Note: Here's the book review of Horton's CF from the last issue of the RBT.
Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A
Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way (Zondervan, 2011): 1052 pp..
What is the best contemporary systematic theology from a
Reformed and evangelical perspective on the market today? In recent years Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Zondervan 1994) has
risen in popularity, particularly among the YRR crowd (Young, Restless,
Reformed) and especially for its highly readable and devotional style. There are significant problems with Grudem,
however, not the least of which is his advocacy for non-cessationism. Many still stand by proven (relatively)
“contemporary” works like that of Berkhof.
Into the mix of systematic theologies now comes The Christian Faith by Michael Horton.
Michael Horton is a Reformed minister, scholar, intellectual,
and prolific author who is professor of systematic theology and apologetics at
Westminster Seminary California. He also
serves as editor or Modern Reformation
magazine and as a co-host of the influential The White Horse Inn broadcast.
He has been a persistent critic of broad evangelicalism in books like Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church
(Baker, 2008). Recently, however, Horton
has himself come under scrutiny by some in Reformed circles. Lane Tipton of Westminster Seminary of
Philadelphia, for example, has labeled Horton’s emphasis on the doctrine of
Justification, to what he sees as the neglect of the doctrine of Union with
Christ, as more “Lutheran” than Reformed.
Even more pointedly, theologian John Frame has offered outspoken criticism
of Horton and others (like R. Scott Brown and D. J. Hart), especially for their
advocacy of “two kingdom theology,” faulting their distinction between the role
of the church and state in civil government and society. Frame has labeled the views of Horton and
others as the “The Escondido Theology” (see his book, The Escondido Theology: A
Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology, Whitefield Media, 2011). Those who read Horton’s work will be
particularly keen to notice these areas of controversy.
General Impressions
We might begin with some general impressions of Horton’s
work. Those who expected The Christian Faith to provide a popular
and devotional alternative to Grudem will be disappointed. This is a much more intellectually
challenging book to read and understand.
Horton’s work not only presents a systematic theology but a survey of
Western and Christian theological and philosophical thought. It is in many ways a historical as well as a
systematic theology. Horton also places
much emphasis on the influence of Western philosophy (Plato, Kant, Hegel,
Nietzsche, etc.) on theological method.
Those without a strong philosophy background will likely struggle with
this book. Horton’s work also reflects
his own adaptation of modern philosophical thought, most notably “speech act
theory.”
It is also a much more “catholic” work than a purely
evangelical one. One might even say that Horton appears more keenly interested
in interaction with Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, liberal Protestant, and
Neo-orthodox theologies and theologians than he is with conservative
evangelicals. The more ecumenical nature
and goal of Horton’s work might be indicated by the fact that he introduces the
work with The Nicene Creed (p. 11).
Survey of Content
In the introduction, Horton notes that “the goal of theology
is to humble us before the triune God of majesty and grace” (p. 13). He adds that to believe in the God of
Scripture requires “an act of apostasy from the assumed creed of our age” (p.
15). A systematic understanding of the
faith is essential for all believers. It
is “like the box top of a jigsaw puzzle, and every believer is a theologian in
the sense of putting all the pieces together” (p. 27). Horton makes clear that this book is not an
exercise in “dogmatics,” which
provides “a deeper analysis of Christian doctrines” but “a systematic summary”
(p. 29). Finally, he notes that he is
writing “from the perspective of a Reformed Christian living in North America”
(p. 30).
The Christian Faith is then divided into six major parts
and twenty-nine chapters:
Part 1 is “Knowing God:
The Presuppositions of Theology” (pp. 35-222). This opening is dedicated to epistemology, the
doctrine of revelation, and Scripture.
Part 2 is “God Who Lives” (pp. 223-308). The emphasis here is on the attributes of God
and the Trinity.
Part 3 is “God Who Creates” (pp. 309-445). In this part the subjects are the decrees of
God, creation, providence, anthropology, and the fall.
Part 4 is “God Who Rescues” (pp. 446-550). This section is devoted to Christology.
Part 5 is “God Who
Reigns in Grace” (pp. 551-905). This
part focuses on the ordo salutis and
ecclesiology.
And Part 6 is “God Who Reigns in Glory” (pp. 906-990). This final part, appropriately enough, deals
with the doctrine of last things.
The Christian Faith also includes a number of helpful
resources and appendices, including a “Glossary” of theological terms (pp.
