speak” as I shall call it), Horton is correct to note that the person and work of Christ replaced the Temple economy with its sacrifices (268ff). Further, he is correct that we should not as Christians seek a rebuilt Temple. While Horton’s final conclusions may indeed be correct, the inference does not follow that because Revelation “spiritualizes” (whatever that word means) a Temple that all prophetic references to “Temple-speak” are necessarily about Jesus. What then is the point of a temple, one may ask? The answer to that question hinges on several eschatological presuppositions, but those aside, one may posit that a newly-built temple, while having no relevance for Christian worship (indeed, it would be blasphemy) is necessary to Anti-Christ’s false covenant with the Jews.
Oddly enough, Horton quotes Jurgen Moltmann with approval (Moltmann elsewhere has given one of the most penetrating critiques of ideological amillennialism). At this point, almost without warning (270-271), Horton shifts from his “spiritual temple” to why Christian activism in politics is wrong.
While his section on “Holy War” has much promise, I am skeptical of Horton’s invoking Meredith Kline’s “intrusion ethics” (272). Whatever merits intrusion ethics may have, and while it does mitigate some of the harsher passages in the OT for today’s application, I doubt it would have been of much comfort to the Canaanites! (Admittedly, Horton realizes “intrusion” is a terrible ethical term, as it implies relativistic ethics. His use of “irruption,” while perhaps not allaying all of the difficulties in his position, is much better and doesn’t have the situation-ethics overtones). While “irruption ethics” sounds good in broad, general outlines, it is by no means clear that it automatically follows “mean texts” (which itself is a subjective judgment). Horton, in responding to Kant, says that “imprecatory psalms” are delayed because God delayed his judgment (277). Maybe so, but he is reading that into the passage.
Intrusion ethics becomes particularly troubling in this quote, “Other examples of intrusion ethics appear in the ‘sacrifice’ of Isaac and Hosea’s marriage” (ibid). Admittedly, these are ethical nightmares (the former more so than the latter) for any systematic theologian, but Horton’s position at this point seems to reduce to a voluntaristic Divine-command ethic, which is odd given his commitment to natural law.
While perhaps not a criticism of Horton, in another place we see how tenuous the sharp divide between cult and cultus is. While we should be wary of “killin ‘em terrorists for Jesus” (GOP?), Horton himself shows, even if does not realize it, how difficult it is to dichotomize one’s life: “As throughout the history recounted above, the cosmic battle is waged through earthly agents; personal and institutional; religious and social; cultic and cultural; rhetorical and political. Yet the church knows the real enemy behind behind these penultimate agents” (283). He is correct that this battle is taking place in history. And he is correct that we cannot take an AK-47 against the “real agents,” but the unspoken conclusion hangs heavy in the room, a conclusion I suspect he would disavow: may we not, acting as good citizens in the Kingdom of God’s Left Hand (actually a good name for a political party!), take the AK-47 against the penultimate agents? On a 2 Kingdoms ethic it’s hard to see why not (all other things . Even more, as Horton states this battle is in history, we are historical beings (per his correct critique of Karl Barth), we cannot divorce our lives from this history. As Aragorn tells King Theoden, “Open war is upon you, whether you wish it or not.” This has always been the fatal flaw in neo-Two Kingdoms ethics: as long as the state says its not acting as the church, it’s hard to see how any one program the state is wrong. Natural law ethics helps but only to an extent.
Horton’s whole project is taken from a line of Paul Tillich’s philosophy of religion (Horton is simply illustrating a point, not using Tillich’s theology!). Tillich saw two ways of “doing religion:” overcoming estrangement (varieties of Platonism) and meeting a stranger (Horton’s more covenantal approach. Horton continues this analysis into the church and shows us an ecclesiology that is based off the announcement of the Ascended Lord.
While it is common to assert that the Church is a creature of the Word, Horton points out the similarities between this position and speech-act theory. God’s word is not only pedagogical, but performative: it (He!) creates the Church (Horton 39 n.3). This theory helps us overcome the (supposed) impasse between actual reality and forensic declaration (which lies at the heart of critiques of justification by faith alone as legal fiction): “When God declares something to be so, the Spirit brings about a corresponding reality within us” (45). This means, as Horton puts it, that reality’s character is “linguistically mediated” and that speech is effectual.
If we see the Word as a creation of the Church, then we can’t avoid the conclusion: “Wherever the totus Christus idea conflates Christ as head with his ecclesial body, Christ’s external word to his church can easily become an instance of the church simply talking to itself” (84). Horton then draws the devastating conclusion: “And since we are dealing wtih speech about salvation, can this mean anything other than the church saving itself (and perhaps the world?) by its good praxis?”
Ratifying the Treaty: Signs and Seals
The Bible does not speak of sacraments in metaphysical language but in language that connotes eschatological presence.
