From: Mark Horne
Subject: Duncan remarks
I just blogged this and then immediately removed it. I *think* that this can only be read by the direct link below and is otherwise unavailable. (If you know differently, let me know).
I’d like comments on my tone. And in general, am I supposed to not share these thoughts? What should I do?
hornes.org/justmark/archives/002975.htm
Faith & faithfulness in Gen 17
Here’s a comment on Genesis 17:
Notice that whereas God’s covenant promises began with the words “As for me,” now Abraham’s obligations are stressed with the words “As for you.” In this structure and phraseology we see, in the context of a gracious covenant, a stress on the mutuality of the covenant relationship. The prime thing God asks of Abraham is faith, which manifests itself in commitment. Kidner observes: “The striking feature of the stipulations is their lack of detail. To be committed was all. Circumcision was God’s brand; the moral implications could be left unwritten (until Sinai), for one was pledged to a Master, only secondarily to a way of life” [Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: IVP, 1967), 129.]
First, let me say of the Kidner quotation, that it makes me want to purchase the commentary. I love it. Even though I think there are ways in which the Torah is more than “the obedience of faith” and can even be opposed to it in some circumstances (when the Gospel was preached to Jew and Gentile alike the Jews were presented with the challenge of showing they were pledged to a Master, not a way of life), it certainly was, for Israel, the details of the faith God wanted in the Abrahamic promise. Obeying the Law was simply a manifestation of commitment. Even though I think it is quite likely that Abraham had more detailed ethical direction (Gen 26.5; the law of the Levirate in Gen 38), Kidner’s comment on the emphasis remains intact.
And Dr. Ligon Duncan’s statement that God requires faith, which evidences itself in commitment is exactly right.
Oddly, this appears in an essay (in vol 2 of The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century) where Dr. Duncan rather violently opposes the idea of a corporeal presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Since I agree with Calvin and Scripture and Dr. Duncan that such an idea is blasphemous I’m not sure why I am listed as a villain — or John Nevin, or anyone else whom Dr. Duncan paints in dark colors. (I also want to agree that “communion” would be a better word than “presence.” I only hold back because of the Biblical language of Jesus’ promise to be “with” us, which seems relevant to the Lord’s Supper. But in “scientific” discussion [Bavinck is starting to make me use such a term] I think communion is more helpful in communicating.)
As to other issues like paedocommunion, those need to be dealt with as their own arguments. Anyone who knows there is such a thing as Roman Catholicism knows that a corporeal view does not mandate paedocommunion. You can’t just package them as a list of plagues and expect to persuade anyone who is not already in agreement with you or simply ready to believe anything you say.
As to Dr. Duncan’s decree that “real presence” only means corporeal presence, anyone who reads D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies will see the problems right away. The history of Latin grammer does not legislate what Robert Letham means. That is the root-word fallacy.
I am surprised that Dr. Duncan would so flippantly declare that Ronald Wallace’s work is worthless when Dr. Douglas Kelly says such fine things about it — I seem to remember that disagreeing with Dr. Kelly was once described as inexcusable by Dr. Duncan.
On the plus side, I was glad that Dr. Duncan had such high praise for Dr. B. A. Gerrish’s work (though it is mysterious how suddenly a man’s unorthodoxy is not supposed to prejudice us against him in this one case, whereas that rule is invoked repeatedly for Wallace and others). Grace & Grattitude is an excellent work. Now that I have a library at hand I’ll be re-reading it. If there is some way in which I forgot Gerrish’ nuancing, I’ll be happy to make any necessary retractions. But, when all I have in this essay are vague censures there is nothing much I can do. It would have been nice to get some actual quotations with criticism rather than simply dismissive generalizations.
There was a time when (years back) when Dr. Duncan would email me. Perhaps that time will come again. He has done valuable work, especially for the denomination. But for now it looks like I get to listen in on what he says about me to others. So be it. I commend his description of faith above in sincerity. But I felt like those who knew where I found the quotation might think I was playing a joke. Thus, my decision to give you tha background.
Posted by mark at January 15, 2005 11:27 AM
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:14:06 EST
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: Re: Duncan remarks
Mark,
It sounds too personal for me. It removes the discussion from the realm of the biblical theological and puts it in the personal and preferential a bit. Fair enough maybe as your have been treated treat others. However, that is a reversal of the Rule isn’t it?
Eric
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:22:00 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: Re: Duncan remarks
On Jan 15, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Mark Horne wrote:
I’d like comments on my tone. And in general, am I supposed to not share these thoughts? What should I do?
Save it till late next week, Mark.
JJM
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:31:26 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Re: Duncan remarks
Already done.
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:33:00 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Re: Duncan remarks
But, that’s the issue, isn’t it. I initially wanted to just appreciate the comment on Abraham. But somehow everything is loaded with possible interpretations, so I felt I had to explain everything.
And then, Eric, there is the issue of slander which, trust me, is costing me a great deal right now and potentially more.
Mark
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:29:08 -0500
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: Re: Duncan remarks
In a message dated 1/16/2005 1:33:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, Mark Horne writes:
But, that’s the issue, isn’t it. I initially wanted to just appreciate the comment on Abraham. But somehow everything is loaded with possible interpretations, so I felt I had to explain everything.
And then, Eric, there is the issue of slander which, trust me, is costing me a great deal right now and potentially more.
Yeah I can only appreciate that as one flying below the radar at the moment.
They came close to not calling me here based on the objection of one member of the pulpit committee who was and still is a friend. He took name association and my unwillingness to not take a hard stand on particular issues I didn’t completely understand. However, I had somewhere to go, as I could have stayed in the chaplaincy for another 10 years. I believe some people THINK they are being confessional because someone they trust with CREDENTIALS THEY RESPECT has said a certain position is BAD.
By the low road approach we are making progress here. Cigars and scotch by the lake with theological conversation has been effective in reaching across the table.
Don’t take my comments as Gospel they simply come from the way I approach these issues of controversy. My concern is when you use the names throughout it only fuels the fire of opposition against you. Make him wrestle with the texts, use the name where you can agree, show appreciation, but stick with making the point from the Scriptures. Remembering that men are exhorted not to be given to disputations! We can go looking for fights in places we cannot win, or will have to pay too dear a price to win.
Eric