991-1003), a “Confession Index” (pp. 1047-1048), and a brief “Annotated
Bibliography” on various resources, labeling them by levels as “Beginner,
Intermediate, and Advanced” (pp. 1049-1052).
Dipping in at a few
points of interest
Horton’s systematic theology might be generally described as
covenantal in method, Calvinistic in soteriology, Presbyterian in ecclesiology,
cessationist extraordinary offices and gifts, and amillennial in
eschatology. Such a massive work,
tackling such a broad array of subjects, is difficult to analyze, however, in
short space with precision. Rather than
offer a micro-analysis of the whole we will instead dip in at a few points of
interest:
Scripture and Text
From the perspective of his covenant theology, Horton sees
Scripture as the “covenant canon” or “ruling constitution” of Christianity. On one hand, he affirms what he calls the “verbal-plenary inspiration” of Scripture
(p. 160). On the other hand, he is
intent on criticizing what he calls “the docetic temptation” of some
fundamentalists, concluding, “it is impossible to treat every word as
normative, much less as the direct utterance of God. Yet the Bible as a whole is God’s inspired
script for the drama of redemption” (p. 162).
He notes that both fundamentalist and liberals share in what he holds to
be a common error:
In this sense, fundamentalism shares
with liberalism a univocal view of divine and human agency, leading the former
to undervalue the Bible’s humanity, while the latter interprets the obvious
signs of the Bible’s humanity as evidence of its merely natural process (p.
163).
He is particularly hostile to the view of “mechanical
inspiration” as opposed to “organic inspiration” (p. 63), though he does
acknowledge that even the Reformers used “the unfortunate language of dictation” (p. 174).
Horton affirms the Hodge/Warfield/Princeton view of
inspiration as “the best formulation of inerrancy and challenges caricatures”
(p. 176). He notes that this view of
inerrancy is not “attributed to copies” but to “the original autographic text” (p.
177). He also follows the typical
evangelical line by noting that though textual discrepancies remain “they do
not affect any point of the church’s faith and practice” (p. 180). In fact, Horton expresses bold confidence in modern
text criticism as “an ongoing enterprise yielding ongoing results”
demonstrating that “reconstructing or approximating the content of the original
autographs is a viable goal and that, for the most part, it has already
achieved this goal” (p. 180).
Horton is particularly keen to defend this inerrancy view
against Barthianism (see pp. 181-185), noting that “the inerrancy debate” is
“largely a conversation between Old Princeton and Karl Barth (p. 181), while
acknowledging that “both positions are quite different from Protestant
orthodoxy” (p. 181). Though admitting
that the Hodge/Warfield/Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy “invites
legitimate questions and critiques,” Horton
finds its alternatives “less satisfying” (p. 184). One wishes that Horton might have spent less
time analyzing, comparing, and contrasting the contemporary view of inerrancy
with Barth and more with Protestant orthodoxy which affirmed the providential
preservation of God’s Word in the copies (as in the Puritans, the Westminster
Confession, John Owen, etc.).
Creation
As noted above, Horton’s work generally aims at a “catholic”
appeal to the broad Christian tradition.
For example, he can approvingly cite and interact with the work of Roman
Catholics like A. Dulles on revelation (see pp.
113 ff. ) or J. Ratzinger (i.e., Pope Benedict) on ecclesiology (pp.
720, 736; though note also his critique on pp. 830 ff. ), of Anglicans like C.
S. Lewis (e.g., p. 18), Lutherans like D. Bonhoeffer (see pp. 756 ff.), and of the
neo-orthodox Reformed lion Karl Barth (cited throughout; according the “Name
Index” Barth is second only to John Calvin in the number of references).
There is one segment of the Christian tradition, however to
which Horton shows little acceptance and that is to Protestant
“fundamentalism.” In his discussion of
the perspicuity of Scripture, for example, Horton observes, “There is a
fundamentalist version of Scripture’s perspicuity or clarity that undervalues
its humanity, plurality, and richness, treating the Bible as a collection of
obvious propositions that require no interpretation. However, this is not the classic Protestant
understanding of Scripture” (pp. 196-197).
He then proceeds to apply this thought to the fundamentalist view of
creation: “For instance, if we seek from
Scripture infallible information concerning the age of the earth, we will miss
the point of the passages we are citing” (p. 197). Indeed, in his later
treatment of the doctrine of creation, Horton explicitly rejects a
“fundamentalist” literal, six day view of creation.