Words and signs create a covenant. They do not “fuse” essences (101).
There is no nature-grace problem but a sin-grace problem.
Horton recapitulates the argument of his book in chapter 6. Chapter 1 argued the where of Christ’s presence (Ascension), chapters 2-5 argued the how of Christ’s presence (Covenantal Speech-Act), and chapter 6 argues the what of identity on earth. In what sense is the church one and many?
Horton makes several key distinctions between “unity” and “unicity.” Unity is a healthy respecting of differences best seen in a covenantal community. This can only be by the Spirit. Noting Leslie Newbigin’s poignant remark, when we make the church an “extension of the Incarnation,” we confuse sarx (Christ’s flesh) with soma (his body as the church). In such a move any union is at the level of fused essences flowing downward in a hierarchy (as is necessary in all Platonic and Dionysian visions; 187). Rather, our union with Christ is through the Spirit in anticipation of the age to come.
This has important practical applications. When faced with high-church claims to “unity over Protestant divisions,” one may rightly ask if unity is even possible on a Roman or Orthodox position? Does not their own version of unity reduce all to sameness, in a sense losing unity altogether for unicity? If they hold to a Dionysian ontology in which differences are overcome through an ascent on the divine ladder (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 34), do they not lose the many to the one? Indeed, to borrow a line from the postmoderns, does not differance become violence?
Throughout this discussion Horton engages in some very important analyses of John Zizioulas and Miroslav Volf, thus adding a particular relevance to his work
Poignant remarks:
Low church versions confuse Christ with the believer, while high church versions collapse Christ into the community (92).
Webb: Words could spring forth as praise because God has already said the Word that releases us from our sin (The Divine Voice, 107).
Some critical remarks:
Horton tries to read Jenson as a thorough Hegelian because Jenson denies our participation in God is not an instantiation of an eternal form but rather a vehicle for the divine (92-93). Granted, Jenson’s Hegelian language isn’t the best, but Horton’s critique is odd since Jenson seems to be criticizing the same Platonism as Horton is.
Horton correctly condemns the political maneuvering of Urban II (259ff), but fundamentally misses the point and result of the first crusade. While many knights did see themselves as waging war against the infidel, the first crusade is better seen as a sustained defensive measure against Islam (remember, the Muslims invaded first). Further, he then invokes--ironically, in almost a religious manner--liberal democracies litany of “bad guy countries:” South Africa, “colonialism,” and Serbia.
Normally, I would let it slide but since I probably know more about Serbia than 90% of Americans, I feel compelled to expand the point. Serbs before 1999 simply did not see themselves as King David. Milosevic remained an atheist until shortly before his murder in The Hague. He only claimed the mantle of Tsar Lazar on Kosovo Poltje in the final days of the war--and that for political, not religious reasons. As Orthodox theologian Vladimir Moss points out, Serbia was the most secular post-Communist country in the 1990s (with also the highest abortion rate). As C.I.A. analyst John Schindler (Unholy Terror) remarks, “The sad irony is that Serbia was already close to Hilary Clinton’s vision of a secular state in the new world order.” To make the irony worse, Serbia only became interested in its religious heritage as a response to Hillary’s War. I only belabor the point because it seems to contrast with Horton’s earlier (and admirable) resisting the collapse of cult and cultus. Is not his endorsing--however seriously he meant the statement--the litany of liberal democracy a similar collapsing? (To be fair, he later critiqued the nigh-ubiquitous equation of the Kingdom with liberal democracy, p. 287 n.100) I share his suspicion to Christian Reconstructionism, for example, and I am equally skeptical of Van Tillians’ chanting “No neutrality,” but this may be the one area they actually have a point.
Concerning the Temple (or “Temple-speak” as I shall call it), Horton is correct to note that the person and work of Christ replaced the Temple economy with its sacrifices (268ff). Further, he is correct that we should not as Christians seek a rebuilt Temple. While Horton’s final conclusions may indeed be correct, the inference does not follow that because Revelation “spiritualizes” (whatever that word means) a Temple that all prophetic references to “Temple-speak” are necessarily about Jesus. What then is the point of a temple, one may ask? The answer to that question hinges on several eschatological presuppositions, but those aside, one may posit that a newly-built temple, while having no relevance for Christian worship (indeed, it would be blasphemy) is necessary to Anti-Christ’s false covenant with the Jews.
Oddly enough, Horton quotes Jurgen Moltmann with approval (Moltmann elsewhere has given one of the most penetrating critiques of ideological amillennialism). At this point, almost without warning (270-271), Horton shifts from his “spiritual temple” to why Christian activism in politics is wrong.
While his section on “Holy War” has much promise, I am skeptical of Horton’s invoking Meredith Kline’s “intrusion ethics” (272). Whatever merits intrusion ethics may have, and while it does mitigate some of the harsher passages in the OT for today’s application, I doubt it would have been of much comfort to the Canaanites! (Admittedly, Horton realizes “intrusion” is a terrible ethical term, as it implies relativistic ethics. His use of “irruption,” while perhaps not allaying all of the difficulties in his position, is much better and doesn’t have the situation-ethics overtones). While “irruption ethics” sounds good in broad, general outlines, it is by no means clear that it automatically follows “mean texts” (which itself is a subjective judgment). Horton, in responding to Kant, says that “imprecatory psalms” are delayed because God delayed his judgment (277). Maybe so, but he is reading that into the passage.
Intrusion ethics becomes particularly troubling in this quote, “Other examples of intrusion ethics appear in the ‘sacrifice’ of Isaac and Hosea’s marriage” (ibid). Admittedly, these are ethical nightmares (the former more so than the latter) for any systematic theologian, but Horton’s position at this point seems to reduce to a voluntaristic Divine-command ethic, which is odd given his commitment to natural law.
While perhaps not a criticism of Horton, in another place we see how tenuous the sharp divide between cult and cultus is. While we should be wary of “killin ‘em terrorists for Jesus” (GOP?), Horton himself shows, even if does not realize it, how difficult it is to dichotomize one’s life: “As throughout the history recounted above, the cosmic battle is waged through earthly agents; personal and institutional; religious and social; cultic and cultural; rhetorical and political. Yet the church knows the real enemy behind behind these penultimate agents” (283). He is correct that this battle is taking place in history. And he is correct that we cannot take an AK-47 against the “real agents,” but the unspoken conclusion hangs heavy in the room, a conclusion I suspect he would disavow: may we not, acting as good citizens in the Kingdom of God’s Left Hand (actually a good name for a political party!), take the AK-47 against the penultimate agents? On a 2 Kingdoms ethic it’s hard to see why not (all other things . Even more, as Horton states this battle is in history, we are historical beings (per his correct critique of Karl Barth), we cannot divorce our lives from this history. As Aragorn tells King Theoden, “Open war is upon you, whether you wish it or not.” This has always been the fatal flaw in neo-Two Kingdoms ethics: as long as the state says its not acting as the church, it’s hard to see how any one program the state is wrong. Natural law ethics helps but only to an extent.
August 11, 2016
Do you find church boring? Liturgy lame? The sacraments stale? Chances are you are (a) addicted to an excitement-experience-driven culture, (b) have not read Mike Horton's fourth volume in this dogmatic tetralogy that will bite your face off. Seriously guys, put down the latest little cute book from Crossway or whatever on applying the gospel to your video gaming (no offense, I read them too) and sink your teeth into something of lasting substance that will literally transform your ecclesiology (that means the study of the church for you noobs, like me).
What Doc Horton is seeking to do in this 4th volume is continue the project he began in the 1st, i.e. view all our biblical, systematic, and pastoral theology through an eschatological and covenantal lens. Here he's dealing particularly with Christ's body, the assembly, the church, the community of the saints. What that means is . . . well, a lot of things. To put it briefly (so ya'll can get back on Twitter): Scripture is one story (a drama), Genesis to Revelation, that moves from Creation, Fall, Redemption, & Consummation, with Christ (not you) as the Main Actor and Stage Director. It's eschatological, that means goal-oriented, telos-driven, there's a beginning and ending. It is covenantal meaning that all of Scripture must be read through the background of Ancient Near Eastern covenant treaties between a Suzerain (read: King) and a vassal (read: subject). I know that provokes your Western, Enlightenment-rationalist, democratic sensibilities, but Scripture doesn't capitulate to your preferences, so deal.
So what's the point? The point is that the gospel is at the center of everything the Church is and does. Christ ascended into heaven after a perfectly lived life, a substitutionary death on a Roman execution device, and a vindicating physical resurrection from a tomb outside Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. He is gone. He is not living in your heart. He is seated as the exalted God-man and ruling the world He made. That means the Church is not continuing Jesus' incarnation or redeeming anything. However, because Christ is personally present with us by the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost, the work of the Church through the Word (the gospel heard) and the Sacraments (the gospel seen) effectively breaks the Kingdom of Jesus, the new creation, the new age into this passing, fading away age of Self. Because the Church is a creation of the Word, the Gospel, it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. And it is only these things in so far as the Word is central.
Look: the first and last chapters are worth the price of this book. The last chapter entitled "Consummation: the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Kingdom We are Receiving" says it all: dag. The Gospel is huge. I'll just say this, you will never hear the words "Thanksgiving Day Parade" the same again. Buy the book, get swept up in the parade that Adam detoured, and now Christ is leading to Zion in victory.
(Read: 1st--Feb 2012; 2nd--Aug 2013).
