Realizing I’ve heard that before: Horton Takes Manhattan 1.5

So, I’m thinking about “The Gospel in the Gospels” as the first elaboration one why Michael Horton has it backwards, and it occurs to me that I’ve heard this before.  I don’t know if Jeff signed or would sign the Manhattan Declaration or not.  As I’ve mentioned, I’m not trying to prove anyone should do so.  I’m just saying that Horton is very wrong.

So here are Jeff’s great posts.

The Gospel in the Gospels

And, since I’m making links. I’ll use this post to help keep the series together.

The issue is The Manhattan Declaration which Michael Horton condemned according to his falsely reductionistic definition of the Gospel.

So far I have only opened with the first of my responses:

So Is the Bible Wrong about the Gospel: Horton Takes Manhattan I

12/5/2009: The Gospel in the Gospels: Horton Takes Manhattan II

12/7/2009: What was I thinking forgetting the Gospel in the OT? Horton Takes Manhattan 2.5

12/12/2009: The Gospel of the Apostles, Part One: Horton Takes Manhattan III

12/26/2009: The Gospel of the Apostles, Part Two: Horton Takes Manhattan IV

And, due to internet static, three notes on the margin.

The Pretence of Defending Justification: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0001

When substitutions do or do not prove anything: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0002

Yes, you can agree with my absurdly obvious point and still not sign: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0003


Protestants should stop promoting Tridentine merit soteriology: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0004

Who’s denying the Gospel?: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0005