In his discussion of the doctrine of creation proper, Horton
states:
It will not surprise those who have
read thus far that I take the days of creation to be analogical. That is, they are not literal, twenty-four
hour periods, but God’s accommodation to the ordinary pattern of six days of labor
and a seventh day of rest, which he created for mankind (p. 381).
The Biblical creation account is neither “a science report”
nor “mythological” but “part of a polemic of ‘Yahweh’ versus the idols” (p.
382). Horton acknowledge his dependence
on Meredith Kline and his “framework hypothesis” for his interpretation of the
creation narrative (pp. 382 ff.).
Oddly enough, however, when he later discusses the doctrine
of the fall, Horton insists on the historicity of Adam: “Whatever one’s conclusions concerning the
process of human origins, Christian theology stands or falls with a historical
Adam and a historical fall” (p. 424).
Horton fails to address the contradiction between his rejection of the
historicity of the creation narrative and his affirmation of the historicity of
Adam. This is a glaring problem not only
with his doctrine of creation but also with his doctrine of sin and the fall.
Salvation
As noted above, Horton has come under fire from some corners
for his “Lutheran” view of justification.
Horton clearly gives great and appropriate emphasis to the doctrine of
justification, calling it “the chief insight of the Reformation” (p. 622) and
“the engine that pulls adoption, new birth, sanctification, and glorification
in tow” (p. 708). In his extended
discussion of the ordo salutis,
however, Horton also clearly emphasizes the doctrine of union with Christ,
disputing a trend in Reformation Pauline scholarship to presuppose “that
mystical participation in Christ stands over against a forensic emphasis on
Christ’s alien righteousness imputed to believers” (p. 588).
Ecclesiology
In his discussion of the doctrine of the church, Horton
places what has become typical emphasis in his thought on the Word and
Sacrament (i.e., preaching and the ordinances) as the primary focus of the
church’s ministry. What some might find
noteworthy in the discussion here is the fact that thought Horton makes clear
his preference for the Presbyterian model of church polity, he does not believe
that Scripture clearly reveals a particular normative form of church
government. Thus polity is a secondary
matter for Horton, as evidenced by this approving reference to L.
Newbigin: “Although a valid ministry of
Word and sacrament is essential, Newbigin rightly argues that this does not
entail a particular form of church government as essential to the very being of
the church” (p. 875). One wonders,
however, if such matters are so murky in Scripture, and if they stand a lower
level of importance in defining a true church.
Horton does indeed advance the “two kingdom” view of the
church in the present age: “Christ is
already a king with his kingdom, but for now this realm is visible chiefly in
the public ministry of Word, sacrament, and discipline, and also in the
fellowship of the saints as they share their spiritual and material gifts in
the body of Christ” (p. 525). He later
adds that the Reformers insisted that “believers must live as citizens of two
kingdoms, each with its own distinct sources, ends, and means” (p. 926). This kind of perspective will not please some
in Reformed circles, particularly those with theonomistic leanings. Baptists, however, who have rarely, if ever,
known the experiences of holding sway in the civil and cultural arena may
wonder why the fuss.
With regard to baptism, Horton predictably affirms infant
baptism. On the subject of baptismal
mode, though conceding that “immersion does seem more suggestive of begin
buried and raised with Christ and of being drawn out of God’s waters of
judgment alive,” Horton eventually concludes that immersion, sprinkling, and
pouring are all “valid modes” (pp. 792-793).
Conclusion
Michael Horton’s The
Christian Faith is a massive and sweeping survey of Christian
doctrine. It is not merely a systematic
theology but also a historical and philosophical theology. The prose is literary and engaging, but the
density of the material will likely not make it a “popular” work, like Grudem’s. Many conservative, Reformed readers will take
exception to various positions adopted by Horton (e.g., his rejection of a
literal six day account of creation, his conviction that Scripture does not
clearly teach a definitive church polity, his “two-kingdom” theology, etc.). For them, it is not likely to replace Berkhof
as a suitable “contemporary” systematic.
Some might wonder at Horton’s persistent efforts to engage with liberal
scholarship and non-evangelical and non-Reformed theologies and theologians. Perhaps the biggest question, then, may be
that of audience. Some will find it too
conservative and traditional, while others will find it too liberal and
innovative. The pastor-theologian,
however, will, at the least, be stimulated by Horton’s labors, even if he does
not always find himself in agreement with his method or conclusions.
Jeffrey
T. Riddle, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia
