Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel [Paperback]

Although I grew up in a Presbyterian Church and sat through many months of Catechism, I remember almost nothing from those days. But "Putting Amazing Back Into Grace" (as well as other of Dr Horton's works) is a book to remember. He simplifies Grace and Salvation like no other Christian scholar I've read, without dumbing down. He writes as though to young college students of theology, thus keeping it scholarly while easy to read and comprehend. (I can't say the same for his quarterly magazine, however; his articles there seem to be marketed toward seminary students, making him more difficult to comprehend.)

I lost count on how many copies of this book I bought and/or recommended for people wanting to gain a thorough understanding of Reformation Theology. So here I am again, recommending it not just to a select few friends, but to the thousands that may read this review.

Yes, I am basing my title off an N T Wright book (I borrowed the title, I am not critiquing or applauding Wright). I really get annoyed at having to write reviews that are both explanatory of the book and refuting what some anti-Horton apologist wrote. I am speaking particularly of the reader from Portland, OR. I will not spend too much time refuting him, he does a good job of it himself. My aim in this review is to speak of the book, refute the attacking reviewer, and explain how one is to write a review.

Horton attempts several things in this book: 1) present historic, reformed Christianity in a popular fashion, and 2) offer this new-found protestantism as an antidote to the self-help psychology group. Since many in the debate are familiar with the five points of Calvinism, I will forego them, sufficing to say that Horton gives them new (and better) names, killing the acronym. Instead of Total Depravity--Rebels without a Cause; Unconditional Election--Grace before Time; Limited Atonement--Mission Accomplished; Irresistable Grace--Intoxicating Grace; Perseverance of the Saints--No Lost Causes. Fear not, Calvinists, these are the same doctrines always taught, just renamed.

Horton does several challenging things with this gospel: 1) after affirming that God is Soveriegn, he then critiques Dispensationalism and charges it with affirming that God has lost control over creation. His second to last chapter is on keys to spiritual growth (think: sacraments). I have to disagree with him on baptism, although it is a well-defended chapter. I disagree with Horton on two points: Baptism and his representation of postmillennialism. I know he is aware of the differences between theonomic postmillennialism and pietistic postmillennialism, he tends to blur the lines a few times

How Not to write a Review:
The above mentioned reviewer claimed that Calvinists always used Augustine as their prime spokesman; that is only half-true. Calvinists find Augustine has a powerful ally against the Pelagians; however, his views on the sacraments helped plunge the Middle Age Church into darkness. Kevonic is attributing to Horton what the history has revealed about Augustine. Even if his historical analysis were true (which I doubt), that would be totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. HORTON DID NOT EVEN ONCE QUOTE AUGUSTINE, NOR DID HE NEED TO!!!!!! That leads me to infer that the reviewer DID NOT EVEN READ THE BOOK!. And what is the deal with bringing up Tom Oden. Every one knows that Oden is an Arminian. Furthermore, we all welcome Oden restoring the Church Fathers to our reading lists, and we applaud his heroic attacks on liberalism. Does not Mr Kevonic know that Oden appeared as a special guest in Horton's magazine, MODERN REFORMATION? And contrasting Oden with Packer? They have co-authored at least one book, ONE FAITH, I think it is. I know they have thier theological differences. Furthermore, most Calvinists know the difference between a semi-Pelagian (which is what the Evangelical Church is today) and an Arminian. For a difference, of which Horton is aware being that he was a contributor to the book, see FOUR VIEWS ON ETERNAL SECURITY, which has Calvinist, Arminian, and Semi-Pelagian views. In fact, I will quote Horton from that book, "Stephen Ashby's (an Arminian) contribution represents a much-needed correction of the caricatures of Arminius's views" (Four Views, 188). Does that sound like Horton is unaware of the distinction?

How to write a Review"
Briefly explain the review, express, with examples, your areas of disagreement/agreement. Correct caricatures made of the book; recommend other books.