Sarcasm alert: the post linked below attacks me as believing in works salvation (quoting Romans 9.32) simply for disagreeing with Horton’s reductionistic and unbiblical definition of the word Gospel. The attacker believes in salvation by grace, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the finished work of Christ. See his post below for more details.
This post claims that believing in a Biblical definition of the Gospel means one must believe in justification by works (in the Tridentine/mythical-Pharisee sense, not in the Jacobian one). One would expect to read such a thing on a Roman Catholic apologetics blog. But this is from “Covenant ‘Radio'”
Many Roman Catholics have wished it were true that a biblical definition of the Gospel proved merit soteriology.
It isn’t and it doesn’t.
And they should not be getting encouragement in such error from Protestants.
Here is what I believe, teach, and preach about being personally justified before God.
Mark –
This post is slanderous. It is patently false to claim that my words advocate anything but a salvation that is purely by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone. Nothing in my post could possibly be construed (if read properly) to argue for anything other than a message diametrically opposed to Rome. You have claimed otherwise and are completely out of line, sir.
Surely as a man ordained in the PCA, having subscribed (okay, we can talk about what that means in another venue) to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, you know what I mean when I say “the finished work of Christ” I am talking about the work as defined in chapter 8 of the Confession:
“5.The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
6.Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof, were communicated unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed and signified to be the Seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent’s head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever.
7.Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself: yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.”
To call out one who confesses these sections to be one who argues for justification by works a la Rome is an out and out falsehood, and a slanderous remark. There is no more I can say on this point, other than that you should reconsider your words and be willing to post, as you state so succinctly in your banner, “making retractions on the web since 2000…” I do not appreciate the misattributions and unkind statements you’ve made, sir.
Good day,
Todd Pedlar
I’m not saying you argue for any such thing. I’m saying that you attack someone (me, in this case) who disagrees with Horton’s truncated definition of “the Gospel” with believing in “works salvation.”
And thus you give aid and comfort to anyone who really believes such heretical nonsense. You make them think they have the Biblical high ground.
I’ll add further soft peddling above to try to make you happy, but that’s because I am nice. You appeal to standards of behavior you have no intention of submitting to. You quote Romans 9.32 about me and then have the chutzpah to come her and claim that my post slanders you? Pretty amazing.
I look forward to hearing what exactly you believe “the Gospel” to be if you believe Horton’s definition is truncated, reductionistic and unbiblical. He argues that the Manhattan Declaration uses the word Gospel in a way that promotes things other than the presentation of the finished work of Christ and salvation through faith in Him alone. You say that’s incomplete and reductionistic. You have criticized Horton for “completely misunderstanding the Gospel”. That is a serious charge against another man ordained for the gospel ministry. This is why I posted in response to what you have written, and why Jason Stellman and others have taken up the discussion as well.
I confess that I misread the post in which you mentioned my blog – not seeing the completely backwards meaning you had intended through your sarcasm. I guess I should have had my sarcasm glasses on, but I did not. So, I took the plain reading of your words and read that my post claims a biblical understanding of the Gospel requires Tridentine works-righteousness. I don’t think that was unreasonable to read it that way. I am sorry that I didn’t catch your real meaning, though it was admittedly hard – again, the failing of internet media to convey a sarcastic tone. Perhaps, though, in dealing with such subjects as the identity of the Gospel you would be better served to speak plainly and to the point.
As for your complaint (now understood once I am now able to read your post in the light in which you intended it) that I have attacked you as a works-righteousness proponent, I want to help you understand why I posted the quotation from Romans 9 that I did. Please do note that I have only directly criticized you for complaining that Horton’s gospel as presented is unbiblical and truncated – too simple. The gospel is a presentation of news – you know the original language and the context of the word’s usage as well or better than I do, so you know that the primary function of the word is to describe an announcement of victory. As Horton clearly, and rightly in my opinion, states is that the news that is presented is that salvation is accomplished according to the righteousness of Christ. Period. This news has many implications – but the news itself is simple, and the implications are not the news.
Now you HAVE criticized Horton as truncating the Gospel – that other things need to be included (at least that’s how I understand the verb “truncate”). You have implied quite clearly that something needs to be added to what Horton presents as the Gospel. I quoted Romans 9:32-33 not as a direct criticism of YOU for what YOU believe – but as a statement of a group we all (I think even you) condemn for adding to the simple Gospel news of completed salvation for God’s people in Christ. I don’t know what things you are claiming need to be added to what Horton has written and presented on the Gospel. I was only fleshing out the point that the Gospel is simple, and that what Horton is advocating is a return to the simplicity of it – a Gospel free of ANYTHING we have done, and which proclaims the completed work of Christ as that which effects salvation for sinners. This understanding of the Gospel is correct, and if you and I agree on this, that’s great. If you want to add to that or make it broader than that simple declaration of good news, we have an issue on which we disagree strongly.
Was I unfair or inappropriate in quoting Romans 9:32-33 in my blog post? No, I don’t believe so, but I am sorry if you felt attacked by that. Was it unwise given the charged atmosphere of works-language? Probably.
I DO think Horton is correct in that many fail by complicating the gospel by adding to it, and I was trying to address the seriousness of doing so by bringing up that example. Your charge against Horton, Mark, is a serious charge, however, and this is the main reason why I said anything, in fact, other than that I totally disagree with your assessment. The charge that Horton has presented an unbiblical Gospel and that he completely misunderstands it is a very serious charge indeed. It cannot be made glibly as you seem to have done. You are charging the man with unfaithfulness to his vocation as a minister of the gospel, a charge that is tantamount to calling him a false teacher. This is not something to be taken lightly. You’re making a grave charge.
Todd
Pingback: Mark Horne » Blog Archive » Realizing I’ve heard that before: Horton Takes Manhattan 1.5