1. I didn’t find Horton’s article polemic as much as I found it disjointed. He seemed to begin writing with the goal of explaining his position (which, I think, he achieved), but then get sidetracked by an obsession with discrediting N.T. Wright. I agree with you (and several of the contributors) that Horton seems as committed to defending the Reformers as he did in engaging Scripture. To be fair, though, this is a weakness shared by other “Traditional Reformed” scholars that I’ve read. They often seem to consider Luther and Calvin as inerrant and unassailable as Paul.

    I thought that Bird and Dunn did a stellar job in responding to Horton, although I agree that Karkkainen seemed way too eager to skip the first assignment and start laying the foundation for his views rather than critiquing Horton’s. This is huge misstep in a scholarly book and does not make for a good first impression.

    I don’t think Horton started strong, but it will be interesting to see how persuasive he is when responding to the other views.


Leave a Reply, Please!