What Doc Horton is seeking to do in this 4th volume is continue the project he began in the 1st, i.e. view all our biblical, systematic, and pastoral theology through an eschatological and covenantal lens. Here he's dealing particularly with Christ's body, the assembly, the church, the community of the saints. What that means is . . . well, a lot of things. To put it briefly (so ya'll can get back on Twitter): Scripture is one story (a drama), Genesis to Revelation, that moves from Creation, Fall, Redemption, & Consummation, with Christ (not you) as the Main Actor and Stage Director. It's eschatological, that means goal-oriented, telos-driven, there's a beginning and ending. It is covenantal meaning that all of Scripture must be read through the background of Ancient Near Eastern covenant treaties between a Suzerain (read: King) and a vassal (read: subject). I know that provokes your Western, Enlightenment-rationalist, democratic sensibilities, but Scripture doesn't capitulate to your preferences, so deal.
So what's the point? The point is that the gospel is at the center of everything the Church is and does. Christ ascended into heaven after a perfectly lived life, a substitutionary death on a Roman execution device, and a vindicating physical resurrection from a tomb outside Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. He is gone. He is not living in your heart. He is seated as the exalted God-man and ruling the world He made. That means the Church is not continuing Jesus' incarnation or redeeming anything. However, because Christ is personally present with us by the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost, the work of the Church through the Word (the gospel heard) and the Sacraments (the gospel seen) effectively breaks the Kingdom of Jesus, the new creation, the new age into this passing, fading away age of Self. Because the Church is a creation of the Word, the Gospel, it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. And it is only these things in so far as the Word is central.
Look: the first and last chapters are worth the price of this book. The last chapter entitled "Consummation: the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Kingdom We are Receiving" says it all: dag. The Gospel is huge. I'll just say this, you will never hear the words "Thanksgiving Day Parade" the same again. Buy the book, get swept up in the parade that Adam detoured, and now Christ is leading to Zion in victory.
(Read: 1st--Feb 2012; 2nd--Aug 2013).
September 5, 2024
4.7/5
A extended review maybe to come. I love Michael Horton. I was converted through Horton’s ministry from a White Horse Inn episode titled “Guilt, Grace, Gratitude.” I went to Westminster Seminary because I wanted to learn under him.
This is an excellent work and very expansive.
I wish that Horton wrote of the worship aspect more in this work. This may have been due to what he already stated in “A Better Way” (2002).
One aspect where I would respectfully disagree is on page 305 where Horton rejects “the inward process of infused habits” in sanctification. His position may have changed since People and Place was published in 2008. The Reformed Confessions positively speak in regard to infusion and infused habits in conversion and sanctification in Westminster Larger Catechism #77 and in the Canons of Dort 3rd and 4th head, Article 11.
A extended review maybe to come. I love Michael Horton. I was converted through Horton’s ministry from a White Horse Inn episode titled “Guilt, Grace, Gratitude.” I went to Westminster Seminary because I wanted to learn under him.
This is an excellent work and very expansive.
I wish that Horton wrote of the worship aspect more in this work. This may have been due to what he already stated in “A Better Way” (2002).
One aspect where I would respectfully disagree is on page 305 where Horton rejects “the inward process of infused habits” in sanctification. His position may have changed since People and Place was published in 2008. The Reformed Confessions positively speak in regard to infusion and infused habits in conversion and sanctification in Westminster Larger Catechism #77 and in the Canons of Dort 3rd and 4th head, Article 11.
December 3, 2021
This was a fantastic read. It's not an easy read, especially for those not well versed in covenant theology, but it was worth the work. This is the final book in a four part series, and I do wish I had read the other three volumes first, but the demands of topics I was teaching brought this one to the fore. Horton provides a compelling vision of the nature, mission, and destiny of the church. I will likely reread this one in a few years.
May 17, 2021
A must read for every pastor.
August 4, 2011
Horton's entire series is an excellent read. He brings Reformed theology to interact with modern theology in a manner that communicates classical Reformed theology in response to current trends. But this is more than just a rehearsing Reformed theology, it is constructive in the sense that Horton labors hard to revitalize the discipline of theology showing how all of theology must be conditioned by God's covenant. In this work Horton deals largely with the issues of church and sacrament. He shows how the ascension of Christ and union with Christ should condition how we think about the church assembly and the sacraments.
I commend the whole series, and this work is a fine work in its own right. A good read for pastors, theologians and those with a general interest for theology. Not introductory reading but well worth the investment of time to read.
I commend the whole series, and this work is a fine work in its own right. A good read for pastors, theologians and those with a general interest for theology. Not introductory reading but well worth the investment of time to read.
January 6, 2015
Very good. Horton brings classical Reformed theology to bear on current philosophical and ecclesial realities. His stuff on sacramental ontology / eucharistic economy was very convincing; his stuff on paedobaptism was not. :-)
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews