When Substitutions Do or Do Not Prove Anything: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 002

A blogger claims my method is flawed in arguing against Horton.  I don’t think it is flawed but I do think it is incomplete, which is why I plan to follow up with more about the Bible’s use of the word “Gospel.”

However, notice the difference.  Here’s his counter example:

For who is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things,most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth? (Psa. 18:31; cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 7).

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present,almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, therefore a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (Rom. 1:28; cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 7).

But what if I said that God was a Spirit who was infinite in being and Horton responded that I was denying the definition of God which is exclusively that he was gracious?  That is the real problem here.  Horton’s defenders are not facing up to what he has done.

Thus, my use of Romans 2.15-16 is a good example to use:

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom. 2:15-16)

Paul is doing here exactly what Horton accuses the Manhattan Declaration of doing.  And importing Horton’s alleged definition, from which any deviance is according to him such a serious matter, does show up  the contradiction to those with eyes to see.

To use the Westminster Confession in a parallel way, suppose some heretic claimed:

The Westminster Confession defines God as a finite being.

Then, I might quote him in a blog post with bold face print thus:

The Westminster Confession defines God as a finite being.

And then I could right a quick rebuttal by quoting from the Confession

There is but one only, living, and true finite being, who is infinite in being and perfection

And in this way I would demonstrate that the claim is false.

Of course, since there is development in how the Gospel is understood, from the time of John the Baptist to the preaching of the Apostle Paul, I agree there is more to be said.  So I’ll write more about that development as I promised to do.  At the moment I’m thinking of a post on the Gospels, then on Acts, and then on Paul’s Epistles.  But we’ll see how things shake out.  I may just be writing marginalia for the rest of my free time..

7 thoughts on “When Substitutions Do or Do Not Prove Anything: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 002

  1. tim prussic

    Sure, that method can work on a level of more easily isolated specifics. Unfortunately, the gospel is probably a good deal more complex than X and not-X. Further, the method is unfortunate in that it seems quite juvenile… it makes it look like you’re engaged in Mad-Libs biblical scholarship. Not flattering!

    One thing that’s irked me about some FV argumentation in the past few years is that there’s often no recognition of the notion that a doctrine will generally be more defined than the biblical usage of the term that gives name to the doctrine. I think this issue is similar.
    -Tim

    Reply
  2. mark Post author

    “Unfortunately, the gospel is probably a good deal more complex than X and not-X.”

    Indeed!

    “…a doctrine will e generally be more defined than the biblical usage of the term that gives name to the doctrine.”

    On the contrary, that is the whole point. Poythress rules! That is why 1. it can be wrong to read our theological formulas into Biblical terms, and 2. our doctrine must never be used to condemn speaking as the Bible speaks.

    However, I don’t think you are being realistic about how any study of the Gospel in the Bible ends up on the side of the Manhattan Declaration and against Horton. Romans 2.15-16 is not an anomaly in Paul or the Bible.

    Reply
  3. brian

    “2. our doctrine must never be used to condemn speaking as the Bible speaks.”

    Isn’t this exactly what we did to Arius? When he quoted “firstborn from all creation,” we squashed his “bible-speak” with doctrine. If systematics isn’t allowed to speak to our exegesis (assuming that were even possible), don’t we have a run away train on our hands?

    Reply
  4. mark Post author

    No, we did exactly the opposite. We said that such language was completely safe to use because it didn’t mean what Arius meant.

    Reply
  5. tim prussic

    Speaking as the Bible speaks is one thing, but meaning what the Bible means is more important. Our theological jargon is necessarily narrower than the biblical usage of terms… there’s no way around it. That’s the nature of technical language.

    The trick is making sure our theology includes everything taught in the Scriptures, but not every word of the English translation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *