# Michael Horton and Sacramentology



## Theoretical (Oct 10, 2006)

I've heard that Michael Horton's views on the sacraments are very nearly Lutheran, including a belief in baptismal regeneration (within the Lutheran/Anglican approach). How substantive is this charge against him, and how serious of an error is it in general?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 10, 2006)

Here is a fairly extensive article by the man himself. 

http://www.modernreformation.org/mh97means.htm


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 10, 2006)

No, Mike Horton is not a Lutheran on the sacraments! Were it so, he would not be teaching at WSC. 

The problem is that he is Reformed on the sacraments and many of his critics from don't know what the Reformed view of the sacraments is. 

Please see the relevant sections of the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. 

That anyone is confused about what Mike confesses after all those books and magazine articles and radio shows and conferences boggles the mind. 

Please, if I can offer gentle encouragement, pick up one of his books and see for yourself if he is a "Lutheran" on the sacraments. Start with his most recent book on covenant theology. 

rsc


----------



## Theoretical (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Here is a fairly extensive article by the man himself.
> 
> http://www.modernreformation.org/mh97means.htm



That's a very interesting perspective and way of expressing the issues at stake. I can definitely see how the Lutheran view, while flawed, is closer to Scripture than the Zwinglian one, and how if one is to err, it is better to err on the side of Lutheranism. I also found the particular discussion on the differences between Reformed and Lutheran approaches to Christ's presence in the sacrament fascinating and enlightening.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Theoretical (Oct 10, 2006)

Apologies if I didn't word things very well...especially since I myself find much laudable in the views in that article. I did not intend that to be an assault against Dr. Horton. I especially appreciate your input on the matter, Dr. Clark, as I have always appreciated when you've commented on various theological issues. So thanks for clearing up that little oddity in my thinking. I'll work to be better at toning my questions in the future.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 10, 2006)

No apologies necessary. You were just repeating what folks say. It's that what folks "say" is often nonsense. I've heard the same thing myself for years. 

Long before I ever met and had the pleasure of working with Mike folk were saying this. His first book was on LIMITED ATONEMENT. That's not very "Lutheran."

Yes, all Reformed folk have (or should have) "Lutheran" sounding views on justification, but speaking of Christ's true or real presence in the Supper is no more Lutheran than the Belgic Confession which speaks of eating his "proper" and "natural" body and blood.

The irony is that no self-respecting Lutheran church would have either one of us!

rsc 



> _Originally posted by Theoretical_
> Apologies if I didn't word things very well...especially since I myself find much laudable in the views in that article. I did not intend that to be an assault against Dr. Horton. I especially appreciate your input on the matter, Dr. Clark, as I have always appreciated when you've commented on various theological issues. So thanks for clearing up that little oddity in my thinking. I'll work to be better at toning my questions in the future.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2006)

> His first book was on LIMITED ATONEMENT



I remember in a Horton-Mark Dever interview that Dever said Horton wrote that book while still in college. That's amazing.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > His first book was on LIMITED ATONEMENT
> ...



Do you know if that interview is online?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2006)

try this:
http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20020619/399D5880-B0FA-4437-A63A-4033F3668C20.aspx

If that doesn't work, go to www.9marks.org, click on audio, then click on archives.


----------



## Scott (Oct 12, 2006)

From the article: "While the ancient church condemned as Pelagian the idea that grace is conferred by saying a prayer (the Council of Orange, 529 a.d.) . . ."

What was this all about?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> From the article: "While the ancient church condemned as Pelagian the idea that grace is conferred by saying a prayer (the Council of Orange, 529 a.d.) . . ."
> 
> What was this all about?



The Canons can be read here. The reference is to Canon 3:



> *CANON 3.* If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).



As the introduction at the top of the page notes, "The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation." Hence, the Canons are specifically talking about _saving_ grace, and seem to be referring to the notion that an individual can call out to God _for_ regeneraton. That seems to also be further clarified by the salvific context of Canons 1-2 and 4-5, as well.

I do not think it is talking about the issue of people offering prayer to God regarding other people's salvation. That is because the truth it asserts in contrast to its implicit denial (of saving grace resulting from prayer) is the truth of it being grace which causes one to even pray in the first place. As such, since that affirmation and the preceding denied falsehood are presented as _contrasts_ to each other, in order to determine the meaning of the falsehood, it is necessary to ask just what kind of prayer-grace connection would directly contradict the affirmation. And for someone to say "that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God," the logically corresponding assertion would be the belief that we ourselves can pray to God for grace _without_ enabling grace - hence the meaning of the Canon's initial denial. The second clause just wouldn't have any logical, non-random connection with the first if the first were talking about prayer for _others'_ salvation.


----------



## Scott (Oct 12, 2006)

Thanks, Chris! Very helpful. I would like to see a history of the incorporation of the Sinners' Prayer into evangelism. I know in LaHaye's Left Behind series (which I have read for research since it influences so many people - I disagree with the eschatlogy) conversion is almost always by Sinners' Prayer. I can't think of them ever performing a baptism or celebrating the Lord's Supper, although they might have (I read some of the books years ago).

Scott


----------

